Dame Cath Tizard, former Governor-General, responds to the Monarchist League's Treasurer Chris Barradale in this week's edition of The Listener:

As promised, here's my response to Matt Showering's letter to the editor of Investigate Magazine:

Dear Ian,

RE: ABSOLUTELY FASCINATED

Matt Showering (Vox populi, July 2008) demonstrates a good understanding of New Zealand's constitutional development, yet makes a number of assertions in favour of the monarchy which belie constitutional reality. Mr Showering is correct insofar as his analysis of your argument in Absolute Power (that the government is illegal) goes; however his defence of the monarchy against your second claim, that the Governor-General is not an effective check on the Prime Minister, is weak.

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.

A reader of The New Zealand Herald writes in today's letters to the editor:

"Some are agitating for our system to be changed to a similar system [to the US] because they consider it is out of date. It would appear ours is far more advanced than that particular republican system.

So shouldn't they [the US] be learning from us, not we learning from them?

R. Hood, Auckland Central"

The Marlborough Express has one of those "human interest" stories on a citizenship ceremony for new Kiwis. 21 new New Zealanders swore allegiance not to their new country, but to the "Queen of New Zealand", an office which exists in name only. It is the Republican Movement's view that New Zealanders should swear allegiance to their country. The article neatly shows why our oath of allegiance - and the monarchy itself - is absurd:

Here's the Republican Movement's response to Brian Rudman's column in today's edition of The New Zealand Herald:

Dear Sir,

A letter to the editor regarding the cost of the Governor-General's office to the taxpayer:

Dear Sir,

Your article ($46.6m for Gov-Gen extreme makeover, 23 May) highlights the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of the Vice Regal office. According to the 2008 Budget, the Queen's representative now costs the NZ taxpayer $10.95m per year. By way of contrast, the 2008 Irish budget shows the President of Ireland costs a mere NZ$6.7m per year.

From today's edition of The Dominion Post:

I am disappointed at the disestablishment of the Commonwealth Scholarships for New Zealanders. The scheme enabled the brightest postgraduate students to study at any British tertiary institution (if they were accepted) and the scholarship paid fees, living costs and air travel.

The British government says it's made a change because it wants to focus on the "leaders of tomorrow", who will apparently come from the United States, China and India because their scholarships have been retained.

The Gisborne Herald has an interesting letter to the editor today regarding republicanism in Australia:

Kevin Rudd is certainly the "action man" of Australian politics. He has just brought hundreds of Australian leaders, in a myriad of fields, to his 2020 Australian summit and has promised to deal with many of their recommendations. Of course, one of his most recent moves has been to appoint the first woman Governor General of Australia who takes office soon for a period of five years. She may be the last Governor General, for Kevin Rudd is an ardent Republican.

The New Zealand Herald reports that New Zealand's Governor-General is off to Canada "in what will be the first state visit by a New Zealand head of state" (My emphasis). This is incorrect - the Queen is New Zealand's head of state, not the Governor-General, and HM has made plenty of trips to Canada - none of which representing New Zealand though. Section 2 of the Constitution Act 1986 is very clear on this. Such a mistake requires a letter to the editor:

Dear Sir,