He says republicans have had to contend with three things. First, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s reintroduction of Knights and Dames.
Second, the highly successful visit by what he names as the royal family’s "new glamour couple'' the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and of course baby Prince George, dubbed charmingly by one television presenter as ''His Royal Cuteness''.
...they never had the young in the bag...
But all this, he says, pales into insignificance beside the ''recent'' finding that young people are abandoning the cause. He says this puts paid to the old adage that a republic is inevitable.
Professor Williams must have actually believed the old furphy that republicans had time on their side, and only had to wait until, as former Senator Susan Ryan put it, monarchists ''drop off their stick''. Or as former attorney general Nicola Roxon, put it, "no new monarchists are being born.''
The present Director of the Australian Republican Movement, David Morris, living in his own dream world, recently shouted down our Executive Director on 3AW to claim that every poll in the last 30 years had shown that the young are the most monarchists.
Although I have been writing about this for many years, Professor Williams, Senator Ryan, Nicola Roxon and now David Morris have taken no notice of the facts.
Whenever a poll breaks up respondents into age groups, this usually shows that the middle aged and not the young are more republican
And no matter how much republicans may have fixed up the curriculum, and pushed move into some form of politicians republic in education, it hasn't worked. And it never worked.
..and who is to blame for the republican debacle? ...
ACM does not agree that "'You can’t be second in line to the throne and not expect to be photographed,'' as the Australian Monarchist League argues.
Nor do we agree that because the photographs and videos have been published we should.
Otherwise it can be argued that the Royal Family is open game for the media, as one prominent privacy expert once argued to our national convenor. That argument is strengthened if some monarchists are seen as going along with it. The Australian Monarchist League should rethink this.
Everyone is entitled to their privacy, and the Duke and Duchess were entitled to be free from invasive telescopic lens where they assumed that they were in private.
The fact that the pictures are charming has nothing to do with it. The Australian Monarchist League, who had published several of the offending photographs on their Facebook page, should re-think their position.
In the meantime The Times in London reports that the Australian media has been accused of invading the privacy of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge' after pictures were published showing the couple walking in the garden of the governor-general's residence in Canberra.
In accordance with ACM's policy to respect the privacy of our Royal Family, in the link below we have deleted an offending albeit nice photograph of the Duchess and the baby Prince and inserted one of Yarralumla.
Photographs and videos have appeared today in the media showing Prince William, Catherine and Prince George enjoying some obviously private moments in the grounds of Government house, perhaps taken with telescopic lens.
Unless and until we are assured that these are authorised by the Royal Family we shall not be showing them on our Facebook page or here.
ACM believes that the Royal Family is as much entitled to privacy as other people.
ACM calls on not only monarchists but all media to respect their privacy.
What is going on at republican HQ? Why are they inventing a series of untruths - three so far?
It all began when republican leader David Morris shouted down Jai Martinkovits, ACM's executive director on Melbourne radio station 3AW.
Morris claimed all polls for past 30 years had shown the nation's youth are the most republican of all.
This is palpably untrue. We have published a selection of 15 polls which confirm this. Particularly embarrassing for David Morris and the republican movement is that one of these is from the very company, UMR, from which they have commissioned their own polls.
.... the second untruth...
Now in a desperate attempt to revive the flagging republican, the republican movement's David Morris has gone to the media claiming first the 1999 republican process was rushed.
Rushed? It took seven years, with the ARM allowed to freely chose the model. The actual referendum question was approved by a parliament at least two thirds of whom were republicans.
To date, there have been 12 major votes and inquiries into how to turn Australia into a politicians' republic. All have been paid for by the taxpayer, 11 wholly so.
If this is rushed, then it is awful to imagine what they have in mind. Are we going to have our politicians tied up for say two decades trying to work out some sort of a politicians republic which satisfies the ARM. Remember that the present time they can't even tell Australians precisely what they want.
...the third untruth – a whopper...
More importantly he claimed to Channel 9's Today programme that the national anthem was under threat. Once he was interviewed by Cameron Williams on air he back pedalled but then claimed "'We had to fight for our national anthem" against monarchist resistance.
This is an invention.
While a National flag was seen as immediately necessary at Federation , Australians used God Save The Queen for formal occasions and a selection of patriotic songs on other occasions. It was a pretty informal arrangement, an understanding or a convention.
Unlike the need for a National Flag, Australians generally did not see the need for a separate anthem until the seventies, probably because of the televising of the Olympics and other sporting occasions.
Radio Australia reported that the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott's decision to reintroduce the official honours of Knight and Dame for pre-eminent Australians was mocked by the opposition Labor party and the Republican movement. But Tony Abb.ott's surprise announcement was celebrated by monarchists.
This report is by Simon Lauder and includes speech and comment from the following :-
Tony Abbott, Prime Minister; Sam Dastyari, Opposition Senator; Kelvin Thomson, Opposition backbencher; Senator George Brandis, Liberal frontbencher; David Morris, National Director, Australian Republican Movement; and Professor David Flint, National Convenor, Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy
The mainline media presented a near unanimous line on the awards to the present and former Governors- General, just as the great General Sir John Monash was recognized on the battlefield. Threatening that he would be damaged, they greeted the awards with ridicule.
They missed the fundamental fact that Bob Hawke's blunder had been finally fixed up.
In this piece first published in Quadrant Professor David Flint explains.
It was predictable that the commentariat and the republican politicians would deplore the restoration of knighthoods. The plaintive, almost anguished, cry of ”Why? ” as Tony Abbott concluded his press conference said it all.
Reflecting the narrow, left-oriented world in which they live, commentators both deplored and ridiculed it. That reaction was entirely predictable.
[ General Sir John Monash knighted by HM King George V ]
The real surprise was that so many eye-rolling members of the press corps came to the immediate conclusion that Abbott’s decision would damage him politically, perhaps even inflicting major harm on the Prime Minister’s standing with the voting public. The April Essential Poll soon corrected that, revealing only 21% of voters strongly disapprove the restoration. That meagre figure emerged even after the commentariat had gone overboard in condemning the move. It needs no closer examination of the polling data to confidently assume that the critics and naysayers would never, ever vote for Abbott come hell or high water.
The commentariat had made the mistake of thinking the rank-and-file Australian has similar interests and concerns to those who dwell in inner-city enclaves dominated by groupthink and fashionable opinion. Instead of taking an ideological position on the restoration, commentators should have objectively examined what Abbott had done, which was to have rectified an anomaly.
...Hawke's blunder - and the commentariat didn't even notice...