Apart from his heavy dose of paternalism, volunteers advise they were not consulted and are worried that the support they provided has been ripped out of the Ashmont community with no notice to anyone, least of all the vulnerable people the society purports to support.

Reverse this shortsighted decision and reopen Ashmont Vinnies.

May I comment on Jacqueline Maley’s column in The Daily Advertiser on August 5 on the Queen, the Royal family and the republic push for Australia?

It is very interesting how people recall the events of August, 1997, when Diana died.

My most enduring memory is of the British press harping on every day, “why isn’t the Queen here, in London?”

It seemed that the British public and the media were the most important matters in Diana’s death.

Where was the Queen? At Balmoral in Scotland, along with her two small grandsons.

And she stayed there for them, where any grandparent would be under such circumstances. 

Maley sees the Royal family as cold, unfeeling people dragging these small lads out for the public to drool over. Well, that was what the media wanted, after all. 

Maley then moves onto the Common Market, (EU now), and conflates Boris Johnson’s visit and offhand comments with the effects on Australia of the UK entering the Common Market in the 1970’s.

The British decision to join the EU had huge repercussions for New Zealand and Australia in particular.

They had been major suppliers of dairy, fruit and vegetables to Britain for many years.

Joining the EU wiped those valuable markets literally and physically off the map, and it took many years for the two countries to build alternate markets across the world. 

Next she turns to the Whitlam dismissal, and the fact that his son is trying to get documents released regarding the Queen’s involvement.

There is a subtle comment about young Whitlam being a QC (Queens Counsel) but seeing the holder of such a position in NSW can choose to be a QC or a SC (Senior Counsel), and he has chosen QC, what should the reader thus infer?

So, after 42 years, we should have this material, she claims.

Why? Has there not already been enough hash and rehash on the topic? Apparently not. 

Finally she has a swipe at the Australian constitution, where to be a Member of Parliament you must be an Australian citizen.

Given that dual citizenship is permissible in Australia, and we are always spruiking about multiculturalism, it was inevitable that these situations would arise. But what has this to do with a republic?

Then we have a complaint about how can anyone demonstrate their “Australian-ness” to satisfy authorities to allow applicants citizenship.

According to Maley, we have no reason to request applicants to meet some basic requirements to be entitled to this prize, because she cannot see any way to evaluate an application.

Well, why can’t we try?

Don’t we need some basic standards to be a citizen of any country?  

And what the blazes does that have to do with Australia becoming a republic?