Is it too much to ask that when the editor of The Age receives a piece from former senator Amanda Vanstone, he checks it for accuracy?
The fact that The Age is maintaining its campaign for some vague politicians’ republic is not sufficient reason to publish a piece which centred on such an elementary error of fact as that published on 28 March ( “No need to whisper, the Queen isn't offended by the R-word).”
… Ms. Vanstone’s allegation…
Amanda Vanstone claims that the proposal to delay the referendum on a republic comes from constitutional monarchists.
” Those who oppose Australia becoming a republic raise the ''on death or abdication'' formula.
“They portray any move during her reign as causing some sort of offence. It is put forward as a timetable that would show deference and respect.”
ACM demands that Amanda Vanstone indicate her source for such an extraordinary statement or that she withdraw it.
Constitutional monarchists have never argued that another referendum to be put off to the end of the reign.
…no need for another referendum…
We say there is no need for another referendum. The issue was clearly settled in 1999, and support for change has declined since.
In a process over many years, funded generously by the taxpayer and distracting to the politicians, the republicans were given carte blanche to choose their model which was put to the people and rejected nationally, in every state and 72% of electorates.
As ACM’s Executive Director Thomas Flynn points out, if the referendum had been carried would constitutional monarchists be allowed to propose a repeat referendum?
(That said, if there another referendum is foisted on the nation, both The Age and Amanda Vanstone should know that we shall fight it, as we did in 1999.)
..it’s a republican proposal. ..
The fact is that the proposal to delay a referendum was not made by constiutional monarchists.
It comes from republican politicians led by the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard.
Any one who follows the news or does the most minimal research would know this.
And the reason is not some concern for the feelings of the Sovereign. The republicans weren’t worried about The Queen’s feelings in the nineties.
…why republicans don’t want a referendum…
The reason is simple. The fact is the republican politicians realise that the polls have long been going so badly against them that they would suffer an even greater loss than in 1999. For the same reason they have reversed their position on the Flag
So the republican politicians feel safe in saying the referendum should be put off to the end of the reign. As they have no idea what model to put up, this really gets them off the hook.
In any event they expect that at the end of the reign they will most likely not be in Parliament but rather will be receiving taxpayer funded very generous superannuation – superannuation which of course we shall never pay to our Sovereign who is not paid for her duties as Queen of Australia.
…Ms. Vanstone upsets rank and file…
Ms Vanstone’s concern for the sensitivity of the Sovereign is hardly consistent with her appalling reference to Her Majesty at a Liberal Party function some years ago in Melbourne when she described The Queen as “Sweaty Betty.”
This was curiously inconsistent on her part as she was in the process of advising republicans not to attack the Royal Family. Mr Peter Costello, the then Treasurer and local member, distanced himself from these remarks as his constituents understandably indicated their strong displeasure. Ha dhe not their might have been a walk out.
…Sir Robert Menzies…
One of the most ridiculous claims made in the referendum campaign was that were Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, alive today, he would be a republican.
And who made this claim?
Amanda Vanstone did. Just as she claims now that she knows whom The Queen supports in sporting championships.
No one was impressed in 1999. It is unlikely that she attracted one more vote for her cause.
And her State, South Australia, overwhelming rejected her arguments.