Does The Age follow this blog?

In today's edition of The Age I found this little news item.

Browned off
THEY are a vanishing breed, the Aussie knights of the realm, but the survivors still appear keen to have their royal gonghoods limelit. "Do you have any objection to using my title?" asked Sir David Smith of feisty Greens senator Bob Brown on ABC radio the other day. Brown had called him "Mr Smith" and the miffed 76-year-old knight, famed for reading the Whitlam dismissal proclamation on the parliamentary steps in 1975, called time-out. "A little courtesy wouldn't go too far," he told Brown, before apologising for interrupting a question. "You did, Mr Smith," said Brown. He's a tease, is Bob.

Isn't it a strange coincidence that this conversation was published one day after it had appeared on this blog?

Politeness

Sir Gulam Noon was born in Bombay in 1936. Within 40 years of arriving in London he was producing a quarter of a million curries a day for British supermarkets.

In a newspaper interview he mentioned the Queen, whom he had met on several occasions. ”I told her to call me Noon, but she said, ‘No, you have a knighthood, you are Sir Gulam’.”

That’s the politeness of a Monarch.

The politeness of a politician can be seen in this episode, reported by the ABC:
Place: Canberra, the Public hearing of the Inquiry into the Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 2008
Date: 29th April 2009

SIR DAVID SMITH: I'm not talking about legislation. I am talking about the constitution, Senator.

SENATOR BOB BROWN: We are talking about legislation here, Mr Smith. This is a bill before the Parliament.

SIR DAVID SMITH: Do you have an objection to using my title. Should I call you Bob or Mr Brown?

SENATOR BOB BROWN: You are welcome to.

SIR DAVID SMITH: Okay.

SENATOR BOB BROWN: Very much so.

SIR DAVID SMITH: A little courtesy wouldn't go too far.

SENATOR BOB BROWN: Well …

SIR DAVID SMITH: I'm sorry. I interrupted your question. I apologise.

SENATOR BOB BROWN: You did, Mr Smith.

No need to mention that in the ABC report, Sir David was not referred to with his title.

Hear, hear!

The Age succeeded in surprising me today:

"But a republic is not inevitable. It won't happen unless it is kept on the national political agenda, and the major parties — both of which are now led by avowed republicans — should support Senator Brown's bill."

The Age will do everything to keep republicanism alive and soon return to its usual mantra of some inevitability to replace our Australian Monarchy with "a" republic.

Interestingly The Age commented in its editorial yesterday's Finance and Public Administration Committee's hearing of the inquiry into a plebiscite for "an" Australian republic Bill, but it reported nothing of the hearing.

It could have done so like the ABC that picked up odd bits and pieces of various statements, but a good newspaper would have given a full report of the pros and cons that were brought forward.

We Age readers really missed out highlights like this: Sarah Brasch, who represented Women for an Australian republic triumphantly announced that finally 43 percent of Australian women supported "a" republic. 43 percent!! Hardly the overwhelming majority, that is usually claimed by The Age and likeminded republican politicians.

Why did The Age fail - again - to do its job?

Australian Cries

You could expect another republican push for Australia Day. After all, republicans – Australian republicans in particular – are so predictable. They use our public holidays to raise their voices. 2009 is no exception.

But sometimes they overdo their propaganda. Take for example Australian Republic Movement chairman Michael Keating who claimed in The Canberra Times “the country was ’crying out for leadership’ on the subject, and urged Mr. Rudd to commit to a process and timetable to pursue the issue.”

I don’t know, where Michael Keating lives, but in my home, people cry out for a reliable train service, they want a public transport worth that name and that does not hand over the profit to private contractors and leaves the patrons stranded on platforms; they cry for a better water management and they cry out against the desalination plant and the North-South pipeline through the Victorian countryside, but that seem to be secondary topics for the Greens. They cry for action against climate change and against the ridiculously low and inadequate 5% target, Kevin Rudd wants to achieve by 2020. But what is the threat to mankind caused by the climate change to the desire to have a politicians republic?

There are many political topics in Australia that need more attention, however Green Senator Bob Brown puts his emphasis on “a” republic: "Australia Day long weekend is the perfect opportunity for the Prime Minister to commit to building cross-party support for a vote on a plebiscite," Senator Brown said yesterday according to The Canberra Times.

I cry that our politicians cannot set their priorities straight.

Brown, Republican
As a republican Senator Bob Brown knows how to use symbols. He launched his latest initiative to enforce a vote on whether Australia should be a Constitutional Monarchy or “a” republic on 11th November, hence on the 33rd anniversary of Governor-General Sir John Kerr’s dismissal of the Whitlam government. Republicans love to see the 11th November 1975 as their starting point. But their marathon run is far from close to the finish.

“Greens Senator Bob Brown will today introduce legislation to enable a vote at the next federal election on whether Australia should become a republic", reported the ABC from the nation’s second chamber. "’This is a bill to have a plebiscite with the next election in 2010 to ask people whether they want a republic - yes or no,’ he said” according to the ABC. Neither Senator Brown nor the ABC said that the so-called plebiscite has no meaning at all. The only way to change the Australian Constitution is a referendum with a majority of the popular vote as well as the majority of the states approving the change.

Bob Brown certainly has merits and on other topics I agree with him, but I would appreciate if he and the Greens would concentrate on more important issues, like the climate change, a better use of water, a functioning public transport system worth this name, the avoidance and re-use of waste etc. Aren’t these fields not wide and challenging enough? If these issues are dear to you, wouldn't you look for like-minded allies?

"This is a thing about values and how we value our nation,” Brown said. Has he spared a moment about the values of the Constitutional Monarchy? Has he thought about the good examples members of the Australian Royal Family set? I am sure, he and Prince Charles have many things in common and they could enjoy long discussions on all subjects that are dear to the green soul. The whole nature of Monarchy is about endurance and sustainability. The Monarchy leads back many generations and encourages to think in generations to come, and not only to the next election day.

I am not afraid of the peope’s vote, I am angry that once again money should be spent on “a” republic, while the money could be spent for far better projects, especially in environmental hot spots. The republic discussion diverts the attention from these important issues.

I would very much like to know, what the Aussie republicans will do, when the Australian people will once again say NO! to their plans. Will they give in or will they push for more votes until their aim is achieved?

It is a pity the republicans force the tax payer to finance their ambitions, but after all, that’s exactly, what politicians always do: Spend our money. The Queen of Australia doesn’t cost the Australian taxpayer a cent. The next NO! to the politicians republic should settle the matter.

Let’s come back to the symbol of 11th November. It was also Armistice Day in 1918 and marked the defeat of Germany and her allies. Could be a symbol you aren’t after, Bob.