I consider the preamble that has been negotiated between the government and the Australian Democrats as one of the milestones that we must put in place. The preamble to the Constitution, in my view, and in the view of the Australian Democrats, has a very simple purpose in terms of what it should achieve for the nation's first people. The preamble as it is currently drafted does set the record straight on so many issues that are important to Australia, but if it is affirmed by the people on 6 November, the Australian Democrats believe it will be instrumental in enabling Australians to deal with much of the unfinished business and begin to address the issue of true reconciliation between black and white Australians. I now want to address the detail of how indigenous people are included in the preamble and, in doing so, explain the significance and meaning of the language that is used, because this is part of the confusion in the current debate. To do this, I will speak very clearly on my understanding of the words that are used now in terms of kinship, custodianship, stewardship and traditional ownership.
Kinship does talk about blood relationship.
It does talk about sharing of the characteristics of origin, but kinship also captures the essence of the deeply spiritual, intimate and ancient relationship that indigenous peoples share with our country. That is a relationship of oneness and interdependence. Reference to kinship in the preamble to the Australian Constitution would therefore be appropriate, but it should recognise the continuing and evolving nature of indigenous cultures and the ongoing responsibilities we bear in relation to land. Our blood ties to land continue to remain unbroken, despite two centuries of dispossession and genocide. Perhaps if further thought were given to the idea of an indigenous word that might be used to describe that relationship, rather than an English one, that is something that I could consider supporting.