Some participants found the Summit ‘inspiring’, and have suggested to me that the criticisms aired above are born of unrealistic expectations of what could be achieved in one weekend. But I have attended a number of deliberative conventions that considered change in Australia’s system of governance. Some were composed solely of experts; others of members of the general public. All took place in a limited time, over a day or a weekend. Many were run by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation; others by governments. All were better structured, better managed, and better focused on developing substantive proposals, while giving all participants a fair chance to have their say.
The primary lesson is that if a similar exercise were to be undertaken again, such as the constitutional convention recommended by the Governance group, then much more thought would need to be given to the detail well in advance of even announcing the proposal. My impression of the 2020 Summit is that officials were caught on the hop with the proposal and that more attention was given to the logistics (which worked well) and the presentational aspects (which went too far), than to giving the participants a reasonable opportunity to produce the ‘ideas’ which were ultimately the objective of the Summit.
Matters that would need to be considered if a constitutional convention were to be held include:
the number of participants;
the composition of the convention (for example, experts or the broader public);
how participants are chosen (for example, election or appointment, by what method and by whom) and who, if anyone, they represent;
the involvement of politicians;
the purpose of the convention (for example, public education, the development of broad principles or the formulation of substantive reform proposals);
how the structure of the convention supports its purpose and the type of participants chosen;
the duration of the convention;
how the convention is to be informed (for example, research, papers, or speakers);
the opportunity for participants to discuss matters with each other in advance and to communicate back to the public (for example, an adjournment during a longer convention);
the use of facilitators and whether they should have expertise in the subject matter under discussion; and
the extent to which the convention establishes or controls its own rules and agenda or is directed in the matters that it is to consider.