Is the preamble proposed for the Australian constitution by the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, acceptable?

Echo Issue Outline 1999 / 10-11: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

The draft new preamble to the Australian Constitution proposed and co-authored by the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens.
The Australian nation is woven together of people from many ancestries and arrivals. Our vast island continent has helped to shape the destiny of our Commonwealth and the spirit of its people.
Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.
In every generation immigrants have brought great enrichment to our nation's life.
Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.
Australia's democratic and federal system of government exists under law to preserve and protect all Australians in an equal dignity which may never be infringed by prejudice or fashion or ideology nor invoked against achievement.
In this spirit we, the Australian people, commit ourselves to this Constitution.

On March 23, 1999, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, released the draft of a proposed new preamble to the Australian Constitution.
The preamble is to be debated by the Parliament and is then to be presented to the Australian electorate in a referendum in November of this year.
The possibility of a change to the Australian Constitution's preamble had provoked debate for some months before the draft was released.
Some of this debate had centred on whether the Prime Minister should be the person who produced the draft. There had also been debate on whether reference should be made to God in the preamble and on what sort of acknowledgement should be made of Aboriginal Australians.
Once the draft was released the debate intensified.

Background
In February, 1998, Australia held a Constitutional Convention. The primary purpose of the Convention was to make recommendations as to whether Australia should become a republic, and, if so, what form the republic should take.
The Convention did recommend a republic, with a president elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament.
This recommendation is to be put to the Australian people in a referendum in November, 1999.
The Convention also acknowledged that if Australia were to become a republic the current Australian Constitution, which establishes this country as a monarchy, would need to be substantially altered.
It was also decided that the preamble, or introduction, to the Australian Constitution would have to change.
The Constitutional Convention made a series of recommendations as to the various changes that might be made to the preamble.
In addition to the changes that would be required to introduce a republican constitution, re-writing the preamble was also seen as a way of acknowledging a number of other features of Australia's history and cultural development.
One of the most extensively debated proposals within the Convention was whether and, if so, how the preamble might recognise the place of Aboriginal Australians in this country's history.
The Convention made ten key recommendations regarding a new preamble.
These were that the preamble to the Constitution should contain the following elements:
Introductory language in the form `We the people of Australia';
Reference to `Almighty God';
Reference to the origins of the Constitution, and acknowledgment that the Commonwealth has evolved into an independent, democratic and sovereign nation under the Crown;
Recognition of our federal system of representative democracy and responsible government;
Affirmation of the role of law;
Acknowledgment of the original occupancy and custodianship of Australia by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders;
Recognition of Australia's cultural diversity;
Affirmation of respect for our unique land and environment;
Reference to the people of Australia having agreed to reconstitute our system of government as a republic;
Concluding language to the effect that `[We, the people of Australia] asserting our sovereignty, commit ourselves to this Constitution;
A provision allowing ongoing consideration of constitutional change.
The drafting of a new preamble to the Constitution has been largely taken over by the current Australian Prime Minster, Mr John Howard.
This is interesting as the Prime Minister is a well-known monarchist who has publicly opposed Australia becoming a republic.
Mr Howard was not concerned that any new preamble act as an introduction to a republican constitution. The Prime Minister has stated that he believes a new preamble provides an opportunity to make an inspirational and aspirational national statement for all Australians.
The approach of the new millennium and of the anniversary of Australia's federation in 2001 has made the production of such a statement appear timely.
The Prime Minister now intends that the question of whether Australia should have a new preamble to the Constitution should be put to the Australian people in November, 1999, at the same time as the electorate is asked to vote on whether Australia should become a republic.

There are a number of Internet sites which provide useful information on aspects of this issue.

A very good place to start is with the preamble recommendations made by last year's Constitutional Convention.
The Age has a good treatment of the Constitutional Convention which includes a full reproduction of its preamble recommendations. These can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/daily/980214/republic/rep17.html
The home page for The Age's Constitutional Convention site is http://www.theage.com.au/republic98/index.html

The Age also has a useful collection of articles on this issue gathered in its Issues Special section of The Age on-line. The collection is titled A Preamble for the Constitution and can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/special/preamble/index.html

Another very helpful source is the ABC's Constitutional Convention site.
The site has an exceptionally good treatment of the preamble issue. It includes a copy of the current preamble to the Australian Constitution; a reproduction of Prime Minister Howard's draft and a copy of the Labor Party's draft (largely written by Gareth Evans).
Also included on the site are copies of the constitution preambles of the United States, Canada, Ireland, Japan, France, Indonesia, the USSR 1918, Russia, South Africa and the British Magna Carta. They have been reproduced to allow for detailed comparisons with the Australian preamble.
These can all be clicked through to from http://www.abc.net.au/concon/compare/preamble/pream.htm
The home page for the ABC's Constitutional Convention site can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/concon/
It includes clear, easily digested information on the Australian Constitution, the republic debate and the Constitutional Convention.

Also of interest are two subsections of the web site of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The first details the referendum which is to be put to the Australian electorate in November, 1999.
It considers both the republic and the preamble questions which are to be put. It can be found at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/referendum/index.htm
A copy of the draft of the Prime Minister's proposed new preamble to the Australian Constitution can also be found on this site at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/referendum/preamble.htm

An excellent site supplying wide-ranging links to on-line information on Australia's republic debate has been established by Stephen Souters of Sydney University's Education Faculty.
It is titled, The Australian Republic Issue - A Guide
It is one of the most comprehensive sites dealing with this topic. A descriptive listing of its links runs for over 20 pages.
It includes links to a number of interesting items on the preamble question. These include a couple of useful opinionative pieces on possible references to God in the preamble.
The site is regularly updated. It can be found at http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/republic.html

Arguments in favour of the preamble proposed by Prime Minister Howard
The draft preamble proposed by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was under attack, at least in principle, for months before details of the draft were released to the public.
Mr Howard has defended his draft against accusations that he was not the appropriate person to write it by involving prominent Australian poet, Les Murray, in its composition.
Mr Howard has claimed that while he contributed many of the ideas, Mr Murray contributed the poetry.
With regard to the claim that Mr Howard did not consult widely enough when producing the preamble, since the release of the draft it has been acknowledged that Mr Howard also asked for advice from well-known Australian historian, Professor Geoffrey Blainey.
Mr Howard also consulted the head of Cabinet's policy unit, Mr Michael L'Estrange, and Ms Catherine Murphy. Ms Murphy is the Prime Minister's senior adviser on Aboriginal affairs, the arts and women's affairs.
The Prime Minster also presented the draft to Cabinet twice and made some modifications to it based on Cabinet suggestions.
Defenders, or partial defenders, of the draft proposed by Mr Howard have also noted that he was obliged to include much of what the draft contains by the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention.
This point was made in The Australian editorial of March 24, 1999. The editorial notes, `The job was made ... harder by having a mishmash of concepts imposed on him (Mr Howard) by last year's Constitutional Convention.'
With regard to the reason for writing a new preamble to the Constitution before the Constitution itself has undergone any change, defenders of this gesture note that it is an opportunity to make an inspiring public statement about Australia as we approach a new millennium and the anniversary of our federation.
According to this line of argument, a new preamble could act as a stimulus for national pride at a significant point in Australia's history.
With specific reference to the draft preamble that has been produced, one of the major arguments offered in its defence is that it was intended as a consensus document, that is, one which most Australians would be able to support.
This argument has been put by historian and writer, Professor Geoffrey Blainey.
Professor Blainey has claimed, `in essence, the Prime Minister has made a strong effort to occupy the middle ground ...'
Similarly Mr Howard has argued that the preamble has the advantages of being republic neutral and not offensive.
This position has been support by Herald Sun commentator, Michael Harvey, who has claimed, `It's basically a worthy set of words that is most unlikely to offend.'
The objectives of achieving wide agreement and not giving offence are mentioned several times in explanation of why the draft preamble has taken its current form.
With regard to the content of the proposed preamble, it has been noted that the reference to God with which it opens was in part in response to a recommendation of the Constitutional Convention.
It has further been claimed that although many Australians have no religious affiliations, there are a greater number who do.
This point has been made by author and social researcher, Hugh MacKay, who, though not a supporter of Mr Howard's proposed preamble, has noted, `those who would want to mention God at all [are] probably about 80 per cent of the population ...'
It has also been claimed that many Australians would think it appropriate to acknowledge the shaping role that Christianity has played in Australia's culture by retaining, in some form, the reference to God contained in the current preamble.
A form of this view has been offered by Greg Craven, dean of law at the University of Notre Dame Australia and a member of Conservatives for an Australian Head of State.
Greg Craven has written, `given that God is included in the existing preamble, to drop him for the second round would suggest a degree of hubris that would be positively foolhardy.'
Mr Howard has indicated that he chose the phrase, `with hope in God' because he considered it `softer' than the current preamble's `humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God.'
By `softer', it would appear that the Prime Minister was looking for a more moderate phrase with which to acknowledge God and one therefore that would be acceptable to a wider cross-section of the Australian population.
Further, The Prime Minster apparently also prefers his suggested phrase because he believes it is less wordy.
With regard to the position of Aboriginal people, it has been claimed that it would not have been advisable for the draft preamble to make explicit claims about Aboriginal custodianship of the land and their possible rights of ownership.
On a purely practical level it has been argued that such a claim would never pass a referendum.
This claim has been made by author and historian, Geoffrey Blainey.
Professor Blainey has claimed, `It is doubtful whether such an insertion would be accepted by a majority of voters in a majority of states when the referendum is held.'
Mr Howard has been reported as saying that the references he has made to Aboriginal people as the long-time inhabitants of Australia implied original occupancy without explicitly stating that this was the case.
It has been suggested that Mr Howard was seeking an acceptable compromise which would allow for some acknowledgment of the place of Aboriginal Australians' in the nation's history, without making overt claims that would alienate many voters and that might have legal implications regarding land claims and compensation.
Mr Howard has argued in a slightly different context, `Isn't it better for those who want the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders recognised to have something rather than to have nothing at all?'
Mr Howard has indicated that he rejected the term `custodianship' and the `stewardship' alternative suggested by poet and co-author of the draft, Les Murray, because he believed such words would re-open the Mabo debate.
It has also been argued that the draft preamble makes a significant concession in at least one of its references to Aboriginal Australians.
Professor Blainey has claimed that in stating that Aboriginal Australians have occupied this continent `since time immemorial' the draft preamble actually treats Aboriginal claims generously as the phrase suggests `that they have always been here.'
Professor Blainey goes on to claim, `As they [Aboriginal people] are in fact the descendants of immigrants of long ago, the preamble's implication that they have always lived here is a major concession ...'
It has also been claimed that the preamble's reference to Aboriginal people's `continuing cultures' and the `honour' in which these are held is a laudable sentiment.
According to this line of argument, even if Aboriginal culture has not always been respected in the past, this is a worthy aspiration for an Australia of the future.
With regard to the use of the word `mateship', Mr Howard has defended this term as uniquely Australian and one which has an honoured place in our national history and in current Australian life.
Mr Howard has been reported to have said, `It is the one word in all of this (preamble) which is so unarguably, distinctively, and grammatically, and proudly Australian. You wouldn't find it in any other preamble.'
Mr Howard also defended the use of the word by referring to the ideal of people helping one another in adversity which it suggests. He maintained that this ideal is an important part of Australia's culture, pointing to Australians assisting each other through natural disasters and to the actions of honoured Australians such as Sir Edward "Weary" Dunlop.
With regard to claims that the word is sexist, generally being used to refer to friendship or camaraderie only between men, others have argued that it is not gender specific and can be used to refer to the loyalty and support which should exist between all Australians.
Collingwood Football Club president, Eddie McGuire, has argued, `The preamble symbolises what the nation stands for and Australia is all about mateship. I think it is very appropriate.'
With regard to its style, not all commentators have been critical.
Australian writer, Thomas Keneally, has been reported as saying that the draft preamble was `elegantly phrased'. Mr Howard has claimed that the document reads `nicely'.

Arguments against the preamble proposed by Prime Minister Howard
There are two levels of criticism directed at the preamble to the Australian constitution proposed by the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard.
The first is a dissatisfaction with the sentiments expressed within the preamble and the style in which it is written.
The second level of criticism relates to why the draft preamble has been written now and why it is being promoted by a prime minister opposed to an Australian republic.
Looking first at those criticisms that focus on the content of the proposed preamble.
These criticisms largely centre on three features of the draft - its reference to God; the manner in which it acknowledges Aboriginal Australians and its use of the term `mateship'.
The preamble begins with the phrase, `With hope in God'. This has been criticised on a number of fronts. Firstly there are those who are concerned that it is too narrow or prescriptive a reference to the divine.
According to this line of argument, the `God' being referred to in this phrase is the Christian God.
Those who are dissatisfied with this note that many within Australia adhere to other religious traditions.
Writer and commentator, Phillip Adams has noted `"With hope in God" excludes, instantly, a great number of Australians who aren't necessarily atheists. They may in fact be Hindus or Buddhists ... this is the God of John Howard.'
As an extension of this argument, it has been claimed that there is no place for a reference to any particular god or religion in the constitution of a country which does not have an established religion.
According to this line of argument, if Australia, as a pluralist society, values religious tolerance and allows for a diversity of religious beliefs, it should not make specific reference to the Christian God in the preamble to its constitution.
A modification of this position has been put by Stephen Kerkysharian, chair of the Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales.
Mr Kerkysharian has stated, `Given that there is a reference to God, it would have been nice to see a reference to Australia's religious and cultural diversity.'
On the other hand there are those who are dissatisfied with the reference to God because it is said to be too qualified or half-hearted.
This position has been put by Peter Hollingworth, the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane.
Archbishop Hollingworth has stated, with regard to the phrase `with hope in God", `It represents a considerable watering down and it's very different to what the Constitutional Convention recommended. It's just about the barest, most minimalist formula you can have.'
In claiming that the draft represents a `watering down' of previous acknowledgments of God, Archbishop Hollingworth appears to be referring to the current preamble to the Australian Constitution which includes the words, `humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God.'
This, the Archbishop implies, suggests a stronger dependence on `God' than does the phrase `with hope in ...'
Archbishop Hollingworth also refers to the fact that the Constitutional Convention recommended that any new preamble to the constitution should make reference to "Almighty God".
The bishop appears to be suggesting that the reference made here, while complying with the Constitutional Convention's recommendation, lacks force or commitment.
A similar position has been put by Herald Sun commentator, Jill Singer.
Ms Singer has asked, `With hope in God? If we are being asked to all live under the roof of one God ... can't we at least expect to trust this God and have faith in him?'
The next major criticism of the content of the draft preamble relates to the manner in which it refers to Aboriginal Australians.
The Prime Minister's proposed preamble includes the sentence, `Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures.'
A number of criticisms have been made of this reference to indigenous Australians.
Firstly it is argued that the draft preamble does not clearly acknowledge Aboriginal Australians as the first occupants of this continent.
This acknowledgment was recommended by the Constitutional Convention.
The Convention recommended `Acknowledgment of the original occupancy and custodianship of Australia by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders.'
Much of the disagreement has centred on the word `custodianship'.
(It has been claimed that the Prime Minjister and the Government generally believe that `custodianship' concedes too much to the continent's original inhabitants.
The suggestion has been made that the Government is concerned that if Aboriginal peoples were referred to in the preamble as custodians of Australia this might strengthen their claim to land or compensation for dispossession.)
Many critics of the draft preamble (including the Labor Opposition, the Australian Democrats and various Aboriginal groups) support the term `custodianship' precisely because they claim it does acknowledge original possession.
This point has been made by former Labor foreign minister, Gareth Evans.
Mr Evans has stated, `"Custodianship is a wonderful word ... It captures at least some of the intensely spiritual and protective way in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have always related to the land.'
Mr Peter Yu, the executive director of the Kimberley Land Council, has been paraphrased as claiming that the wording in the draft preamble ignores the indigenous land rights recognised in the High Court's 1992 Mabo ruling.
With reference to the clause, `Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders ...' Herald Sun commentator, Jill Singer has observed, `To say that indigenous Australians have merely inhabited this land ... is to afford them no greater status than kangaroos and wombats.'
Mr Yu has claimed, `It's insulting to Aboriginal people.'
It has also been argued that the draft preamble's claim that Aboriginal culture is honoured is mere tokenism and does not reflect the social and political reality in this country.
Jill Singer has asked, `... which indigenous Australians seriously believe their culture has been treated with honour since white settlement?' She then states, `This is possibly the most offensive and mean-spirited clause in the entire draft.'
There has also been significant criticism of the Prime Minister's decision to include a reference to `mateship' in the draft.
Many of criticisms of this term have come from prominent women and men with feminist sympathies who are concerned that `mateship' is a largely male ideal and therefore excludes some half of the population.
This view has been summarised by Ms Eva Cox, sociologist, academic and feminist, who has stated, `Mateship is a sentimental view of male bonding. I don't think most women think of themselves as mates ... Instead of a preamble that unites Australians, it seems to be pitting off certain groups and excluding others.'
Another criticism of the use of the word `mateship' in the proposed preamble has come from Victorian RSL president, Mr Bruce Ruxton.
Mr Ruxton claims that a reference to mateship does not belong in a formal state document, as it a quality which exists only in human hearts and cannot be imposed on the national character.
Mr Ruxton has stated, `Mateship cannot be instilled by the Constitution, it has to be born in the heart.'
Many of those who have criticised the draft have suggested that its shortcomings are the result of Mr Howard's failure to consult more widely.
It has been suggested that the attitudes embedded in the preamble are primarily those of the Prime Minister. The suggestion has been made that Mr Howard needs to incorporate the views of a wider cross-section of the Australian population if we are to have an acceptable new preamble.
This view has been put by Age commentator, Michael Gordon, who has stated, `The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has crafted a preamble more reflective of the man himself than of the nation he leads.'
Though the above represent the major content criticisms of the draft, other elements of its content and style have also attracted criticism.
On the question of style, the major criticisms appear to be that it is wordy, being significantly longer than the current preamble; that it is cliched; that it includes sentiments and expressions that are soon likely to appear dated; and that it does not read fluently.
The second level of criticism that the draft preamble has attracted relates to why it has been written at all, rather than to its content and style.
According to this point of view, the primary reason for producing a new preamble to the Constitution would be because Australia had become a republic and the current preamble, with its references to the Queen and `Her Majesty's heirs and successors', no longer reflected Australia's political reality.
Thus the Constitutional Convention recommended that any new preamble should make `reference to the people of Australia having agreed to reconstitute our system of government as a republic.'
Though the Constitutional Convention apparently saw revamping the preamble as a means of reasserting continuing values and incorporating others that had not been included in the original, its primary purpose would seem to have been to introduce a new constitution for a new Australian republic.
This position has been put by Paul Kelly, former editor of The Australian.
Mr Kelly has stated, `The entire purpose of a preamble is to explain the Constitution and the entire purpose of a new preamble has been to explain the new republican Constitution.'
According to Mr Kelly and others, it is illogical and inconsistent for Mr Howard and his Government to oppose any change to the Constitution while at the same time promoting a new preamble.
According to this line of argument, if the Constitution is not to be changed, there is no necessity to change its preamble.

Further implications
There has been a good deal of discussion as to the motives of the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, in not merely promoting but also in co-authoring a draft new preamble for the Australian Constitution.
There are those who argue that the question of the preamble is a mere political diversion.
According to this point of view, if the electorate is given the opportunity to vote on a new preamble at the same time as it votes on whether Australia should become a republic, the additional discussion provoked by the preamble question might help to confuse or obscure debate on the republic.
It has been claimed that such confusion could encourage people to vote no to an Australian republic.
Those who hold this view have suggested that the Prime Minister's support for a new preamble and his intention to present it as part of the republic referendum in November, 1999, is an attempt to muddy the waters and make the defeat of the republic proposition more likely.
There are other, however, who have suggested that the Prime Minister is genuinely enthusiastic about a change of preamble.
It is claimed that the Prime Minster does not want to see a preamble which is an introduction to a republican constitution. Rather, it is suggested, he wants a `republic neutral' preamble of the type he has co-authored to act as an enduring statement of some of Australia's primary values. It has also been suggested that Mr Howard would like the prestige associated with being the Prime Minister who co-produced the preamble for Australia's Constitution in the next millennium.
At the moment, however, it seems highly unlikely that Mr Howard's proposed preamble will pass the Senate in its current form. It seems equally unlikely that Mr Howard will accept any significant modification to his draft. In this event there may well be no preamble question on the November referendum.
If the preamble does survive to a referendum it is likely to be supported by the Coalition and opposed by all other parties.
The division of opinion surrounding the preamble is likely to see it fail to be approved at a referendum. It may also make the electorate more likely to reject the proposed republic.

Sources
The Age
24/3/99 page 1 news item by Gervase Greene, `Preamble outcry'
24/3/99 page 6 comment by Michael Gordon, `Words reflect a man, not a nation'
24/3/99 page 6 comments by Dale Spender, Bruce Ruxton, Geoffrey Blainey, Eva Cox and Barry Jones, `What "mateship" means to me'
24/3/99 page 6 news item by Tony Wright, `PM takes a gamble on poet's preamble'
24/3/99 page 14 editorial, `Preamble fudges the hard question'
24/3/99 page 14 cartoon by Wilcox
25/3/99 page 17 comment by Geoffrey Blainey, `The preamble's not so bad, mate'
26/3/99 page 15 comment by Tony Wright, `Preamble? Let's just forget it'
27/3/99 page 5 news item by Gervase Greene, `Howard pressure on preamble: like it or lump it'
27/3/99 page 8 comment by Hugh McKay, `An excellent misadventure'
27/3/99 page 8 comment by Gay Alcorn, `Half a nation'
27/3/99 page 10 letter from John Creece, `We must get preamble right'
27/3/99 page 10 letter from Scott Longmuir, `The problem is the language'
27/3/99 page 10 six brief reader comments and a Tandberg cartoon under the heading, `Preamble'

The Australian
24/3/99 page 4 news item by John Zubrzycki, `Writers divided over PM's vision'
24/3/99 page 4 comments by a range of prominent Australians and representatives of particular interest groups, `Dissecting the draft'
24/3/99 page 4 comment by Gareth Evans, `Windy prologue strikes chord but it's out of tune'
24/3/99 page 4 analysis by Richard McGregor and Christopher Dore, `Slip that pushed history's envelope'
24/3/99 page 4 `Labor's preposed preamble' (said to have been written by Gareth Evans)
24/3/99 page 4 comment by Dennis Shanahan, `Change of heart needed at the heart of change'
24/3/99 page 5 comment and analysis by Stuart Rintoul and Karen Harbutt, `Blokey concept no mate to women'
24/3/99 page 5 news item by Megan Saunders, `Aborigines "insulted" by PM's draft'
24/3/99 page 12 editorial, `Howard draft is a shambles of a preamble'
24/3/99 page 13 comment by Paul Kelly, `A preamble too bad to be true'
25/2/99 page 2 news item by Stuart Rintoul, Scott Emerson and Stefanie Balogh, `Draft preamble "not helpful" for republican push'
25/3/99 page 15 comment by Bain Attwood, `Reprise of the dishonourable silence'
26/3/99 page 14 thirteen letters under the heading, `They mocked Abe Lincoln too, mate'
26/3/99 page 15 comment by Natasha Stott Despoja, `Now, let's write a preamble that eschews point-scoring'
27/3/99 page 5 news item by Dennis Shanahan and Megan Saunders, `One chance for preamble: PM"
27/3/99 page 14 comment and analysis by Greg Craven followed by fourteen preambles written by readers of The Australian and a number of prominent Australians, under the heading, `The great Australian preamble debate'

The Herald Sun
24/3/99 page 4 comment by Michael Harvey, `Not likely to inspire or offend'
24/3/99 page 4 & 5 news item by Michael Harvey and Andrew Cummins, `Salute to a nation of mates'
24/3/99 page 5 news item by Andrew Cummins, `PM's mateship under attack'
24/3/99 page 5 news item by Andrew Cummins, `Poetry and ideas meld'
24/3/99 page 18 editorial, `Constituents of mateship'
25/3/99 page 11 news item by Terry Brown, `Mateship scuttles preamble debate'
25/3/99 page 11 news item by Michael Harvey, `Howard hits out at knockers'
25/3/99 page 11 news item by John Masanaukas, `Mixed views over mates'
25/3/99 page 19 comment by Jill Singer, `What a bodgy preamble, mate'
26/3/99 page 20 letter from A. James, `Preamble inspired'
26/3/99 page 20 letter from Basil Smith, `We're not all mates'
27/3/99 page 28 five comments under the heading, `Vox pop: Should the word mateship be included in the Australian Constitution preamble?'