This was posted 2 years 5 months 16 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free Portrait of HM Queen Elizabeth II for Citizens of Australia by Request to Your Federal MP

23328
Free Portrait of HM Queen Elizabeth II for Citizens of Australia by Request to Your Federal MP
Go to Deal
Chazzozz on 06/06/2022 - 13:04 aph.gov.au (12212 clicks)
Last edited 06/06/2022 - 19:22 by 2 other users

Considering it's Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee this year it's an opportune time to remind everyone that all citizens* of Australia are entitled to a free portrait of the ruling Monarch from their local federal government member. If you're not sure who that is you can go to the Parliament's web site and search by your postcode. Contact them by email, phone, or drop in to ask how to get yours.

Portraits can usually be collected in person from either your nearest senator or MP's office. I'm not sure if they'll post one to you if you're not nearby, but if you ask nicely you never know your luck. If memory serves me correctly they're roughly A2 size and printed on reasonable quality photo paper, ready for framing.

*I'm not able to find anything on the Australian government web sites that it's restricted to only citizens, but previous articles on the Internet suggest this is the case.

To paraphrase Malcolm Turnbull, even if you're not a Royalist you can at least be an Elizibethean.

Previous Posts:

Home & Garden Photograph Portrait

Related Stores

Parliament of Australia
Parliament of Australia

closed Comments

    • [Deactivated] on 06/06/2022 - 13:23
      +36

      a drop in the ocean compared to the other bonfires our dear leaders chuck your money into.

      • ilovefullprice on 06/06/2022 - 13:27
        +14

        On Ozbargain every dollar counts.

      • eraser215 on 06/06/2022 - 13:58
        +6

        Still a dumb waste.

      • whyisave on 06/06/2022 - 16:06

        Water & Fire cancel each other out.

    • BargainsGrabber on 06/06/2022 - 13:29

      Waste of #teamseas initiative

    • elektron on 06/06/2022 - 13:29
      +4

      Will pale in comparison with the cost of removing her portrait from every Australian bill and coin for no benefit whatsoever.

      • xtremehell on 06/06/2022 - 13:54
        +5

        She's not going to be the monarch forever, so they are going to end up changing it either way on future monies minted.

        • elektron on 06/06/2022 - 14:35
          +2

          Yiu are assuming that there's a tradition of having the monarch of the day depicted in our bills. There isn't one.

          • INFIDEL on 06/06/2022 - 14:39
            +2

            @elektron: You are assuming… they meant replacement with another monarch - that is not assured nor stated in that comment!

            Even the continued use of currency isn't assured.

            • elektron on 06/06/2022 - 14:48

              @INFIDEL: Huh?

              • INFIDEL on 06/06/2022 - 14:53
                +3

                @elektron: Have a read of what xtremehell wrote - didn't mention replacement by an another Monarch on our currency - as you assumed.

                Just "changing it either way" (we become a republic or she is replaced as Monarch).
                Either way, as you rightly point out is up to us what we put on our currency.

      • INFIDEL on 06/06/2022 - 14:04

        She's 96 - given her age, I'm sure the Mint already has contingency plans for replacing her in a redesign.

        [Edit] Negs? Apparently people here think she will never die or abdicate! It will happen. She is mortal.
        It's normal for coins & notes have been redesigned or taken out of circulation over time. That will happen again. So they will have considered it. It takes time to update currency.
        Like previous monarchs, she will disappear from our latest currency, sometime.

        • Some Human on 06/06/2022 - 20:17

          Apparently people here think she will never die or abdicate! It

          Are you new to the internet? Many people believe she is immortal.

          • INFIDEL on 06/06/2022 - 20:44

            @Some Human: What is this magical "internet" you talk of?
            No I've been here longer than you.

            Mind you, I've met people who seriously argue they will never die… Poor delusional fools.
            Seems many people believe some strange things, even without help from the internet!

      • 1st-Amendment on 06/06/2022 - 14:52

        Will pale in comparison with the cost of removing her portrait from every Australian bill

        I can assume you've never looked at your money lately?

        • elektron on 06/06/2022 - 14:53

          You've misquoted me, but your point is valid.

    • xyzzyxyzzy on 06/06/2022 - 13:42

      …that I must claim back. Ordered 100.

    • aub on 06/06/2022 - 19:03
      +2

      As an Ozbargainer, I think Australia's receiving an amazing bargain by having a head of state that we don't need to pay for.

      • Hausmaus on 06/06/2022 - 22:04
        +3

        Oh we pay for it definitely. Taxpayers funds go to the Queen which then helps a pedophile called Prince Andrew fend off legal and criminal charges.

        • GG57 on 07/06/2022 - 11:29

          How did Australian taxpayer funds go to the Queen?

  • node modules on 06/06/2022 - 13:17
    +5

    cheers. very stimulating material.

  • Niko123456 on 06/06/2022 - 13:17
    +8

    Isn't it ridiculous that it's her Platinum Jubilee and no one in Australia cares at all.

    Why are we a monarchy? Republic ffs.

    • FLICKIT on 06/06/2022 - 13:21
      +30

      Personally I dont see any harm in us being part of the Commonwealth, and I'm not sure becoming a republic will make Australia a better country..

      • Nugs on 06/06/2022 - 13:24
        -3

        we'd miss out on comm games
        .

        • GG57 on 06/06/2022 - 13:31
          +7

          No we wouldn't, unless we chose to.

        • MKBHD on 06/06/2022 - 13:53
          +1

          Commbank will have to be renamed to umm, 86400?

      • Grok on 06/06/2022 - 13:29
        -8

        We will probably get a rabid progressive apologist as head of state as a Republic who will sack the government if they stop the boats, or don’t give indigenous people reparations or don’t close the coal mines immediately.

        They can’t help themselves.

        • NobalaKoba on 06/06/2022 - 13:31
          +8

          What're you smoking?

          • tomlut on 06/06/2022 - 16:27
            +3

            @NobalaKoba: Not a rolled up portrait of the Queen, that's for sure.

        • elektron on 06/06/2022 - 13:32
          +4

          Might as well keep Prince Charles then - he'll do it at no extra cost and we'll save on expensive presidential elections.

      • eraser215 on 06/06/2022 - 14:00
        +10

        You can remove the queen/king of England as head of state without leaving the Commonwealth.

        • GG57 on 06/06/2022 - 14:15
          +2

          That is correct. There are apparently:
          - 15 countries recognise the Head of the Commonwealth as their head of state
          - 5 countries with their own monarchies
          - 34 countries are republics.

      • King Tightarse on 06/06/2022 - 14:35
        +5

        Well we could rewrite the constitution and this time include a bill of rights.
        It would also hopefully cause the country to grow up some more and realise that we are 100% responsible for forging our own path.

        • 1st-Amendment on 06/06/2022 - 14:55
          +4

          It would also hopefully cause the country to grow up

          Or it could go the other way. Why do people always seem to think that change only result in positive outcomes?

          Based on observations of the current geopolitical situation, I think we're going to need all the help we can get.

          • King Tightarse on 06/06/2022 - 15:21

            @1st-Amendment: I think with the current order of things there is a buried psychology of dependence. 200 years plus of a British models to follow and a higher authority and example there in the background. Not overt, but its always there.
            Closing that door means finally growing up and standing on our own two feet. I guess like a child leaving home.
            There is no way we can take ourselves entirely seriously as a country with another country's monarch as our head of state

            • 1st-Amendment on 06/06/2022 - 15:33
              +2

              @King Tightarse:

              Closing that door means finally growing up and standing on our own two feet.

              Or falling over flat on your face. Who can say?

              • King Tightarse on 06/06/2022 - 16:00
                +1

                @1st-Amendment: Maybe, but we have to grow up one day. Can't stay at mum and dad's forever.

                • 1st-Amendment on 06/06/2022 - 16:11

                  @King Tightarse:

                  Maybe, but we have to grow up one day. Can't stay at mum and dad's forever.

                  Why not? The 'Commonwealth' is a form of governance much like a Federation, ie There are benefits of being part of a bigger unit.
                  And there are plenty of examples of nation states that wanted to 'decolonize' and found themselves in the dirt, Zimbabwe is the most obvious one. Change does not always mean a better outcome. Do you also think we should defederate and revert to individual state nations? Where does it end?

                  • King Tightarse on 06/06/2022 - 16:25

                    @1st-Amendment: This has nothing to do with so-called decolonisation.
                    This is about physiologically growing up as a nation. Cutting the mental apron strings and taking true ownership of ourselves. I suppose in life you can always stick with the known and not take a risk in life but there's nothing healthy (extending the metaphor) about a 45 year old still living at Mum & Dad's

                    • 1st-Amendment on 06/06/2022 - 16:35

                      @King Tightarse:

                      Cutting the psychological apron strings

                      Is this a self diagnosis. I feel no such restraint.

                      and taking true ownership of ourselves

                      Or allowing someone else to own us instead.

                      and not take a risk but life doesn't generally provide great rewards for timid choices.

                      Actually it does. Just ask any of the families of thousands of people who die on the roads each year. Risk is managed by calculating the cost/benefit of doing something vs not doing it. I'm yet to hear of a single benefit of the proposed change other than "taking true ownership of ourselves" whatever that even means?
                      Whether it's the Queen or a President, you are no closer to any sort of 'ownership' than you were yesterday. What would you do differently tomorrow if you found out that Australia was suddenly a republic?

                      • King Tightarse on 06/06/2022 - 16:50

                        @1st-Amendment:

                        Cutting the psychological apron strings
                        "Is this a self diagnosis. I feel no such restraint."

                        That is just plain silly. I am sure you are able follow the metaphor as it stands but just in case: Australia is the child and the England is the parent in this example.

                        "Just ask any of the families of thousands of people who die on the roads each year. "
                        Well extrapolation that fear, we should definitely never travel by car, far too dangerous. Lets all stay safe and only travel by carefully by foot with while wearing crash helmets but best to stay under the Doona and then nothing bad will ever happen.
                        "I'm yet to hear of a single benefit of the proposed change other than "taking true ownership of ourselves".
                        Are you really saying you cannot imagine the far-reaching effects of psychologically growing up as a nation?

                        Perhaps you should ask your mum? What does she say you should think? :p

                        • 1st-Amendment on 07/06/2022 - 10:36

                          @King Tightarse:

                          That is just plain silly. I am sure you are able follow the metaphor

                          Simply inventing a metaphor doesn't count for anything. Maybe the metaphor is that England is the your head and if you cut if off you will die? This is why metaphors aren't used by anyone able to present a valid argument.

                          Well extrapolation that fear, we should definitely never travel by car, far too dangerous.

                          Reductio ad adsurdum… Grey is also a colour…

                          Are you really saying you cannot imagine the far-reaching effects of psychologically growing up as a nation?

                          Well I asked you to clarify what YOU think these 'far-reaching effects' are and you are yet to provide any. I can't actually think of any benefit myself but happy to hear you out. I am acutely aware of some increased risks, especially around geopolitical and economic impacts, so based on a extremely simple risk assessment, the status quo option is winning for me.
                          What exactly does 'growing up' actually mean to you? What would you do differently under a Republic that you can't do today under a Constitutional Monarchy? If we replace the Governor General with a President what tangible things actually change?

                          • King Tightarse on 07/06/2022 - 10:48

                            @1st-Amendment: Sorry pal, I don't care enough to keep it going over two days and I have said my bit and moved on yesterday. If you feel the need to dive more deeply into the republic debate, I am sure many other forums would be more appropriate.
                            Now back to today's bargains!

                            • 1st-Amendment on 07/06/2022 - 12:36

                              @King Tightarse:

                              I don't care enough to keep it going over two days

                              Now you understand why some people don't take 'progressive ideas' seriously :)

                              • King Tightarse on 07/06/2022 - 13:00

                                @1st-Amendment: It is about context, not the ideas at hand.
                                22 hours after the initial comments, I don't care at all to continue, which is no reflection on the argument per se but the fact that this is a bargain forum. I love OzBargain but I don't care enough to debate at length it in a bargain forum. As if we would progress the idea at all, or even influence one another?
                                There is simply no point :)
                                Here's a decent deal from page 1 - free SIM https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/704816 did you see it?

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 06/06/2022 - 15:05
          +3

          @King Tightarse, user name doesn't quite check out.

        • INFIDEL on 06/06/2022 - 15:13

          King Tightarse - time to Abdicate😉
          I relinquished my former status as The Infidel👻

          No need to change the Head of State for that, just get the majority of people in the majority of States to agree to change the Constitution….

          The States & Territory have partly acted:
          Victoria has a Charter of Rights. Only the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland have Human Rights Acts

      • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 06/06/2022 - 15:38
        +1

        ….until a senator declares himself the emperor of the empire.

        • namgib on 06/06/2022 - 16:21

          Although not a Senator (anymore), why did Barnaby's smiling mug immediately appear in my mind's eye?

    • d00nSopra on 06/06/2022 - 13:27
      +3

      nah get out. up the queen and up australia. no president thanks we dont need it

    • prodrome on 06/06/2022 - 14:16

      If someone proposed a search/replace replacement of the Queen kind of of republic we'd be all for it but we won't get that.

    • quog on 06/06/2022 - 16:16

      and how should we choose that head of state?

      • littlegreenman on 06/06/2022 - 19:08

        Hunger games.

      • Niko123456 on 06/06/2022 - 19:35

        I wish they'd consider just not having a head of state.

        Like the head of state could be "flora and fauna" for all I care.

  • nugstar on 06/06/2022 - 13:17
    +7

    Might be useful when gas/electricity prices are too high to run the heating and you need some kindling.

  • alz on 06/06/2022 - 13:20
    +19

    Time for Australia to ditch the queen and become a republic

      • whyisave on 06/06/2022 - 13:25
        +5

        Big Tech is colonising all sovereign nations' and its citizens'
        data, information, knowledge, communications, memories, finances…

      • RSmith on 06/06/2022 - 13:26
        +8

        Let's all leave and give Australia back to its original inhabitants.

        • Manny Calavera on 06/06/2022 - 13:37
          +14

          Whoever that is, they're long dead.

          • foxes28 on 06/06/2022 - 13:56
            +3

            @Manny Calavera: Most of them are. But are we just going to pretend they don't exist anymore?

            • Spendmore on 06/06/2022 - 16:03

              @foxes28: Wasn't that mungo man, that was wiped out? They were as far back as we have found for original inhabitants in Australia and they aren't alive anymore. They exist but only as remains

              • foxes28 on 06/06/2022 - 16:44
                -3

                @Spendmore: I was referring to the various aboriginal people who are still very much alive today, despite their small numbers. If you want to be ignorant of their existence and their place as original inhabitant of this land, that's your choice.

                • Spendmore on 06/06/2022 - 16:51
                  +2

                  @foxes28: Aren't you being ignorant not recognising that there were people here before them?

                  • foxes28 on 06/06/2022 - 17:02

                    @Spendmore: I thought you said they are dead? If they were still alive I would recognise them!

                    And what about you? There are literally living aboriginal people today as we speak. Would you ignore their existence? Would you keep blind eyes on the fact their ancestors have been here for much longer than descendent of the First Fleet?

                    • Spendmore on 06/06/2022 - 17:06

                      @foxes28: Because they are dead they didn't exist? What a childish argument.
                      Of course I recognise Aboriginal people as being here before Europeans but they weren't the original inhabitants.

                      • foxes28 on 06/06/2022 - 17:34

                        @Spendmore: I never said they didn't exist, duh.

                        I think where our views differ is that you think there can only be one original inhabitant (i.e. the Mungo man) whereas I think they are both original inhabitants.

        • Grok on 06/06/2022 - 14:17
          +10

          I was born here, I am an original inhabitant.

          • DashCam AKA Rolts on 06/06/2022 - 15:09
            -1

            @Grok: Don't think you understand the term original inhabitant.
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/origina…

            An indigenous people (sometimes self-identified as aboriginals) may be defined as a group that has resided in a geographical area “since time immemorial” as its original inhabitants.

            • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 06/06/2022 - 15:43
              +2

              @DashCam AKA Rolts: I think if you kept playing the "original inhabitant" game you'd trace back to the first human beings so essentially im not sure that "original inhabitants" are original.

              Unless theyre suggesting somehow the "original inhabitants" evolved from koalas while they were completely cut off from the rest of the world, and the rest of humankind was already in the stone age

            • Grok on 06/06/2022 - 16:40
              +2

              @DashCam AKA Rolts: Well by that definition, if used strictly, would result in almost all the people claiming to be indigenous in Australia being excluded from being also classified as original inhabitants.

              Due to either not being pure blooded or not living in the approximate area of their ancestors. Living in Sydney but having ancestors from both the outback and Britain won’t cut it by my interpretation.

          • RSmith on 06/06/2022 - 16:52

            @Grok: Anoriginal <> Aboriginal

        • King Tightarse on 06/06/2022 - 14:36

          The ghost of Mungo man thanks you

      • Spendmore on 06/06/2022 - 13:52
        +2

        Try looking forward instead of backwards, you can't change the past.

        • eraser215 on 06/06/2022 - 13:58
          +1

          But you can make amends.

          • Grok on 06/06/2022 - 14:20
            +11

            @eraser215: Great, let’s start with the Norseman apologising to the Anglo-Saxons.

            Or should we start with the Romans? They never did anything for us?

            • Roman Sandstorm on 06/06/2022 - 14:37
              +6

              @Grok: The Romans? Well, apart from… sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health?

          • Spendmore on 06/06/2022 - 14:51
            +8

            @eraser215: How long for?
            Is Spain still making amends in Mexico?
            No one living in Australia had a part in colonisation. Just be good people and treat each other equally with respect is all we need to do.

            • foxes28 on 06/06/2022 - 14:57

              @Spendmore: If you want to be fair, the Spaniards have left their former colonies. The government of the Latin American countries are filled by their own people. We can't say the same here though.

              • Spendmore on 06/06/2022 - 15:13
                +1

                @foxes28: Mexico became a republic so if Australia becomes a republic we won't need to make "amends" then?

                • foxes28 on 06/06/2022 - 15:42
                  -4

                  @Spendmore: The ultimate amend is to restore ownership of the land to the indigenous people (not just the traditional ownership), regardless of the form of government. Anything else is only sweetener or just some gestures to be politically correct.

                  Now don't get me wrong, we both know restoring power to the aboriginal people will never happen here. That's why we do those so called amends to make us feel a bit better.

                  But Mexico and Australia, I think they are not really comparable.

                  • Spendmore on 06/06/2022 - 15:57
                    +1

                    @foxes28: As you have put it, it's not going to happen.
                    Like I said we should look forward not backwards. I don't feel the need to make amends personally and I think the notion does nothing but damage in our society, we are all one and all equal no matter if British, Nungar, Pakistani etc. To make us feel better is not a reason for amends.

          • 1st-Amendment on 06/06/2022 - 15:05
            +1

            @eraser215:

            But you can make amends.

            Amends for what?

          • 2ndeffort on 06/06/2022 - 16:05
            +1

            @eraser215: I've done nothing wrong though, my ancestors arrived at Tullamarine on a Qantas 747 in 1977

      • flame21 on 06/06/2022 - 15:09
        +1

        all humankinds were originally from Eastern Africa. So we should really all go beck to Africa, and give the other lands back to the animals. - When will you book your ticket?

      • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 06/06/2022 - 17:59
        -3

        Why do many negs ? We all know what the monarchy did. Killing of millions of innocent non-whites in the name of the monarchy.

        I say, we should become a republic.

        Don't see any reason to have a head of state belonging to another nation.
        That is plain stupid.

        • beerbudget on 06/06/2022 - 19:29

          Millions? I don't know but that sounds like a stretch.

          • Hausmaus on 06/06/2022 - 22:06

            @beerbudget: They did kill millions in their century of colonization, in America, Australia and India. Get off Centrelink and read a history book!

          • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 07/06/2022 - 07:38

            @beerbudget: It is not a stretch.
            Just one instance. From Wikipedia:
            The Bengal famine of 1943 was a famine in the Bengal province of British India during World War II. An estimated 2.1 to 3.8 million Bengalis perished, out of a population of 60.3 million, from starvation.

            Historians usually characterise the famine as anthropogenic (man-made), asserting that wartime colonial policies created and then exacerbated the crisis.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join