Australian Republic Constitution
Australian Flag News Get Involved! Events Resources
Main Menu
ACM Home
About ACM
ACM News
Anthems
Afghan Court Martial
Book Reviews
The Commonwealth
Contact ACM
Convenor's Column
Constitutional Monarchies and Republics Compared
Constitutional Monarchy in the Muslim World
Cost of Republicanism to the Taxpayer
Crowned Republic
Diamond Jubilee 2012
Event News
Federalism and the Mining Tax
Fiji
Flag: Keep The Flag
Governor of New South Wales
Head of State
Keating-Turnbull Republic: The Nineties
Knights & Dames
Latest News and Opinions
Links
Mate for a Head of State
Media and monarchy
Nile Inquiry
Opinion Polling
Orthodoxy and Monarchy
People's Republic?
Plebiscites
Prince Andrew
Prince Charles
Prince Harry
Prince Philip
Prince William & Catherine
Prince William In Australia
Prince William: The Early Years
Racist Republic?
Reserve Powers of the Crown
Resources
Return the Governor
Royal Commissions
Royal Finances
Self Funded Monarchy
Royal Yacht Britannia
The Succession
2020 Summit
Join our Mailing List
See our selection of videos from across the world:-
ACM Videos
AussieCrownTV - ACM's own TV channel:
Aussie Crown TV
Follow ACM on Facebook:
Facebook
Self Funded Monarchy
Self Funded Monarchy
Royal Finances
Royal Finances
Diamond Jubilee 2012
Diamond Jubilee 2012
Head of State
Prince Philip
Prince Philip
Special Caribbean Report: Crown & Commonwealth

      Crown

The Commonwealth
The Commonwealth
Prince Harry
Prince Harry
Prince Andrew
Prince Andrew
Knights & Dames
Knights & Dames
The King's Speech: read the book, see the film.

The King's Speech

Watch the 2010 Neville Bonner Oration: Tony Abbott.
Tony Abbott
Nile Inquiry
Royal Commissions
Royal Commissions
Opinion Polls

 

Plebiscites
Plebiscites
2020 Summit
2020 Summit
Orthodoxy & Monarchy
Orthodoxy & Monarchy
Afghan Court Martial
Constitutional Monarchy in the Muslim World
Constitutional Monarchy in the Muslim World
Mate for a Head of State
Mate for a Head of State
Racist Republic?
Racist Republic
A People's Republic?
A People's republic?
Keating Turnbull Republic: The Nineties
The Keating Turnbull Republic
Crowned Republic
Crowned Republic
Polls
Republicans' Best Asset?
Is David Flint ( National Convenor since 1998) the republicans best asset, as some claim?
ACM Home arrow Royal Finances

Royal Finances
Royal Finances

 

Our self funded monarchy


This column has long argued –  for many years we were alone - that The Queen and the Royal Family represent an extraordinary bargain for each of the sixteen realms over which The Queen reigns and for all of the countries which are members of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is Head.

Long presented by republicans as a drain on the taxpayers, the truth is this.  Not only is the Royal Family entirely self funding -they  actually produce a profit for the British taxpayer. The Queen is effectively paying taxes to the UK government at the extraordinary rate of 85%.  

This  benefit to the British Treasury and indeed the Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and other Treasuries, is quite apart from their tourist and promotional potential.

As for Australia, nothing  - not a cent - has ever been paid to The Queen or any of the other members of our Royal Family. There is no salary, commission, or fees. We pay no superannuation, and there is no golden handshake. The same is true of Canada, New Zealand and the twelve other Realms.


The Queen and no member of the Royal Family receive any personal salary as, for example Presidents typically do.

Nor is there any provision for a pension or superannuation. (Incidentally, King Charles II magnanimously awarded a pension to Mrs. Cromwell, the widow of Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell as dictator during the republic had murdered his father after a mock trial.)

 In fact the Queen does not retire; and abdication merely because of old age or convenience is ruled out.

In a desperate attempt to show some substantial taxpayer outlays, costs which are going to be incurred anyway, such as security are charged to visits, often on an inflated basis. Of course announcing this is in itself a serious security breach as it informs terrorists and others, but that does not seem to stand in the way of those with a political agenda. 

At the time of the Royal Wedding in 2011, some republican commentators were attributing the cost of a public holiday to the Royal Family. The decision to call a holiday was the government's not The Queen's.

Apart from inappropriate and exaggerated attribution of "costs" to the Royal Family, we have also pointed out the fact that the British government and Parliament have failed lamentably to fulfil their side of an agreement made with The Queen at the beginning of her reign.





...Civil List...  




Because so many fail to appreciate these facts we repeat: The Queen does not receive a personal salary or pension as presidents do.

Until April 2012, a return of some – some- of the Crown's income were made to The Queen through the  UK civil list and grants in aid. These were to maintain the official residences, and to pay the staff, the entertainment, and ceremonial and other functions head of state functions in the United Kingdom.

The Civil List and other grants-in-aid involved the government giving back a relatively small portion of The Queen’s money. The government kept the rest.  
This convention began in 1760. It was agreed then that the costs of the Crown would be paid from the Crown Estate and certain other hereditary revenues which would be handed over to Parliament.

From that time the practice developed of the Sovereign agreeing at the beginning of his or her reign to hand over these revenues during his or her reign to the Parliament in return for a Civil List.

In return Parliament would provide sufficient funds to allow The Queen to fund her state functions.




...a bargain..




This has proved to be a bargain, at least in the present reign.  But for decades the British politicians failed miserably to perform their side of the agreement. Notwithstanding inflation, the Civil List was frozen for about twenty years.
None of the other Realms contributed. They do absorb some of the overheads relating to the time The Queen or a member of the Royal Family is in the relevant Realm, just as they do to their many foreign state visitors.

In Australia, these overheads have sometimes been  artificially inflated by creative accounting, probably for the purposes of creeping republicanism.( In New South Wales, Government House was even purloined by the politicians for use for purposes including partisan politics, at least between the years 1999-2011. To read more go to the  Main Menu and then to the section 
Return The Governor )

Unwisely, the attributed costs of providing security have sometimes been revealed. This is a dangerous practice as it reveals what security is normally provided, something which for elementary reasons should not be made public. A protest by ACM about this has been  considered by the government.


The fact is The Queen and our Royal Family provide a unique an extraordinary bargain. That they also attract tourist and other revenue is of course also a relevant consideration. This is not only in the United Kingdom. A Royal Visit to Australia, for example, can attract international attention.




...new British arrangements...

 

 

 ACM has long argued that the British arrangements should be reformed by all of the  income of the Crown Estate being  returned to The Queen, leaving it to Her Majesty to grant what is not needed in legitimate expenses to the British government. 

In April 2012 the arrangements for the funding of The Queen’s Official Duties were reformed . The new system of funding, referred to as the ‘Sovereign Grant’, replaces the Civil List and the three Grants-in-Aid (for Royal Travel, Communications and Information, and the Maintenance of the Royal Palaces) with a single, consolidated annual grant.

The Sovereign Grant is designed to be a more permanent arrangement than the old Civil List system, which was reign-specific. Funding for the Sovereign Grant comes from a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate revenue (initially set at 15%). The grant will be reviewed every five years by the Royal Trustees (the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse), and annual financial accounts will continue to be prepared and published by the Keeper of the Privy Purse.

 

The new system provides for the Royal Household to be subject to the same audit scrutiny as other government expenditure, via the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The former in ACM's view should not be mandatory,in that the choice of auditor should be left to The Queen. The latter in  ACM's view is entirely inappropriate, allowing unknown politicians to gain international status by grandstanding about the audited expenditure by the Crown of income of the Crown Estate.

In our view the allocation of the surplus of Crown Estate income remaining after covering state overheads should be a matter for determination by the Sovereign. There is for example a crying need to replace Britannia as a Royal Navy hospital ship and Royal Yacht. Those who know, recognize that  this was a tremendous investment for the foreign relations, international trade  and influence of  Britain and the Commonwealth. Why should not the Palace discuss the allocation of the Crown Estate surplus over time to achieve this desirable objective?    



 



Not only self funding, but producing a profit Print E-mail
Royal Finances
Written by Professor David Flint AM   
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Not only does the Royal family pay for itself – and provide a very handsome profit of around A350 million just this year to Her Majesty’ s UK government (“Royal Finances: Reform At Last “16/11), but it has now been officially confirmed that the UK profits enormously from the tourism attracted by the monarchy.

The economic benefit of a royal wedding, argues VisitBritain's chief executive, Sandie Dawe, is not to be sniffed at, according to a report from  Paola Totaro  in The Sydney Morning Herald  (20/11)

Image

The economic benefit of a royal wedding, argues VisitBritain's chief executive, Sandie Dawe, will be substantial.

'Their marriage in the spring or summer of 2011 could easily be the biggest broadcast event in history, with predictions that 4 billion people, three-quarters of the potential global TV audience, could watch the event.

''Our research shows that in a typical year Britain's monarchy generates, on the most conservative estimates, well over £500 million [$810 million] a year directly and indirectly from overseas tourists - but the benefit of a royal wedding year is likely to outstrip that.''

The visit to Australia  by Prince William produced world wide media attention far beyond the budget of our tourist authority.

 

.

 
Not only self funding, but producing a profit Print E-mail
Royal Finances
Written by Professor David Flint AM   
Monday, 29 November 2010
   
 
 
   
   
 
Not only does the Royal family pay for itself – and provide a very handsome profit of around A350 million just this year to Her Majesty’ s UK government (“Royal Finances: Reform At Last “16/11), but it has now been officially confirmed that the UK profits enormously from the tourism attracted by the monarchy.

The economic benefit of a royal wedding, argues VisitBritain's chief executive, Sandie Dawe, is not to be sniffed at, according to a report from  Paola Totaro  in The Sydney Morning Herald  (20/11)

Image

The economic benefit of a royal wedding, argues VisitBritain's chief executive, Sandie Dawe, will be substantial.

'Their marriage in the spring or summer of 2011 could easily be the biggest broadcast event in history, with predictions that 4 billion people, three-quarters of the potential global TV audience, could watch the event.

''Our research shows that in a typical year Britain's monarchy generates, on the most conservative estimates, well over £500 million [$810 million] a year directly and indirectly from overseas tourists - but the benefit of a royal wedding year is likely to outstrip that.''

The visit to Australia  by Prince William produced world wide media attention far beyond the budget of our tourist authority.

   
   
 




 
Royal Finances: Reform At Last Print E-mail
Royal Finances
Written by Professor David Flint AM   
Monday, 15 November 2010
As far as we know, this column was the first in the world to advance the argument publicly that the United Kingdom government was not fulfilling its side of the agreement with The Queen over her property, the Crown Estate.  We would be delighted to be corrected on that. We are even more delighted to learn that reform is in the air.

Republican politicians  and too many in the media  ignore the fact that  Her Majesty is not paid – as Queen of the United Kingdom, Head of The Commonwealth, Queen of Australia, nor indeed as Queen of Canada, New Zealand nor of the twelve other Realms.

According to some lawyers, from at least 1986 Her Majesty is also Queen of Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales.

Image
[ Not 'Taxpayer subsidy' but 'Queen's income returned' ]



She does not receive a personal salary or pension as presidents do. What is advanced is a return of some – some- of her income by way of a UK civil list and grants in aid. These are not a personal salary. They are  to maintain the official residences, and to pay the staff, the entertainment, and ceremonial and other functions head of state functions in the United Kingdom.

To repeat,  the Civil List involves the government giving back some of The Queen’s money. The government keeps the rest, well exceeding the grants in aid.
The reason is historical.   In 1760, the costs of the Crown were paid from the Crown Estate and certain other hereditary revenues. From that time the practice developed of the Sovereign agreeing to hand over these revenues during his or her reign to the Parliament in return for a Civil List.

In return Parliament would provide sufficient funds to allow The Queen to fund the British Head of State functions.
This has proved to be a bargain, at least in the present reign.  But for decades the British politicians have failed miserably to perform their side of the agreement. The Civil List has seen frozen for about twenty years.  

Just look at the graph below. But note that the amount 'Taxpayer subsidy' is a misnomer. It should be 'Queen's income returned'

 
  


As we observed here in 2009, if a private landlord behaved as the British government had, the politicians would call for action to be taken to punish them.




...what is to be done?
  



The usual suspects sometimes challenge me when I advance the proposition that the Crown Estate belongs to The Queen. She has surrendered the revenues during her reign, but in consideration of sufficient funds being made available for head of state activities including the proper maintenance of the buildings.

One of the greatest English constitutional authorities, FW Maitland asserted long ago that when the Prince of Wales comes to the throne he would be entitled to the revenue of the Crowned Estate unless and until he surrendered it.

 He was speaking about the future King George V, but the same principle applies today.

The Prince of Wales proposed in the late eighties that the income from the Crown Estate revert to the Sovereign. This is a very sensible solution. The Crown Estate remains the property of the Crown.  And while Royal heritage buildings crumble, and the Palace of Westminster was at least before the election mired in scandal, the politicians have introduced new rules which will allow them to claim up to £9,125 a year without producing any receipts.



...double standards...
 
Read more...
 
Republicans once again divided Print E-mail
Royal Finances
Written by Professor David Flint AM   
Sunday, 15 August 2010
   
 
 

Julia Gillard’s recent admission that another republican referendum is doomed has revived divisions among republicans (read a report of the Prime Minister’s remarks here). The leadership of the republican movement has let slip their plans to rein in much of the agenda of those who want the people to elect the president.

Image

 

[Robespierre executed after a coup by fellow republicans during the Reign of Terror under the first French republic ]

With the continuous polling and focus groups that political parties now undertake, Ms. Gillard has accepted that Australians are just not interested in a politicians’ republic.  They’re more than happy to stay with our tried and tested crowned republic, one of the world’s oldest and most stable.

[At the time of posting this, there were 174 comments on the ABC site where it originally appeared by invitation. Comments on that site may be made by clicking here]

...rogue poll...

 



As republican Professor Greg Craven has warned, another referendum is doomed to an even bigger defeat than the model overwhelmingly endorsed by the republicans at the 1998 Convention. Despite the strong support of most of the politicians and the media, that model failed in all states and 72% of electorates.

Polling trends clearly indicate support is significantly lower now, especially among the young (See Newspoll [PDF] for the trend). Republicanism and flag change are not matters of the slightest concern to the rank and file. The republican movement untruthfully claims 59% want a politicians' republic. But this is on the basis of one rogue poll miraculously produed for the 10th anniversary of the referendum.

This single poll goes against every other poll taken over the last few years. Every one of these indicates declining support for some vague undefined politicians' republic.

Ms. Gillard’s realism and Tony Abbott’s consistent support of our constitutional system have seriously disappointed the republicans. Their agenda since 1999 has been to hide the details of change while engaging in a series of distractions.

 



...flag change...

 

They even claim they now won’t touch the flag. But in the nineties they openly indicated their support for flag change. They even sponsored an exhibition of new flags which included one with a banner “F**** off back to Fagland.”  And as The Age argues, nobody thinks the flag won’t change under a republic, so why not change it now?




...attacks on Governor, William...



 

They gratuitously attack royalty and vice regal officers. The sour dismissal of Prince William’s private visit while on leave from the armed forces - "Why’s he coming here?” was a glaring example. Then there was their recent attack on Victorian Governor David de Kretser.

They have even revived their curious 1999 policy of telling ACM how to campaign. They’re now demanding I resign because I pointed to the unfortunate history of republicanism in Australia, tainted as it is by racism and treacherous Bolshevism.

 




...stunts instead of policy.. 

 

 

They have above all continued their policy of launching stunts designed by the spin doctors to attract media attention. These have included the campaign to have The Queen ”give back” Tom Roberts’ painting of the opening of the first federal parliament, which hangs on permanent loan in new parliament house.   Then there was the disastrous campaign designed by leading republicans, the Mate for a Head of State campaign.




...cost of republic....

 

 

They have also challenged the fact, long revealed by ACM, that the UK government makes a very handsome profit indeed from the Royal Family through the Crown Estate, that the monarchy attracts enormous tourist revenue, and that The Queen and members of the Royal Family receive nothing for their services to Australia, and certainly not the superannuation, golden handshakes and lifetime benefits their presidents, and vice presidents would be in line for.

More recently they have spent some effort disputing ACM’s calculations of the cost of constitutional change. But ACM’s calculations have included the costs of everything the republican movement has said is still being considered, including the costs of direct election of republican officials.

 





... divisions among republicans emerge...

 

 

In attacking the ACM’s quite reasonable calculations, the republican movement has revealed that much of what the direct elect republicans want is just not going to be allowed.

The movement has indicated that change to a republic in most states will be rammed through without the people being allowed a vote on it.

Actually, only in Queensland and Western Australia is the position of the Queen and Governor "entrenched' in their state Constitutions. Thus, only for those states would another vote be necessary after a federal referendum.

 But if they think they can get away with that, the republican bosses are certain to be disappointed.  The better opinion is that a referendum is necessary in almost all states. In fact one of the nation’s leading experts on state constitutions has declared that it would be inconceivable if a referendum were not to be held in each state.

Then they say the election of state governors is not going to be tolerated.  And if the election of the president is actually allowed, it is clearly going to be a half hearted affair with minimal funding.

The truth is, Australia will continue to have a system based on the British Westminster system and will have a non-Executive President, whichever method of appointment is chosen. Election costs for a non-Executive President, who has few powers, would be minimal. For an appointed President, there would be no campaign costs. And, as far as we are aware, no-one is suggesting State Governors would be elected, to suggest otherwise is simply deceitful.

Image





...walk out threatened at Convention...

 

 

The movement’s bosses must have obviously forgotten that it was only through the mediation of the ACM leader Justice Lloyd Waddy that the direct elect republicans didn’t walk out of the Constitutional Convention because of similar strong arm tactics by their predecessors. If that had happened they probably would not have had the first referendum.

ACM has carefully calculated the cost of change based on what the republican movement has said is still under consideration.  We were not to know that the movement had pulled the rug from under the direct elect republicans.

From that it seems the republicans are as divided as they always have been.

[At the time of posting this column, there were 174 comments on the ABC site, where it originally appeared by invitation. Comments on that site may be made by clicking here]

 

 




 
Benefits from the monarchy Print E-mail
Royal Finances
Written by Professor David Flint AM   
Friday, 30 July 2010

The monarchy not only subsidises the British taxpayer through the massive profit the government reaps from the Crown Estate – this year about $A350 million,  the British economy  benefits enormously through the generation of close to $A900 million a year in tourism. The monarchy also significantly benefits Australia and the other realms.


Image
[ More benefits from one visit than the annual tourism budget ]

According to a report from VisitBritain, 60% of tourists say they are likely to seek out places associated with the Royal Family or the monarchy.

In The Sydney Morning Herald of 29 July, 2010 Peter Woodman reports  that  The Tower of London was the top royal attraction for international visitors in 2009 with just under 2.4 million visitors - up 11 per cent on 2008.

The National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, south London, was second on 2.37 million, with the Victoria and Albert Museum in London third with 2.27 million visitors.

Buckingham Palace welcomed 402,000 visitors last year - a two per cent rise on the 2008 figure, while Windsor Castle visits rose 6.3 per cent to 987,000.


..Australia benfits too



In the meantime, all of the other fifteen realms, including Australia and New Zealand have the benefit of the many services of The Queen and members of the Royal Family without any subsidy to the Civil List. Indeed, as Professor Noel Cox indicated, Prince William’s opening of the new Supreme Court building in New Zealand generated a degree of international interest in the country that tourist officials would have pay a fortune to emulate.

The same is true of his visit to Australia. The advertising budget of the tourist office would have been more than exhausted to equal the attention given to his visit in the international media .

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh’s homecoming to Canada created similar attention around the world.

(You can see the videos on the visit by clicking on the icon “ACM videos” on the left of the front page of the ACM site).  

We pay them not a penny, the Prince fitting this in on recreation leave from the armed forces.




...politicians short changing Australia...

 

 

Australia governments and organizations unwisely do not seek to draw on the many international advantages which can clearly flow from Royal patronage, including the involvement of members of the Royal Family in functions overseas.

This is because our republican politicians and media take too much notice of the failed republican movement who can’t even tell the people what sort of politicians’ republic they want to foist on them.

This is an example of the obnoxious policy of creeping republicanism, which refuses to recognize the crucial fact that Australia can only become a politicians’ republic with the consent of the people.


 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>

Results 10 - 18 of 34
ROYAL VISIT 2014

Image

The Book Depository
Image
Image
Prince William: The Early Years
Prince Charles

Prince Charles

Constitutional Monarchies & Republics Compared

Image


Defend the Constitution and Flag
Australian Election Watch

10th Anniversary Neville Bonner Oration

11th Anniversary and Appeal

Crowned Republic 

   Keep The Australian Flag
Return the Governor to Government House
The Succession
The Succession
The Governor of New South Wales
Governor of New South Wales
Fiji
Fijian soldier
Media and Monarchy
Media and Monarchy
Royal Yacht Britannia
Royal Yacht Britannia
Republic Audit: Costs of Republic
Republic Audit: Costs of Republic
Reserve Powers of the Crown
Events
October 2017 November 2017 December 2017
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
Week 44 1 2 3 4
Week 45 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Week 46 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Week 47 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Week 48 26 27 28 29 30