You're kidding right.

What? Most Australians do not support the monarchy, a lot of Australians want a republic.

For all of those Australians, having the democratically elected PM become president is clearly superior than having an unelected monarch be the head of state.

You're the one kidding, mate.

We might find out soon I suppose, no shortage of calls for a referendum. I imagine the dilly dallying has just been because the Queen was quite favorable, and didn't meddle. A don't fix what isn't broken situation.

A king who is also secretly

The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Somerset, The Duke of Norfolk and The Duke of Richmond

Sign me up..!

I'm actually wondering why anyone wouldn't prefer an elected head of state vs one given power through succession.

When one doesn’t need to be worried about being elected, one can make decisions based on principle, and the longer-term view, rather than pandering to popular opinion.

We always complain that politicians work on a two-year cycle. If your position is permanent (pending death), you escape this cycle.

See also: the House of Lords.

It’s weird to think about, and I’m a working-class Labour voter from Sunderland whose grandad was a welder on the ships, but there’s something to be said for it.

There's also the argument that if your job as ruler is known from a young age you can be groomed into the role in a way a career politician never will be. A system for choosing a head of state that requires an extensive training period and that meant they couldn't simply be turfed out on the whims of a gaggle of swinging voters has something to be said for it. But what sort of long term decisions would you have them make?

Probably infrastructure, as that takes a long time to complete, and can be made a little more effective rather than "if I can find a way to tunnel from the country to the beach, I'll get more votes" (/s)