Our perspicacious foreign minister might have sent the lad over there to stir an insurrection against the arrogance of the incumbent Bishop of Rome. Chose him to assist in lifting the lid on the closed shop; foster action by the many there who crave some modern enlightenment in that disparate non-democratic, non-UN-member state.

More importantly, perhaps, why are we spending taxpayers' money on sending any representative at all to a 'state' with an area of 44 hectares and a population of 800? Especially since that state has demonstrated it is impervious to reason and diplomacy, and devoted itself to the financial and sexual exploitation of thousands of people all over the world -- including Australia?

Do we really need to maintain this expensive retirement home amongst the sodality for party allies whose domestic services are no longer required? Can anyone name any benefit, no matter how slight, provided to Australia by the sojurns at the Vatican of Amanda Vanstone or Two-Minute Tim?

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't and largely irrelevant argument? Like somebody actually gives a flying French fur-burger, who or what gets appointed to ambassadorial positions. Its entirely the current govt's call! Just as long as the appointees appear to be accomplished convincing, straight faced, tea sipping, always smiling purveyors of horse feathers or birds fur?
Which arguably, I believe, is the first of many similar requirements? Is Craig Thomson a committed Catholic? Herman Goring apparently was? Rhrosty.

perhaps we should be asking whether australia's recognition of the vatican as a 'state' is the problem! the vatican in its fundamental principles offends against sex/gender equality, equal rights, etc as too often shown in its voting pattern at the un.

the status of the vatican as a voting member of the un is not simply problematic. it is wrong. why, if the vatican has this status, does not (for example) mecca? the un should not give imprimartur to any religion over another and indeed should extend it to none at all. a perusal of voting by the vatican at various un fora and its 'performance' at un csw 56 raise serious questoins as of course does the un giving membership to a collection of people (all male) around a 'leader' - always male (no pope joans wanted), which runs directly counter to all un charters, conventions, covenants, etc on equal rights.

Whilst I agree, Jon J, you did ask, and I couldn't resist answering…

"Can anyone name any benefit, no matter how slight, provided to Australia by the sojurns at the Vatican of Amanda Vanstone or Two-Minute Tim?"

Yes.

They weren't here.

Well said. I agree, though, with Jocelynne. The whole idea of having an ambassador to the Vatican is based on a myth: that it is a valid sovereign state (see Geoffrey Robertson's 'The Case of the Pope'). There are other reasons for rejecting spending taxpayers' money on an ambassador. For example, the Government compromises its secular nature by having a special alliance between our Government and a religion of any sort (the diplomatic relationship will presumably not revolve around trade, or defense, or other civil matters: it will at least overwhelmingly deal with the church's interest in morality. Further, the Vatican has a dubious approach to human rights and the handling of child abuse complaints. Read my expansion of these points at:
http://meg-wallace.blogspot.com.au/.