Back in the 1960s, as Australia was preparing for a monetary changeover to a decimal system, a public competition was launched to help settle on a name for a new national currency.
The winner wasn’t the “Dollar” we know today.
“One reason why the Government did not select ‘Dollar’ in the first place was that it would not be a distinctive Australian name,” observed Harold Holt, then Treasurer, on 18 September 1963.
Indeed, many alternative names with more of an Aussie accent had been bandied about.
The “Austral” was one of hundreds of submissions. Other ideas included “Tasman”, “Kanga” or “Dinkum”, as well as terms drawn from Indigenous languages. Holt favoured “Auster” to adorn the notes, while another MP suggested the “Standard”.
But the prime minister at the time, Robert Menzies, decided the name “Royal” to be more appropriate. He wanted a currency befitting the dignity of the nation. That same year, Menzies had hosted Queen Elizabeth II in Canberra, a visit during which he famously quoted the poet: “I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die.”
The government then set about designing the new currency, releasing concept art.
Only “Royal” didn’t find favour even in Menzies’ monarchist Australia.
Holt was soon in parliament backing down. “Cabinet took a decision on this matter, which was announced. It turned out that the name selected was not a popular choice.”
The feedback after Menzies’ captain’s pick had not been kind. Letter writers to newspapers, the social media of the day, panned the decision, while the opposition described “Royal” as an example of “antiquated thinking”.
So, the scramble was back on for a name. Yet Australia missed its second chance for distinctiveness, to give its national currency a unique label that was immediately recognisable.
No “Baht” as in Thailand or “Shekel” as per Israel.
No “Ringgit” like Malaysia or Đồng from Vietnam.
Not keen on “Kina” (Papua New Guinea) or ready for a “Rupiah” (Indonesia).
Instead, Holt declared it was to be the Dollar – all the way, you might say, with the USA. It’s a name for money shared not only with the United States but also New Zealand, Canada, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Singapore, Brunei and more than a dozen other countries.
Trump warns the Greenback will remain the one dollar to rule them all, only worries are growing that financial markets might decide on their own.
This bland choice of name for Australia’s currency barely warrants a second thought these days; people have become used to dealing with Dollars and counting Cents. The process of decimal conversion went very well.
But this history is worth revisiting, if only as a reminder that what can appear to be fixed and immutable features of national life can be changed. Government decisions can be unwound. Back then, Australia surrendered the Pound and Trey-bit for the Buck which was later decorated with kangaroos. Money is now also undergoing another radical transformation. “Cash is king no more,” as my Lowy Institute colleague Hilman Palaon has written. The rate of digital transactions in Australia is nowadays so commonplace that a beer at the footy can only be paid by card. Strewth.
Cryptocurrency is also increasingly accepted as a form of wealth, even if not for everyday transactions. US President Donald Trump certainly thinks so, having hosted a private dinner for rich investors in his “memecoin” and pushed legislative changes to make crypto easier to access. A report in the Financial Times last week suggested rising hopes that India could soon follow.
Despite his enthusiasm for crypto, Trump also warns the Greenback will remain the one dollar to rule them all. He won’t brook any “BRICS Pay”-style effort by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to muscle the US dollar out from its position of dominance in the world economy.
The only problem is that whatever Trump might say, worries are growing that financial markets might decide on their own. The value of the US dollar is down, and expected to keep falling. The stress evident in Japan’s bond market is being closely watched as a potential bellwether for the future of heavily-indebted economies.
Where does that leave Australia? Not in any Royal mess, that’s for certain. Our government debt-to-GDP ratio is minuscule by comparison. But should Australians want to make a statement in the world, revisiting the name of our currency would be cheap yet profitable. We’d barely need to print notes.
Think of the distinctiveness for visiting tourists. Or the savings in wasted words by financial journalists, not having to append “the Aussie dollar” in market reports to limit confusion.
“Austral” is no good. The fear at the time was that our local twang would render it as “nostril”. Besides, Argentina later adopted Austral as its own currency name in the late 1980s when inflation cruelled the peso.
I’d suggest Australians adopt the “Mate”. No need for a plural. Mate is also a single syllable, like Cent. The biggest advantage is that we’d barely have to alter our speaking patterns.
“How much for a coffee?”
Five, Mate.
Done. Keep the change.
