The only item raised from the floor in our recent Riverine Club AGM was this. Some chap put his hand up. Our president, Mr Brockhouse, recognised him and sought out his query more fully:

Member:Mr President, sir, I wish to raise a matter about the reading room. I don't know where to start. If you or any other members have been in the reading room of late.
Brocky:Yes?
Member:It's her majesty.
Brocky:Yes. There's a portrait in there.
Member:Well, and I think all other members will agree, that it's disgraceful that her majesty's portrait should hang in the manner it is.
Brocky:Sorry?
Member:The portrait of her majesty is hanging disrespectfully low.
Brocky:Oh. I see.
Member:And her majesty's late father is in a higher position.
Brocky:I see. Probably not by much though.
Member:By at least a couple of inches.
Brocky:I see. Yes come to think of it, it is. Also, the late King is in a larger frame in the reading room I believe. But you will agree that in other places of this fine old building, there are other great portraits of her majesty around the place which hang respectfully high enough, as they're on their own. They I'm sure will more than make up for it.
Member:Perhaps the club can doing something about it?
Brocky:Yes, I will write to her majesty forwith and seek her opinion on the subject....is there any other business?

There, was none.

(cont.below)

Admittedly, things aren't too bad when the only concern is to bitch about the height of a pickie that no-one really cares about. Perhaps a cheaper mind might argue that that's a metaphor for Australia but I shan't be so trite. I went into the reading room for the first time following the AGM and Ms Elizabeth Windsor's pickie was as he'd described, slightly lower than the late king's. However, I suspect the picture rail hadn't been bothered since her majesty's coronation, bar the dusting.

That said, when we become a republic, along whichever model, the portraits of past royalty would continue to hang in the reading room.

I don't believe it's treasonous to the point of being stoned to death in the square to plainly point out that a lot of gentlemen here think an Australian Republic'd do a lot for the spirit of the place and bugger the piss-weak too-much-money argument.

Frankly though, I really don't see what it has to do with Mr Rudd.

Nor even you, Mr Flint.

Simon Bedak
"Lorraine"
Wagga Wagga NSW 2650

It has not been Mr. Rudd who has put their foot in it. Mr. Flint is suggesting in theory what the Coalition is now doing in practice. The Coalition has moved into the NT without any consultation, the same happened with the Mersey Hospital in Tasmania. It is hardly surprising that in Tasmania they have received a less than friendly reception. it amounts to poor practice within a Commonwealth.

If anything the situation is worse now at the Mersey Hospital. The AMA has been very critical of the Coalition in regard to this issue.
There appears to be a process of transference going on; in other words, look very closely at the Coalition in relation what they blame Labor for, as it is likely the Coalition is doing exactly that.
Interest rates and poor management are two examples.

Read all about how the collective Federal and State Parliaments can amend the Australian Constitution without a referendum at:

http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/const_safe.html

Sovereignty of the people does not exist in Australia!

Foolish person! wishful thinking is rarely rewarded!
Lies such as these are part of the reason Rudd is about to become Prime Minister.
Answer me this, why are the workchoice adds so filled with lies, targeting the ALP in such a way it highlights a weakness in conservative thinking twice.
Lies is one and the fact work choices concerns more people than it comforts.

The referendum question was set by the Constitutional Convention. The republicans thought that was the one which had the most chance of winning. It lost.