The Politics of the Preamble
by Anne Winckel
Zadok Perspectives Issue No. 64
Winter 1999

Part 5

REFERENCE TO "ALMIGHTY GOD" is the one recognisable item in the list of recommendations from the 1998 Constitutional Convention which identifies with the original preamble. In the context of the incredible opposition among the politicians of the 1890s, it is remarkable that God ever got into the Constitution in the first place. It is perhaps more remarkable that God has been nominated in the 1990s for an encore appearance. Nevertheless, the God proposal at the Constitutional Convention last year had wide support; but predictably, the debate in the wider community is divided.

Kennett deliberately omits reference to God, both of Howard's proposals begin "With hope in God", and Gareth Evans refers in past tense to the original reliance on God of 1901.
The inclusion of Almighty God in the original preamble was symbolic of the will of the people prevailing over the will of the politicians. Most of the politicians disapproved of any interference of religion with politics, and they feared any provision in the Constitution which might allow the Federal Government to pass religious legislation such as the Sabbath observance laws of the USA. Even though the preamble is not the law-making part of the document (merely the introductory words), nevertheless, the fear of legal implications was so great that when final agreement was given to the recognition of God in the preamble, the drafters were then easily persuaded to include the protection of religious freedoms found in section 116 of the Constitution (Richard Ely, Unto God and Caesar: Religious Issues in the Emerging Commonwealth 1891-1906, Melbourne University Press).

To convince the politicians to agree to mention Almighty God in the draft preamble in 1898, the churches lobbied, held protest meetings, published letters, pamphlets and books, and heavily petitioned both the Federal Constitutional Conventions and the colonial parliaments.
Most of the proposals combined phrases from the 1776 American Declaration of Independence which referred to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence", and the Swiss Constitution's preamble which began: "In the name of Almighty God". Finally, political expediency won the day. The drafters of the Constitution put in a reference to God, fearful that without the support of the churches, the Federation bill would never pass at referendum.

It is important to recognise that not all 19th century people with religious convictions supported the recognition of God in the Constitution. Today's debate differs very little from those arguing in the 1890s: there are still the devotees, the strategists, the pragmatists and the skeptics on both sides of the argument.

Devotees or "true believers" exist on both sides of the recognition of God debate. In the 1890s it was primarily the Seventh Day Adventists who objected to a reference to God in the Constitution-fearing the USA Sabbath observance laws which discriminated against their religious customs. There were also the devoted secularists who believed in a strict separation of church and state. Finally, some Christians objected that a reference to God in the imperfect Constitution was irreverent, and that faith was a personal thing of the heart.

On the other hand, many devoted Christians advocated that the move towards federation should not occur without an acknowledgment that Australia was under God.

Those strategists who wanted to prevent religious laws, the protestantisation of schools and sectarian denominational conflict, argued against the recognition of God. Those Christians who wanted to ensure church status, or firm up leverage for future religious legislation, argued for recognition.

Many politicians begrudgingly acceded to including God in the preamble when they realised that Federation might fail without the support of the churches, and that democratically the people had spoken through numerous petitions. The Roman Catholic church had initially tried to keep a high profile in the debate, but their front-line advocate, Cardinal Moran (Archbishop of Sydney), failed to get elected to the Federal Constitutional Convention-victim of a Protestant "Stop Moran" campaign. The Roman Catholic Church then had to take a more pragmatic approach, falling in behind the Protestant campaign, endorsing the recognition of God petition which was drafted and distributed by the NSW Council of Churches.

Anne Winckel Anne Winckel lectures in Legal Studies at the University of Melbourne. She is currently doing postgraduate research in Constitutional history, focussing on the significance of the Commonwealth preamble.