Above anything else, Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy argues that our oldest institution, the Crown, is above politics and is thus an absolutely necessary check and balance in our constitutional system.

As I mentioned here on Monday, we at ACM were more than taken aback to read a revelation in an extract of the forthcoming memoirs of the former Australian High Commissioner to London, Philip Flood. This had appeared in The Australian that morning.

 

In it Mr. Flood declared that “… in the 1999 referendum campaign, Buckingham Palace ’ declined requests by monarchist groups in Australia for the Queen to lend support to their cause. As High Commissioner I received representations from some Australian groups urging me to make approaches to the palace on their behalf.”

Clearly anybody who would do that does not understand or does not care about the non-political role of the Crown, which of course Her Majesty the Queen of Australia full well understands.

With over 72% of the monarchist vote for the 1998 Convention, and thus allocated all of the eight monarchist seats on the Vote No  committee, ACM was the lead organisation in the defence of the Crown in the 90s.

Accordingly any reader could reasonbaly conclude that Mr Flood was referring to ACM.

Having discussed this matter with my predecessor, the Hon. Lloyd Waddy, who was until recently a federal judge, I decided that ACM must go on the public record to correct any such interpretation.

 Accordingly I wrote  to The Australian to declare unequivocally that Australians for Constitutional Monarchy  did not make such requests either to the palace or to the High Commission.

The Australian published an edited version of my letter on Wednesday 27 September, and we thank the newspaper for this.
 

The text of my letter as published and the full letter follow:

 

….published version…

PHILIP Flood ("Master of the art of diplomacy", 26/9) says that in the 1999 referendum campaign, Buckingham Palace declined requests by monarchist groups in Australia for the Queen to lend support to their cause: "As High Commissioner I received representations from some Australian groups urging me to make approaches to the palace on their behalf."

Without in any way seeking to impugn these recollections, I am writing to point out that Australians for Constitutional Monarchy has always argued that as the Queen is a constitutional monarch it would be improper to try to involve her in the political campaign about Australia becoming a republic.

Accordingly, ACM made no such request. We argued our case on constitutional grounds only.

….original version…

Philip Flood says (26/9) that in the 1999 referendum campaign, Buckingham Palace ’ declined requests by monarchist groups in Australia for the Queen to lend support to their cause. As High Commissioner I received representations from some Australian groups urging me to make approaches to the palace on their behalf.'

I am writing to point out that Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, which attracted over 72% of the monarchist vote in the Constitutional Convention election and accordingly filled all of the monarchist positions on the official Vote No committee, has always argued that as The Queen is a constitutional monarch it would be improper to try to involve her in the political campaign about Australia becoming a republic.

Accordingly, ACM made no such request or representation to either the palace or the high commission. 

We argued our case on constitutional grounds only.  Hence the gratuitous barb by the republicans that ACM's strategy was ‘Don't mention The Queen.’