A sensible debate about the benefits and value to Australia of retaining the Queen/King of England 279



View Profile

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.

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?

Kevin Latta

Kevin Latta is a retired Starts at 60 Community member. An accountant by training, he has been a CPA 40 year pin, so I has been involved in finance for some time.

  1. We dont need them. Look at what they did in the first and 2nd world wars

    7 REPLY
    • No used our soldiers as canon fodder in ww1 and triedto stop our government from bringing the AIF back to stop the Japs in WW11 so why should we be paying for them

    • getting their hands dirty ..oohh poor deluded monarchists …a 10 min photo opportunity for Elizabeth ..her grandchildren follow her example ……

    • The Prime Minister sends British troops to war. Royalty didn’t. and can’t since centuries ago. The elected Maggie Thatcher sent troops to a little island off Argentina. Not Queen Elizabeth.

  2. I do not see any value, whatsoever, in retaining the Queen as our head of State – quite the opposite, actually.

    17 REPLY
    • I prefer the Westminster system to the American system. So if that means retaining the Queen as our head of State, so be it.

      How is “bringing on a Republic” göing to better how we do things now?

    • Why Victoria? What benefit would it bring? God help us if we do become like the USA, who incidentally, love the British Monarchy and also travel to Australia when the Royals are visiting. Some of you are very short sighted as to the implications of becoming a Republic. I have not seen one decent reason so far why we should do so.

    • Judy bringing on a Republic would for starters stop the annual costs related to the upkeep of the monarchy that ALL Commonwealth countries are obliged to pay. Our share is millions annually & something Govts. Don’t like to talk about

    • Also Christa there are more than one type of a Republic & people would have to stupid to have the Yank system.

    • Value in President Rudd. President Gillard etc plus paying for all past presidents for the rest of their lives plus expenses .No value in them at all .The Royal family cost Australia What exactly .Think it could be Voted on in a Referendum when our Current Queen has died and decide if we want Charles and Camilla .

      1 REPLY
      • pay for ex prime ministers and parliamentarians

    • Well, Christa, there are numerous reasons for a Republic. One being that the monarchy is an undemocratic and outdated institution, another is that it is completely unacceptable to have a head of state that is not only in a different country, but even in a different part of the world – as far removed from Australia that she can possibly be.

    • There is no need to compare to the USA – a lot of very progressive and efficient countries are republics, look at France, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Singapore, Austria etc. etc.

    • Murray Hastie we do NOT pay anything to the Monarchy – Australians do not pay any money to the Queen, either for personal income or to support the royal residences outside Australia. Only when the Queen is in Australia, or acting abroad as Queen of Australia, does the Australian government support her in the performance of her duties. This rule applies equally to other members of the Royal Family. Usually the Queen’s Australian governments pay only for the costs associated with the governor-general and governors in their exercising of the powers of the Crown on behalf of the Queen, including travel, security, residences, offices and ceremonial occasions.

    • Berndt, what are the perceived benefits – and or negatives of becoming a republic? You say we should become a republic, but offer no detail?

    • So, Australia is paying. It’s paying a.o. for each governor (one in each state !) as well as the governor general. Also, Australia is paying not only for the Queen, when she is in OZ, but for her entire family, when they decide to visit.

    • First of all, Ian, we would have a head of state that is Australian. Not a foreigner that has no qualifications, except for being born into office. Secondly, we would sever our ties to our former colonial masters. Thirdly, we would avoid any interference in Australian affairs from the Royal family. Ofc, if you do not think that Australia and Australians are mature enough to stand on our own feet, then you should remain loyal to the monarchy.

    • Sadly, not many years ago the English Queen saw it fit to remove the Australian Govt. elected by the Australian people. In my opinion, this was a very sad chapter in Australian history. I would not want to see a repeat of that and actually am astonished that the Australian people accepted the interference.

    • We will still have State Governors if and when we become a republic unless there is a complete change in our system of govt from top to bottom and I don’t see that happening so the cost will be the same there.

  3. Exactly.what are the benefits to australia in having the royal family as our head of state. This is the question get rid of the sentiment and start thinking with your heads not hearts.

    2 REPLY
    • Think with your financial head. Get rid of chest beating, flag waving republican sentiment and realize that financially we are better off with a head of state who don’t interfere and don’t cost much.

  4. get rid of betty and phil the greek, this rubbish is out dated, then start on govenors and gg,s as well

    4 REPLY
    • What a great idea maybe we could have Keating, Rudd, Guliar or Shortarse as President wouldn’t that be lovely NOT. The system we have now is not broken so why try and fix it with all the expense it would involve. The Americans would love to have a Royal Family, they don’t have one and that is why they turn their film stars into sudo royalty

      1 REPLY
      • Exactly Peter!! The yanks would give their eye teeth to have a Royal Family, they love it when the royals visit. Another thing is that almost every country that has a President or such all end up having trouble – civil wars, etc. We are going along nicely as we are, it would cost a lot more to change things anyway, if it is not broken don’t try mending it.

  5. Good article. Time to move on to Republic status.

    4 REPLY
    • Reasons please! Not just a useless statement.
      List the benefits of being more like the US than Canada!!!

    • A one sided article is not good. Where was the calculation of the extra expenses we’ll have to find to fund a president or whatever the replacement will be called.

    • What do the Royal family have to do with Australia in the 21st century? Since the passing of The Australia Act (Cth) 1986 the UK can no longer pass laws affecting this country, the Privy Council is no longer the highest court for Australian legal outcomes and the loophole that saw the dismissal of lawfully elected government needs to be closed. We pay for the Royal family to visit this country – to what end? A chance for monarchists to wave the flag and worship at the feet of what is, for this country, an anachronistic over-privileged family. I’m not advocating the abolition of the Royal family in Britain, and I certainly respect what they do in their own country, but the trade/economic ties are no longer there, and our population has changed and evolved over the past couple of hundred years and is no longer of predominantly of British extraction. Look at Britain’s treatment of Australia in both World Wars. They were more than happy to see us send our troops to defend them, but did very little when Australia was under attack. I’m not a particular fan of the US, but without them in the fight in the Pacific we would have been in serious trouble. I believe we should be our own country, not still a colonial outpost. The days of the Empire are gone, as are the days of the Raj, it is time to move on Christa Caldecott and Judy Kennedy. Perhaps the extra expense could be funded out of what we save with the demise of the post of Governor-General Leone O’Sullivan, and the cost of useless Royal Tours. Why don’t you all explain why we should keep the Royal family, what they actually do for this country and exactly why Australia can’t live without them.

      1 REPLY
      • I agree with most of what you are saying but I would like to point out that the USA is out to only further and protect its own interests. If the Japanese hadn’t been so stupid as to invade Hawaii there is no way that the USA would have gotten involved in the Pacific war.

  6. Over these sort of posts. Just ends up in a shit fight between everyone. Can’t be bothered reading them anymore. Got better things to do.

  7. I absolutely agree.

    1 REPLY
    • The very idea that someone is automatically elevated to the highest position in the country simply by being descended from someone who had a bigger army than his opponent is an anethma to everything Australian.

      That that person is a foreigner who lives on the other side of the world, who openly supports England against Australia in sporting contests makes it even worse.

      The references to the USAs are irrelevant. No one is seriously proposing Australia adopt their dysfunctional horse and buggy system

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *