Toni,

"Well, no, that's a foregone conclusion. Because whatever hypothetical potential benefits anybody may be able come up with, you will claim that they are outweighed by the hypothetical expenditure incurred by switching over (an amorphous sum which seems to grow and shrink depending on the value of the benefit it is required to counterbalance)"

Not so; as I said earlier my outlook is Republican but I can't see any tangible benefits in getting rid of the Monarchy, but I'm willing to be convinced.

If India got rid of the Queen of the Commonwealth no-one would notice. In Australia Act 1986, the only action performed by the Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister. The GG does the lot , call parliament , stamp the bills and is head of armed forces. By Law. If the monarch visits India it's a free lunch same as premier of China being welcomed to Canberra . They both pay by investing . An Oz president probably would lose some British confidence in stability and cost money. ( A Rudd Gillard Rudd Abbott presidential spill?).

Australia fights US wars ( Vietnam) not British ( Falklands) and our head is Donald ( not the cricketer).

NMN, oh how your off track.
In just a few words you have sidelined the Queen and what she really stands for and her true powers.
When you say the ONLY thing she does, you attempt to suggest that she merely does some passive gesture and goes back to her corgi's.
You have tried to diminish the relevance and true meaning of what you appear to portray as a meaningless act of 'appointing the GG'.
As I've already said, the govt chooses the appointee, his name is given to the Queen, SHE approves (or not) and appoints him.
He is HER man on the ground.
ALL his powers are as proxy for the Queen.
He does nothing without her knowledge and consent.
What you describe as a free lunch and so on would probably be the case if we became a republic, but for now, we are her royal subjects and we are lucky it is so.
No one knows the benefit of being a monarchy, until it becomes necessary for her to demonstrate her powers.
It is a dismissive notion to say the GG does this or does that.
That is ultimately true, but you must tell the whole truth, not just explain it in a way that gives the readers the idea that the Queen is just there as a ceremonial piece of stage equipment you roll out whenever some pleb decides he needed a distraction.
Mate, she IS a Queen!
Our Queen, and as such commands all the adulation and respect of the office.
I think too many people are seeing the person and not the position.
When we pay respect or homage to her, we are actually doing so to the 'station' or 'office' or what she stands for.
She as a person, comes and goes, the office and position are fixed and can only be extinguished by vote or by force.
Monarchy's either get overthrown or removed, or they choose to abide by the wish of their subjects and step down and expunge the office of Monarch and ruler.

The powers are quoted from a govt site . The 1986 Act was intended to back up 1901 making Oz almost a republic. The UK constitutional monarch is a paper tiger and Oz has a photocopy paper tiger.

"He does nothing without her knowledge and consent."
Any proof she told GG Kerr to shove Whitlam ?

"Our Queen, and as such commands all the adulation and respect of the office."
Sure, because she's above politics .

"Monarchy's .. choose to abide by the wish of their subjects "
Who rules? : can't be both of them.

The French Queen from Germany is the same thing as a US head of state for Aboriginal Australia:

The Clerk of the Parliaments, an official of the House of Lords, speaks Anglo-Norman Law French for the sovereign's decision."La Reyne remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult", translated as "The Queen thanks her good subjects, accepts their bounty, and wills it so."

NMN, I don't get the hostilities towards the Queen.
You and anyone else who knows the proto-col know very well that QEII is our Queen, and as much as you find that offensive for some reason, it does not change that fact.
As A Queen, any Queen, she has absolute power over us.
She does not get involved with day-to-day running of a country, too many countries, and so she has given her consent for the countries to self rule.
You must be able to deduce that while we are a Monarchy, she is the boss,.......er, MONARCHY.
When we go republic, she is no more.
I will not be surprised if she has been slowly divesting her position over us in the knowledge we are going republic, because so many moronic PM's have flaunted the fact in her face.
In the meantime, she MUST perform her duties as prescribed by history and proto-col.
BTW, the people don't influence parliament, only the election of parliament, after that, good luck with what comes out of Canberra, it certainly hasn't been what we wanted.

Her Majesty Queen Victoria Empress of India said "I'm absolutely sick to the back teeth with dreadful swagmen tell them %03 )%@_! and their
_$(!+~ governor >#+^&&*GENERAL , not amused and sod off .please"

"Yes Ma'am fraulein maxi-skirts"

and it came to pass.