A sensible debate about the benefits and value to Australia of retaining the Queen/King of England

Rather than debating the value of royal visits from Prince Harry and other royals, we should be having a sensible debate about the benefits and value to Australia of retaining the Queen/King of England as our Head of State.  

Today Will, Kate and their two children are the poster couple of the British Royal family. They are a loving caring couple and excellent parents, I know that for a fact because that is the carefully crafted media image we are being fed, what they are really like, I like the rest of us have no idea.

Are we happy that the King of Australia must be a member of the Church of England?

Another unpleasant fact is that Will when he becomes King of England will automatically become King of Australia, with all the reserve powers invested in by an act of the British Parliament dated 9th July 1900, which we in Australia call, The Australian Constitution, in the mistaken believe that it was written by Australians for the benefit of all Australian citizens, when in fact it was a British document aimed at giving limited power to the Australian Commonwealth Government and most importantly to protect British commercial interest in the colony of Australia.

William, should he become King of Australia, will acquire the right to appoint and dismiss an elected Prime Minister of Australia. Many people might say today the events of 1972 could never happen again, the ruling monarch just rubber stamps the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the elected parliament, this is probably true therefore I suggest Australia buys a good quality rubber stamp to be used on all official occasions and saves the cost of supporting British Royalty.

Ad. Article continues below.

In 1901 at Federation Australia was very much a British Colony, our currency was the British Pound Sterling, therefore the local economy was just an extension of the British Economy. It was not until 1910 that Australia started to mint its own coins and 1913 until Australian notes were produced. During the great depression of the 1930s the Bank of England had a major influence of Australian monetary policy with them  looking after British commercial interests at the expense of the Australian economy. It was not until the 1950s that the Commonwealth Bank took over the Central Bank function for Australia. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) was formed in 1960. Therefore by 1960 Australia had become of age our monetary policy was completely independent of the UK.

Up until the British entering the European Union in 1973, there were Commonwealth trade preferences. Therefore any special trade arrangements came to an end in 1973.

In 1901 Australia was protected by the British Navy. In 1913 Australia acquired its own fleet, but it was still commanded by British officers and in reality during World War I the Australian Fleet was a squadron on the British Navy.

After the fall of Singapore in 1942 any illusion Australians might have had that being part of the British Empire gave Australia a defence umbrella was totally shatters, in 1942 Australia in a military sense was very much on its own, the USA not the UK provided the resources to defend Australia.

In the constitution of 1901 the British made the British Privy Council the Highest Court, this was done to insure no colonial government and or court made or upheld laws that were detrimental to British Commercial interests. In 1975 the right of the British Privy Council to over-rule the High Court of Australia was abolished.

In 1901, at the time of Federation, Australia was very much an integral part of the British Empire with strong financial, economic, legal and military ties, but 100 years later those ties are gone.

Do you agree with Kevin?