I'm not sure that it's being fully articulated. There are many people, in fact, broadly speaking, I'm one of them, who says the Aboriginal people have asked for recognition of their long history in this country and who are good, you know, good-naturedly sort of considering that. It just seems to me that it's a whole new ball game now to propose something that is unknown to be instituted in the, or inserted in the constitution. But the preamble is a different matter. If you had a form of words there that recognised their history, their occupation of the lands for many years, then went on to say somehow or other that we now all come together as one people with the formal part of the constitution. Any comments from your perspective on that line of thinking? Yeah, well,

the first observation is that several of the state constitutions have done that in their preamble. I do know. They've given us Australia's Indigenous history. Yes, they have. I mean, I suppose it's a reflection of the extent to which we don't pay attention to the states in a way that maybe we should sometimes because the state constitutions are... Well, it's something that I suppose any constitutional lawyer like me needs to know about, but it's very significant. Yeah, because our state governments are very powerful and significant as we saw in the middle of COVID, didn't we? So there's no doubt about that. I think the other thing is important to say is that preambles are very different from the main body of a constitution because the main body of a constitution contains provisions that create institutions, establish them, which confer powers on those institutions or place limits on those powers and protect freedoms and liberties or rights. And so those sorts of provisions are the effective material of the constitution. And it's those provisions that governments and parliaments and judges as well must abide by. And if they fail to, you can take proceedings to a court, the High Court ultimately, to ensure that those rules are followed. A preamble is very different from that. It doesn't contain powers, institutions, rights, controls on power, anything like that. It contains usually a recitation of relevant history, a recitation sometimes of relevant principles. And that's about what it does. And so for that reason, a preamble is not something directly enforced by the courts. You can't say, well, government, you or parliament, you have failed to abide by the preamble. I'm taking action in the court to force you to follow what the preamble says. Preambles do have an effect on interpretation, though, because the constitution as a document has to be understood by reference to its history and by reference to its underlying principles. And so the courts do take cognizance of what's set in a preamble to shape the interpretation of the constitution. But only in a very general sense. One has to be careful about what one puts into a preamble. The preambles of the constitutions of the world of a great variety, and some of them probably go too far in all of the detail they put in. But the Australian constitution is like the preamble to the Australian constitution, like the constitution as a whole, is careful about what it says and clear about the principles that it's articulating. And it would be possible to insert, in principle, some recognition of Australia's indigenous history as part of the story of the nation, which would be due recognition of that history. I think that would be a good thing that happened. But it wouldn't have the same sort of effect of inserting something into the working document, which would be enforceable by the courts. It's very big difference between the

two. It's my genuine belief, then, I have to say this, that the Australian people are entitled to know exactly what this is. I would also say they have a responsibility to involve themselves in the debate before they vote, because it could have enormous ramifications for the country. And there are a lot of Aboriginal people, including five outstanding Aboriginal people, on the Recognize a Better Way panel that I am serving with as well, who do not support it. So I just make that point to people. This is a serious issue in the sense that we do have to grapple with those Aboriginal communities that are not doing it well. And it would be inhumane and un-Australian, if I can use that term, not to take it seriously. But I do think when you start to play with the Constitution, there is an absolute responsibility on the part of those who propose change and those who have to consider it for the future of their country to know exactly what's involved. Thank you very much for your time, pleasure. Thank

you for listening to Conversations with John Anderson. For further content, visit johnanderson.net.au. If you enjoy this podcast, please leave a rating and a review in iTunes. It helps other listeners find us.