With the release of the 2020 Summit Final Report we are now able to compare the governance styles of republican prime minister Kevin Rudd and constitutional monarchist prime minister John Howard.
This has nothing to do with the fact that one is Labor and one Liberal. After all, the greatest Labor leaders were constitutional monarchists.
Only Labor has obtained the appointment of members of the Royal Family as Governor-General, and that on two occasions.
ACM is completely non partisan. We make no recommendations in elections. We seek just to inform.
The leader of the largest ACM team contesting the 1998 Constitutional Convention election was a former Labor Lord Mayor of Sydney.
He is Doug Sutherland, now playing a key role on the ACM board of directors.
…the comparison…
Mr. Rudd was widely assumed to be similar to John Howard. At least on republicanism, he’s nothing of the sort, as a comparison between the 2020 Summit and the 1998 Convention demonstrates.
This is at its most glaring in the sort of people each wanted. The Summit was for the “best and brightest.”
The Convention was half elected, part ex officio and part selected. It reached out to the rank and file.
The Summit governance panel turned out to be at least 98% republican. Only one constitutional monarchist slipped through (Senator George Brandis) –he was wrongly assumed to be a republican.
…appointments on merit…
Thirty six of the 152 places at the Convention were in John Howard’s gift. On the crucial republican vote, less than one third of them – a mere ten – voted John Howard’s way. Kevin Rudd made himself and his close friend Dr Glyn Davis co-chairmen of the Summit.
John Howard handed over all control to Ian Sinclair and Barry Jones, both republicans.He left the running to these two, both highly experienced in chairing parliamentary forums.
Kevin Rudd left the governance panel to John Hartigan and Maxine McKew, although neither are experienced in such matters –and it showed.
But both share Rudd’s views on a republic.
…control, transparency…
John Howard participated as an ordinary delegate, Kevin Rudd retained control as ultimate co-chair.John Howard saw that the Convention debates were recorded in Hansard, and with the two experienced chairmen, ensured the process and decisions were completely transparent and on the public record.Not so the Summit’s.
The crucial decision on governance was a call to end ties with the UK.But the next day, Alan Jones on 2GB pointed out the embarrassing fact that such ties went years ago. Ten days later the Summit record was surreptitiously changed, and without any vote.
In its place is a call for a plebiscite.
…scuttling the direct elect republicans…
This was not only to get around the embarrassment of all those eminent lawyers relying on such an elementary error of law and fact.
It was also used to score a victory over the “direct elect” republicans who want the people to elect the president.
They haven’t woken up to this yet. When they do they will be extremely angry.This change in the record eliminates the second plebiscite to choose a model, one which Kim Beazley had promised.
The slower conservative republicans hadn’t grasped the fact that this second plebiscite would guarantee the referendum will be on the direct elect model.
One time monarchist and Australian Catholic University Vice Chancellor, Greg Craven, has been taking them aside for years and explaining this.
But rather than producing the “wrong” republic, he says it will only delay any republic.
He is on record as saying it will result in an even bigger defeat than in 1999. It will, he says, ensure Australians live under the reign of not only King Charles III but also King William V.
…jobs for the boys…
In the meantime, when the Summit accounts went to Senate Estimates, the nation 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 $317000 for “cost recovery.” A number of juicy appointments were made without any tender process. So did John Howard when he appointed Ian Sinclair and Barry Jones.
But they didn’t charge, and they had the opposite view to his on a republic. And both proved to be more than up to the job.
…decisive…
When the Convention finally made up its mind, and called for a republic but then rejected every model, John 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.
Kevin 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 we are 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.
Whether it’s inclusiveness, appointments on merit, transparency, or decisiveness, the contrast between the Rudd republican and Howard monarchist styles could not be more glaring.
{mosimage}