The Australian Governor-General's official secretary writes to The Sydney Morning Herald, complaining the newspaper (and its letter writers) have got it all wrong:

Contrary to the claims of some letter-writers, the Governor-General did not say Australia should never have a directly elected president. As he has done on a number of occasions, he said it was appropriate that we consider better ways of governing ourselves; however, it would be beneficial in such debates if there were a wider understanding of how our current system operates.

The Governor-General said there could be the potential for conflict if a popularly elected president held a firm view on an issue that was contrary to that held by the prime minister.

He did not say he had sent back 15 pieces of legislation - he was referring to "items" submitted to the executive council. Ministers have to take responsibility for the advice they give; it is the role of the governor-general to ensure the advice has been framed with full regard for all relevant factors and that the action recommended is consistent with the constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth.

Malcolm Hazell Official secretary to the Governor-General, Sydney

Also, John Pyke of the Australian Republican Movement makes this point: 

If it would be improper, as the Governor-General says, for a president to take sides on tax policy - and I agree that it would - isn't it equally improper for him to stick his nose into the debate about the form of a future republic?

John Pyke Brisbane

Hear hear!