 |
The Foundation for National Renewal |
 |
 |
The Constitutional Convention of February 1998 |
|
A missed opportunity for much-needed reform. |
| Introduction | Delegates | Proceedings | Summaries |
|
TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS Brigadier GARLAND- Those who do not take account of the mistakes of history are cursed to repeat them. The discussion of the arrangements for the appointment and dismissal of heads of state is a topic close to the Garland family. We have been involved in this sort of an issue as a family for a considerable length of time. In 967, together with a number of other magnates of France, William of Garland used his influence and military skills to put Hugh Capet, the first of the Carpetian kings of France, on the throne. The demise of the previous monarchies came with this move, much to the delight of the people of the kingdom of France. By 1108, Anseau of Garland had become the seneschal of France. He kept the king's peace for Philip I, Louis VI and Louis VII until he died in battle in 1118 defending the king's mandate as the king of France. He had a daughter, Agnes of Garland, about whom I will speak a bit later. In the latter half of the 12th century, one of the family, Guy of Garland, moved to England and he and his brothers and children paid fines and took up fiefs in Kent, Sussex, Devon, Lincolnshire and Salop. During this time the English part of the family made their way in England and one of them served Richard the Lionheart as his fleet commander during his crusade to the Holy Land and subsequently became his seneschal in Anjou. Another branch of the family, who were descendants of Agnes Garland, also went to England from France, worked hard and prospered. Indeed, the grandson of Agnes married the king's sister, Eleanor of England. Henry III made him the steward of England and, with his close ties to the Crown, one might have thought that he was a monarchist.
Ms O'SHANE- I raise a point of order. The issue is: if there is to be a head of state, what should be the arrangements for appointment and dismissal? It is quite clear that we are being given a lesson in ancient history here. I want to know what relevance this has to the issue of, if there is to be a head of state for modern Australia, what should the arrangements be for appointment and dismissal. If the speaker is not prepared to address the issue, Mr Chairman, I invite you to invite him to resume his seat.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- In response to the point of order, it is medieval history, not ancient history. But I would invite the speaker to relate his remarks to the actual topic.
Brigadier GARLAND- If the delegate would sit down, she might learn something.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- We would all learn something if you would relate it to the subject.
Brigadier GARLAND- It is relating to appointment and dismissal of heads, and I am coming to it. One would have thought that this man, with his close relations to the Crown, might have been a monarchist, but in 1264 this grandson of Agnes Garland, a man called Simon de Montford, the fifth Earl of Leicester, with the encouragement of the English people, and particularly the people of London, took on the Crown in the battle of Lewes and defeated the king. He took over the administration of the country. He dismissed the king. Simon was the people's man. He curbed the excesses of the Crown and then found out that it was not simple to rule when the basis of kingly power was denied to him. In the end, after 15 months experiment, Henry III gathered together new forces, including the people who had become disenchanted with the administration of Simon, fought Simon at the battle of Evesham on 4 August, defeated him and his sons and took his place again as the king of England. All of the de Montfords died on the field of battle. So death on the field of battle is one way of getting rid of a head of state. During the period from 1264 to August 1265, Simon and his supporters removed the king and took over the administration of the country; he had then been removed by the will of the people and the Crown, acting together in battle at Evesham. The people came back to the monarchy because it provided more stability than the de Montfort model. Of course, this was not the last involvement of the Garland family in the appointment and removal of heads of state. A number of centuries later Augustin Garland, a graduate of Emmanuel College of Cambridge and a member of Lincoln's Inn- he became a lawyer- when his father died, inherited property, and he was elected to parliament as the member for Queensborough. While he was a member of parliament, on 20 December 1648, he signed the protest against the acceptance of the king's accession and was appointed to be one of the judges at the king's trial. He acted as the chairman of the committee selected to consider the method of trial of King Charles I. He attended 12 of the 16 meetings of the court. He was present when the sentence was given and Charles's death warrant was signed. He sat then in the Long Parliament until it was pushed aside. At the end, in May 1659, when the king was recalled, he came back into the parliament and acclaimed the king's accession. But he was tried for regicide. Fortunately, the death penalty was not put into execution, but his property was confiscated and he was kept in the Tower. A warrant was issued on 31 March 1664 for his `conveyance'- an euphemism for transportation to Tangiers for opposition to the Crown.
CHAIRMAN- Is there a motion for extension of time?
DELEGATES- No.
Brigadier GARLAND- I then seek leave, Mr Chairman, to have the rest of my comments and supporting papers included in the proceedings of this Convention.
CHAIRMAN- I am afraid the supporting papers cannot be inserted. But, subject to Hansard being able to accommodate the rest of your speech, I so rule.
Brigadier GARLAND- I do not require it to be incorporated in Hansard,just to be made a part of the proceedings.
CHAIRMAN- Yes. It will be tabled as a statement of the Convention. The time available for further deliberations, unfortunately, on that subject has now ended, and I am concerned that we try to proceed on this series of votes as soon as we can. We have now a series of matters to pursue. A visitors book which is designed to have the signatures of all delegates and proxies to this Convention so that we can incorporate them in the proceedings and have them available for posterity has been opened in the old Speaker's suite. It is in the entrance to the Speaker's suite. Sometime between now and tomorrow week I would appreciate it if all delegates would sign that so that we can have the names so recorded. The reports of Working Groups A to F will be tabled and will become part of the proceedings of the Convention. I will now deal with the resolutions of the Resolutions Group. The revised text of those resolutions has been distributed to all delegates in a document headed Revised Following Convention Debate- Resolutions Group proposals concerning Convention procedures and role of the Resolutions Group. It would be my intention to put these resolution in the following order: resolution 1, resolution 2, resolution 3 and then resolution 4. What I intend to do is to allow a very brief period before each section is put so that, if anybody has any questions, Daryl Williams, Gareth Evans or I can respond to them. Then we will put each one of those points. We will start on our voting this afternoon on the resolutions group proposals which were presented to the Convention by Daryl Williams, on behalf of the Resolutions Group, at 12 noon or thereabouts today. We will go through each of these as they are presented to us. We will begin our deliberation and then voting on resolutions group proposal headed 1. It states:
That does not mean that the Resolutions Group will necessarily include them in their final report. It will mean, however, that in the Resolutions Group report there will be a note of that proposal; and there will also be a further opportunity, if delegates so wish, for whatever that proposal might be, to be moved and seconded as amendment when we are dealing with the resolutions group proposal, which will come, as you will recall I explained earlier today, as an amendment to the resolutions that have already been passed provisionally in this house. Is there any comment on the floor of the House with respect to resolutions group 1(A)? Mr GROGAN- I have a question regarding the introductory wording to resolution 1 on the revised sheet where it specifies days 6, 7 and 8 for this 25 per cent rule, whereas on the sheet presented to us before lunch days 4, 6, 7 and 8 were included. Does this mean that it is proposed that the 25 per cent rule not apply to the votes occurring later this afternoon?
CHAIRMAN- That amendment was done at my request, essentially. I was looking at the other parts of the resolution. No, it does not. It was really intended so that the changes to the voting time, which it was suggested be at 3 o'clock, would not apply today. It is my omission. I think we should reinsert, with respect to resolution 1, days 4, 6, 7 and 8. Thank you for drawing it to my attention. The first of those is back to where it was. It should be 4, 6, 7 and 8. I am sorry, I took it out because I could not see how we would get the vote going by 3 o'clock today.
Mr RUXTON- I would like to move an amendment to 1(A).
CHAIRMAN- Have you got it in writing and is there a seconder?
Mr RUXTON- No, I have not got it in writing.
CHAIRMAN- Would you please put it in writing so it can be received. You can move it, but it then needs to be received by me in writing. Let me explain to everybody that I cannot accept any amendments which are not in writing or we are going to find it impossible to record the deliberations of this Convention. Mr Ruxton, please move your amendment and then put it in writing.
Mr RUXTON- I move:
That `25 per cent' be deleted and replaced with `51 per cent'.
CHAIRMAN- Is there a seconder?
Brigadier GARLAND- I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN- I am not going to allow speakers on each of these because we will never get through everything, but what I am going to do is to allow a few minutes for further comment on this resolution.
Councillor TULLY- I think we are trying to get to some position of goodwill within this Convention so that legitimate proposals can go forward and be considered. If we are going to suddenly change it to 51 per cent we could end up with the same situation which caused problems earlier in the week. I think the 25 per cent is eminently reasonable. Anyone in this chamber who believes that all proposals should continue to be considered should go for the 25 per cent option and reject that amendment.
CHAIRMAN- I intend to put the question without going through the ordinary repartee, or we are going to run out of time. There is an amendment to 1(A) that will make the second line read-
Mr RUXTON- I withdraw the amendment.
CHAIRMAN- The amendment has been withdrawn by Mr Ruxton. Therefore, unless there are any further comments, I put the Resolutions Group proposal 1(A). Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- I now submit Resolutions Group proposal 2(A). I think we had better deal with these in sectors otherwise we are going to be in trouble. We will deal with that paragraph which begins:
The primary responsibility of the Resolutions Group . . .
Is there any comment on that proposal? If there is no comment on that proposal I put the motion. Motion carried. CHAIRMAN- The next is Resolutions Group 2(B), which commences `In formulating Final Plenary Resolutions the Resolutions Group shall take into account'. It then lists the three subsidiary points (a), (b) and (c). There being no comment on 2(B)(a), (b) and (c), I put the question that 2(B), the proposal of the Resolutions Group, be approved. Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- We then turn to (C), which commences `Final Plenary Resolutions". Motion carried.
CHAIRMAN- We then move to proposal 3. You will notice that this has not been changed. There is a comment in bold underneath which states:
To be reviewed by the resolutions group and returned to the Convention.
Since we have returned, I have received an amendment to that submitted by Archbishop George Pell and seconded by Graham Edwards which I will refer to the Resolutions Group. We are not going to consider proposal 3 at this stage because it will be a matter for reference back to us in due course at some time tomorrow, around 12 noon. I also refer the amendment received from Archbishop Pell to the Resolutions Group. It will be considered by us at the time of the Resolutions Group report back tomorrow.
Councillor TULLY- I foreshadow a further amendment that could go forward for consideration. I will put it in writing. It is fairly simple. I move:
After `deliberations', delete `in Stage I'; after `given', delete `in Stage II'.
That is pre-empting what might constitute a stage or process. The sense of that proposal would remain, but it would leave open what may constitute stages or other processes which may come out of the proposal.
CHAIRMAN- I propose that, if you have a seconder, you put that in writing and submit it to the Resolutions Group. They will then take it into account. I see that it has been seconded by Professor O'Brien. Submit that to the Resolutions Group. If there are any further amendments, put them in writing. If the names of the mover and seconder are submitted to the secretariat, they will be referred to the Resolutions Group. They will consider it and return those comments to us tomorrow. You will be advised of the time when they will be considered. I now put Resolutions group proposal 4. The significance of this is that at the plenary sessions on days 6, 7 and 8 voting will not be at the end of the day, as to date has been the practice. It will mean that, henceforth on days 6, 7 and 8, when there are working resolutions in plenary sessions, they will proceed on a sequential basis, with voting on each resolution following immediately after consideration for not more than 20 minutes of that resolution. You should note that our present order of proceedings provides a different mechanism from that and that this will change that mechanism. I submit to you Resolutions Group proposal 4 and call on any consideration from the floor. Does anybody wish to comment?
Mr GUNTER- Again, my
question is whether it was intended to include day 4 since we
have Working Group resolutions further this afternoon. Do we wish
to remain with proceedings of earlier this week, for other
Working Group matters later in the afternoon today? ·=============== Last updated: 21 October 2000 | |||
