Just how many more…until we get it right? And how much will the politicans take out of the education and hospitals budgets to pay for them? (And by the way, where's Tasmania?)
The Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, has attracted more criticism at home over his audience with The Queen.
However The Sydney Morning Herald has been told that there is a matter which is more important than any perceived disrespect to the Queen.
According to Daniel Emerson in The Sydney Morning Herald of 9 April, 2008 ( “Rudd didn't bow to Queen: Lib”), this is Mr Rudd's "disrespect for the Australian people" by pursuing the notion of an Australian republic even though the concept was defeated in a 1999 referendum.
Thomas Flynn, executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, has told the Herald that he is far more concerned by this.
"I think the real problem is that he [Mr Rudd] doesn't have enough respect for the institution of the Australian constitution," Mr Flynn said.
As the saying goes, "What part of No don't you understand?"
Politicians don’t always understand this. On 2005, European politician and leader of the government then holding the EU presidency, Jean-Claude Juncker, actually said that France and the Netherlands should re-run their referendums to obtain the "right answer" if their voters rejected the EU constitution in imminent national ballots.
So what did the EU politicians do? They deceitfully changed the name of the EU Constitution to the innocuous sounding Treaty of Lisbon, and didn’t put it to the vote which for one, Tony Blair had solemnly promised.
…and was Mr. Rudd discourteous?
In the meantime, Senator George Brandis told ABC radio , who claims the Prime Minister did not show enough respect to the Queen,"When the Prime Minister went to call upon the Queen he didn't make the customary neck bow," Senator Brandis said on ABC radio.
The Prime Minister’s office says Mr. Rudd did bow.
"Veritas," writing on the ACM site, said "It's interesting that the Prime Minister of Australia doesn't afford the appropriate formal courtesy to the person who is at least nominally Australia's head of state, but makes this flamboyant and rather obsequious gesture to the President of the United States."[i]
“Well, at the end of the day it is not a do or die action. Rudd's office says he did bow, and as a point of honour, he should have, as do all other presidents (note the French of all people recently).
“Anyone who has ever been presented to HM is briefed as to how to act. “Would any Australian accept such an insult to the Pope or to the Dali Lama? I think not. Then why to our own ever gracious sovereign?
“It is good manners to obey the protocol of a country when one visits. How much more so when one is a prime minister of a country who acknowledges HM as Sovereign. Please do not forget HM is Queen of Australia.
“OK, change if that is the will of the people, but at least give HM the honour she is due whilst she is Queen of Australia.
“Would those wanting a republic accept any insult to a president if that was the position here now? I think not. So like my republican friends who honour the system as it is until (hopefully never) it is changed, give HM the honour she is due as Queen of Australia. Anything less now is an insult to this country as well as to HM.”
As we mentioned recently, a quite prominent Australian of Asian origin, who has not indicated where he stands on the constitutional debate made this considered comment:
“It was discourteous of Mr Rudd to raise republicanism just before his audience with the Sovereign. I am disappointed- after all he was a diplomat.”