VCs in Vietnam
Sir: Mr Skeffington-Lodge (Letters, 2 May) argues that the Queen should not have pre- sented or awarded vcs to Australian soldiers for gallantry in Vietnam. I find myself in the odd position of being an Australian citizen who is appalled and ashamed by his govern- ment's Vietnam policy, but who must take issue with cavil at these awards.
The first point is that gallantry is inde- pendent of–the political circumstances sur- rounding the war or conflict in which it occurs. The second is that Her Majesty is Queen of Australia and in Australian matters is advised by her Australian ministers: that is secured by the Statute of Westminster as well as accepted practice.
The fact that decorations and honours awarded in Australia are UK ones arises for historical reasons and does not alter the con- stitutional responsibility. If, as Mr Skeffing- ton-Lodge urges, the British government were to attempt to inhibit the Queen's perforin- ance of her Australian duties this would be a serious constitutional breach. It would also be a most ironical form of neo-colonialism in reverse!
Nor could I believe that Mr Skeffington- Lodge would argue that a prisoner ought not to be given an award for gallantry in a gaol fire, just because (for argument's sake) it had been started by one of his fellow inmates.
Previous page
