The Canberra Times reports Oxford University Professor Iain McLean has stated the dismissal of Gough Whitlam's government in 1975 is a reason to abolish the monarchy.

The Canberra Times carries an interesting article, reporting on a speech by Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon on constitutional reform:

The republic is the least important issue we face. Its significance is purely symbolic. However, opinion polls have repeatedly shown a clear majority of voters in favour of a republic provided the Queen and Governor-General are replaced by an elected president. That could be achieved without any change in the largely unwritten powers wielded by the Governor-General.

However, to allay the fears of those who think that an elected president might believe he or she had a popular mandate to exercise power contrary to the conventions, we could codify the powers in the Constitution as has been done in many other Commonwealth countries.

Melbourne's Sunday Age reports a study has found that 35% of Australian adults think that a republic is "important" for their country. Of course, the monarchists are happy with this result, and say they have "lead" in the polls. This is nonsense - firstly because the question only asks if voters think a republic is an important issue. Whether voters see the issue as important or not is not the same as asking if they support a republic. Secondly, the "importance" of an issue does not show how electors would vote in a referendum.

The New Zealand Herald reports a Readers Digest poll has found (or perhaps re-affirmed) that Australians don't trust their politicians - who rate as a profession below car salesmen but ahead of telemarketers.

Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth II rates at number 25 on the most trusted list, with Princess Mary of Denmark rating at number 6 (exactly what the Australian public have to trust either with is not explained), the current Governor-General comes in at number 45, while former Prime Ministers Bob Hawke, John Howard and Paul Keating rate at numbers 85, 88 and 91 respectively. Current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd came in at number 62. Former head of the Australian Republican Movement, and Federal Opposition Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull is number 90.

Professor Flint of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy will be speaking at the Summer Sounds Symposium at the Vinter's Retreat in Marlborough this Friday. His topic will be "Constitutional changes in Australia and New Zealand?", no doubt from a monarchist perspective.

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.

Outgoing Aussie Governor-General Sir Michael Jeffrey.

So much for Governors-General staying "above politics": the outgoing Australian Governor-General, appointed by the staunch monarchist Prime Minister John Howard, has waded into the republic debate by declaring that Australia becoming a republic is "too risky". In particular, Sir Michael Jeffrey focussed on the prospect that Australia might adopt a directly elected president to replace the Governor-General. In his interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, Sir Michael said:

The BBC's Nick Bryant blogs on Australia's celebration of Queen's Birthday, noting the lack (as is the case in New Zealand) of actual celebrations for the monarchy:

"Much of Australia will enjoy a national holiday today in honour of the Queen's official birthday. To some Australian monarchists, it's occasion to raise a glass to a much-loved head of state. To many more, it's the happy chance to take a quick winter break"

Very true. Mr Bryant's analysis is worth reading also. Bryant notes that there is a significant number of Australians who could be described as "Elizabethans", that is, people who support the status quo because of the popularity of the monarch. 

Michael Cooney writes in The Melbourne Age that Queen's Birthday in Australia should be replaced with "Kids' Day":

THIS year should be the last Queen's Birthday long weekend. It's time to replace a holiday based on the past with a holiday based on the future. So next year, the first Monday in June should be a new public holiday: Kids' Day.

It's an interesting idea, although the author puts focus on why there should be a Kids Day, rather than why replacing the Queen's Birthday holiday is an important step forward for Australia. 

At Eureka Street, John Warhurst takes apart Australian Governor-General Michael Jeffrey's arguments for the monarchy:

"On several occasions recently Jeffery has proclaimed a very conservative view of Australian constitutional arrangements. In his view the Australian constitution of 1901 has made Australia a stable country. Not only is there no evidence of this relationship between constitution and society (it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument), but his view stresses a static version of Australian history that makes the task of all reformers, not just republicans, doubly difficult."