BalmainBoy is correct - every time I’ve seen this commented on, there’s an assumption that those badly enough wounded to be sent home are casualties.
Imperial forces (especially ANZACs, Canadians and Indians) tended to be used by the British as shock troops, partly to keep the home force casualties low, but also because they tended to be volunteers who were physically more able and also better trained.
It should be noted that the concept of the British Empire didn’t really break down completely until the 1950s or 1960s. Even after WW2 Australia remained on rationing far longer than Britain did so that it could send food and supplies to the British rebuilding effort. While gaining technical independence in 1901, Australia didn’t really make great pretentions to nationhood until the election of Gough Whitlam in 1973.
Finaly, wrt the whole republic referendum debacle. Most Australians want to dump the Queen, who is seen as outdated and quaintly embarrassing - kind of like those naked baby photos your mother showed your first girlfriend/boyfriend.
A government finally got around to organising a referendum, but got voted out before it happened. The head of the government that got voted in wanted (wants) to drag the country back about 50 years, because that’s the way it was when he grew up and it should be good enough for everybody else. He wanted to kill the referendum, but it had too much momentum.
It was quickly realised that there were three points to be argued. Should Australia become a republic? How much power should a president have? and How should the president be appointed?
Popular opinion said “Yes”, “Ceremonial powers only” and “Elected by the populace”, respectively.
In order to get a question to put to the voters, a Constitutional Convention was set up. Citizens would elect a certain number of conventioneers, the government would stack the benches with the rest.
After the Convention election, the major republican group (the Australian Republican Movement) changed their platform from direct election to croniocracy - that the president would be appointed by parliamentarians. There’s excellent indication that the head of the ARM assumed that he’d be appointed by a greatful government as the nation’s first president.
Along with the government appointees, this bloc ensured that the Convention would recommend that the question put to the people in the referendum was one proposing that the queen be replaced with a President who would retain essentially ceremonial powers (the queen’s powers under the current constitution are vast, but unused) and be appointed by parliament. This model was supported by the Centre-Right opposition (the Labor Party), but opposed by the Right Wing government (the Liberal/National coalition), who preferred the maintenance of the monarchy.
This proposal was decried at length as unwanted, and proved massively unpopular with the electorate. The ‘retain the queen’ side campaigned not on their own platform, but on a “not this model” basis, and won - handsomely. Many voters assumed that there would shortly be another referendum with a better model proposed.
This, however, was a godsend to the PM who publicly declared that Australians loved the queen to bits and the question should never be raised again. Some of the more lunatic fringe demanded that treason charges be brought among those who put forward the referendum in the first place.
Australian people went back to wanting a republic where the President was directly elected. The Labor Party went back to questioning how they could have failed to gain another sinecure for faithful party hacks. The PM went back to 1951.
The monarchy remains unpopular. If the same referendum were to be put this weekend, it would probably lose again. If one that accurately reflected the wishes of the population were put, HRH’d be queueing up at Centrelink on Monday.