The Kingdom's of Denmark and Norway seem really stable and look like great places to live and raise a family, whereas, unfortunately, France and the US seem a bit hectic.

“It would be more correct to say that none of the proponents to whom the media gives publicity have offered good reasons.”

What? The good reasons are all a secret? If the people holding these secrets cannot find a a way to get them out, they are hardly the sorts of people anyone would listen to anyway.

1975 was not a “crisis”. The idiot Whitlam government was legally removed, and at the ensuing election, Australian voters confirmed the decision wholeheartedly.

This person is a solicitor, NOT a constitutional lawyer, so his views are worth no more than those of Joe Bloggs.
“...the real reason for a republic.” is to “.., abolish the Crown”.

What a load of bulldust! Change for the sake of change. Wreck the joint. If this is the best republicans can do, there is no way Australians are going to fall for it.

Denmark and Norway have the same referee-player mix-up.
In NSW, "Lang considered arresting the Governor to prevent the Governor from dismissing him, (which Lang admitted in his own book, The Turbulent Years). The possibility was sufficiently high that the armed forces of the Commonwealth were put on alert.. such a clash would have seen the Commonwealth Armed Forces fighting the New South Wales Police." Whitlam also could have arrested the GG , splitting the Royalist and Parliamentary Regiments.

The US has got it all worked out but Oz could still have a president P Hansen , C Palmer or S Dastyari who could get red cards for fouls.

Why should it matter whether rules are written or conventional: either way, only the weak are subject to those rules while the strong can ignore them and do whatever they like. It is the strong who produced the written constitution and it is the strong who produced the conventional one.

Democracy is not possible because ordinary people are weak and the regime is strong - and this is the only true rule.