Dissecting the public consultation process

John Howard had one major public consultation - the 1998 Convention. Kevin Rudd had his very early in the piece - the 2020 Summit. The comparison is stark - not only in the sort of people they think worth consulting and their attitudes to transparency and process, but above all whether they are decisive.

With the recent release of the 2020 Summit Final Report we can well and truly compare Kevin Rudd’s prime ministerial style with that of John Howard’s.

Rudd was widely assumed to be similar to Howard. But he is nothing of the sort, as a comparison of Rudd’s 2020 Summit with the 1998 Convention demonstrates. This is at its most glaring in the sort of people they wanted to include in their respective consultaion processes.

The Summit was restricted to the “best and brightest”, chosen by an opaque process. The Convention was half elected, part ex officio and part selected.

The Summit governance panel turned out to be at least 98 per cent republican, which led to charges of stacking. Only one constitutional monarchist slipped through (Senator George Brandis) - perhaps because he was assumed to be a republican.

Howard handed over all control of the Convention to Ian Sinclair and Barry Jones, both highly experienced in chairing parliamentary forums. And unlike Howard both are republicans. When the day after his appointment, Sinclair made headlines calling for a republic, monarchists complained to Howard that both chairmen were republicans.

Later monarchists conceded both were absolutely fair and effective chairs.

But most of John Howard’s Convention delegates were elected directly or indirectly. Only 36 of the 152 places were in Howard’s gift. He did not stack those with monarchists. In the crucial republican vote, only 10, less than one third, voted Howard’s way.

Rudd made himself and his close friend Glyn Davis co-chairmen of the Summit, and appointed News Limited head, John Hartigan and MP Maxine McKew co-chaired the governance panel. Both share Rudd’s and Davis’ republicanism, but neither have experience in parliamentary chairmanship - and it showed.

Howard participated as an ordinary delegate, while Rudd retained control as ultimate co-chair.

Howard saw the Convention debates were recorded in Hansard with the process and decisions completely transparent, fair and on the public record.

According to Robert Manne (The Monthly, May, 2008), the Summit was “chaotic” and “frenzied”, at one point resembling a Mad Hatter’s Party. He says that near the end David Marr called passionately for the inclusion of a decision on a republic, not realising this had already been voted on. He also says that in this chaotic atmosphere, the report of the Summit’s crucial decision on governance was “botched”.

The Summit decided that the first stage in becoming a republic was to end ties with the UK. This was passed by the governance panel and noted, and apparently widely approved, at the plenary session. No one apparently noticed the fundamental and embarrassing error in the document. But the next day, Macquarie Radio’s Alan Jones pointed out the embarrassing fact that even the residual ties the States had clung to, were removed in 1986.

So the Summit record was surreptitiously changed after a ten-day delay and without any vote. In its place now is a new first stage: a call for a plebiscite. This was not only to get around the embarrassment of relying on such an elementary error of law and fact, it also advantaged the conservative republicans. It allowed them to score a stunning victory over their enemies, the “direct elect” republicans who want the people to elect the president.

But this was not done properly. There was no discussion and a vote, as it was at the Convention. Doing it on the sly has more to do with Orwell’s 1984 than transparent democratic processes.

The “direct elect” republicans yet haven’t notice this. When they do, they will be screaming. This change in the record eliminated Kim Beazley’s second plebiscite, which was to choose the form of republic, and which was included in the 2004 Senate report, The Road to a Republic.

The slower conservative republicans hadn’t grasped the fact that this second plebiscite guaranteed the referendum will be on the direct elect model. One time monarchist, Australian Catholic University Vice Chancellor Greg Craven has been taking them aside for years to explain this. Rather than producing the “wrong” republic, he says a referendum on the “direct elect” model will only delay any republic. Once the people see it will produce serious instability, he says, it would result in an even bigger defeat than in 1999.

Not only King Charles III but also King William V will reign over this land, he predicts.

In the meantime, when the Summit accounts went to Senate Estimates (PDF 1.04MB) we learned that the “jobs for the boys” - and girls - ethic still prevails. Confirming revelations in The Age, a company owned by a staffer and run by his wife was paid $56,000. The co-chairman’s office charged $317,000 for “cost recovery”. And a number of juicy appointments were made without any tender process.

Howard also did this when he appointed Sinclair and Jones. But the difference was they didn’t charge, and they had the opposite view to him on a republic. And both proved to be more than up to the job.

When the Convention finally made up its mind and called for a republic, but then rejected every model, Howard immediately did the sensible thing. He announced he would put the model preferred by an overwhelming majority of republican delegates to the referendum. For this he received rare and enthusiastic praise from the republicans, the media and the political class.

Rudd instead has talked about shaking trees, saying the government would indicate its views probably at the end of the year. He realises a referendum is doomed and so, probably, is a plebiscite. But having the issue simmering keeps the elites and the “serious” media on side. The excitement about a republic at the Summit demonstrates that.

So are we likely to see a review, a committee or even a whole new agency with a mission, vision and key performance indicators to “progress” the issue?

The contrast between the Rudd and Howard styles could not be more stark.