Just to explain why the dismissal of an unpopular prime minister would trigger republic calls, the answer is in your sentence.
He was "dismissed" not voted out. In a working democracy, an unelected woman who lives thousands of kilometres away, and has barely set foot in a country should not have the right to sack an elected prime minister.
Now it is true that it was Kerr, and not the Queen that made the decision, but either way, I can't imagine John Kerr would have got very far if he tried to get elected.
When you have a system that was shown to be so clearly flawed, then calls for it to be changed are inevitable.
Whitlam won office in a landslide, and was elected to a three-year term. Every government goes through mid-term slumps, when they would be soundly defeated at the polls if an election were to be held.
The fact that Kerr waited until such a time and then plotted to sack our political leader shows nothing other than that governors-general can be rat-cunning and have political agendas of their own.
If you really think that unpopular governments should be turfed out, then that would have meant that the Gillard government would be sacked now, that John Howard would have been sacked in about 1997, and again in the year 2000.
Are you really suggesting a system that would have seen Mark Latham installed PM, until opinion polls showed he was on the nose, at which point another leader would have stepped into the breach?
Australians shouldn't have to put up with an outdated Constitution that vests such enormous powers in the hands of some old woman via her representative.
Pretty soon Prince Charles, he who said he wanted to be his wife's tampon, will be the unelected, de facto leader of Australia.
If that doesn't make you want Australia to become a republic, then you are more one-eyed than I could imagine.