Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Wait, there’s a King of Australia?!?

Yes, there is absolutely a King of Australia! The Commonwealth of Australia is a constitutional monarchy, and has been since its foundation in 1901. Its head of state is His Majesty King Charles III. His role as the King of Australia is a distinct office from his roles as the King of the United Kingdom, Head of the Commonwealth of Nations etc. even though these roles are all held by the same person.

In the Australian system, the King's powers are largely governed by centuries of unwritten constitutional conventions rather than exhaustive definitions in the written Constitution. This leaves the full extent of the King's powers somewhat shrouded by tradition and ancient legend. Unless Parliament has explicitly legislated a power into or out of existence, the King retains any and all powers granted by the authority of the Constitution and the Crown of Australia.

Q. Is Australia currently a republic?

No, Australia is currently a constitutional monarchy, with the King as the formal head of state. The Witenagemot Acts would not change this; Australia would remain a constitutional monarchy.

Q. What is the Crown of Australia?

The Crown of Australia is a multifaceted concept representing the ultimate legal authority and the personification of the state. The Crown acts as a continuous institution that exists independently of the individual monarch who happens to occupy the throne at any given time. As a constituent part of the Federal Parliament under Section 1 of the Constitution, the Crown is the final gatekeeper of the legislative power. No bill passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate can become law until it receives Royal Assent. Thus, the Crown provides the formal "enacting" authority that transforms legislative proposals into binding laws.

The Crown is the primary source of executive power, which is explicitly "vested in the [King] and is exercisable by the Governor-General" under the Constitution. This power encompasses the day-to-day administration of the nation, including the maintenance of the Constitution and the execution of Commonwealth laws. Beyond administration, the Crown holds the Royal Prerogative, a suite of common law powers that allow the government to perform "acts of state," such as declaring war, appointing ambassadors, and entering into international treaties. In this capacity, the Crown acts as the legal "actor" that represents the Australian state on both the domestic and international stage.

Historically the Crown was the "fountain of justice". The authority under which an accused person was tried and punished was the "King's justice". Under Chapter III of the Constitution, judicial power of the Commonwealth is vested exclusively in the Courts of Law. However, the Crown remains the source of judicial administration: the Governor-General-in-Council appoints all federal judges, and criminal prosecutions are traditionally brought in the name of the Crown. Furthermore, the Crown retains the Prerogative of Mercy, allowing the executive to pardon offenders or commute sentences, serving as a final, vestigial link between the personified state and the administration of justice.

Q. What is a Governor-General?

A Governor-General serves as the King's representative in Australia, acting as a de facto Head of State with constitutional, ceremonial, and civic responsibilities. While appointed by the King, this is done solely on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, usually for a five-year term. Neither Parliament or the people of Australia get any formal input into this appointment.

The Governor-General has very little autonomy in normal circumstances, typically acting only on the advice of the Prime Minister and ministers through the Federal Executive Council. With the authority of the King, they possess vaguely defined "reserve powers" to act independently in exceptional constitutional crises. The most famous case of the reserve powers being invoked in modern Australian history was the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975.

Q. What is the Parliament of Australia?

The Parliament is Australia's legislative body, consisting of the King (represented by the Governor-General), the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Its primary roles are to make and change laws, represent the people, and scrutinise the government's work. For an Act of Parliament to become law it must pass both houses and receive the King's assent (usually from the Governor-General). Unlike an American President, by convention the King never vetoes bills passed by the two Houses. The Parliament also holds significant power over the Prime Minister and the Government through the principle of responsible government. This means the Prime Minister and their ministry must resign or call an election if they lose a "vote of no confidence" in the House of Representatives.

Q. What is a Prime Minister?

A Prime Minister is the Head of Government in a parliamentary democracy, such as Australia's Westminster-style system. While not explicitly mentioned in the Australian Constitution, the role is established by long-standing convention as the leader of the political party or coalition that controls the House of Representatives. Although the Prime Minister is formally commissioned into office by the Governor-General, they in turn advise the King on appointing the Governor-General. While the King holds the formal title of Head of State and the legal power of the Crown of Australia, real political power lies with the Prime Minister, provided they maintain the confidence of the House of Representatives. 

Q. What is the Australian Government?

The Australian Government is the common term for the party or coalition of parties that holds a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. A government is formally formed following a federal election when the Governor-General commissions the leader of the majority party to be Prime Minister. If no single party achieves a majority, a minority government may be formed through agreements with independent or minor party members. The Prime Minister selects other members of Parliament to serve as ministers in the Federal Executive, each responsible for specific policy areas such as health or defence.

The primary role of the Government is to manage the nation’s affairs by developing national policies and proposing new laws (bills) to Parliament. Once laws are enacted, the Government is responsible for their implementation and day-to-day enforcement through various government departments and agencies. Its specific responsibilities include overseeing national matters like defence, immigration, foreign affairs, and the federal budget. Under the principle of responsible government, the executive is directly accountable to Parliament for its decisions and must maintain the "confidence" of the House of Representatives to retain power. 

Q. What is a Regent?

Historically, a regent is a person appointed to exercise the King's powers and carry out the duties of the Head of State on a temporary basis, usually because the King is physically or intellectually incapable of exercising them. The specific powers and process for selecting a regent have varied across time and jurisdictions, and the exact arrangement has usually been specific to the circumstances. In some cases, a regent could be a royal family member, a noble elected to the position, or a council. Depending on the situation, the chosen Regent may have had severely restricted power or they may have been king in all but name.

Q. Has a regent ever ruled in British history?

Yes. During the period of King George III's "madness" from 1811 to 1820, his son, George, Prince of Wales, ruled as the Prince Regent. Initially, the Prince Regent's official powers were restricted, but these limitations expired in February 1812, after which he held nearly all the powers of the monarch. There are many other cases of regents being appointed, both in English history and in other kingdoms. For example, whenever a new King was still a minor a regency of some form was needed. In this respect regencies and regents are a natural, inevitable part of an inherited monarchy.

Q. What is the difference between a Regent and a Governor-General?

A Governor-General's power is limited by the King and the Australian Constitution. They are appointed by the King, serve only as long as the King wishes and are empowered to exercise only a subset of the Crown's powers. Despite the appointment of a Governor-General, the King retains his full powers as head of state and the freedom to exercise those powers. The King could, if the whim took him, remove the Governor-General at any time. In theory he could do the same to the Prime Minister and the Federal Executive Council, and he could dissolve Parliament. His powers are limited only by law and his rigid observance of convention.

A historical regent, like the Prince Regent during King George III's "madness", essentially was the acting head of state, invested with virtually all the King's powers. Although still bound by convention, in theory, a Regent held the power to actually rule in the King's stead. The King was not dethroned but constitutionally moved to the side. He couldn't remove the Regent or government ministers, nor could he dissolve Parliament. Any attempts to exercise these powers during the period of regency would have been largely ignored. For the period of the regency, the Regent held almost the full the power of the Crown, not the King.

Q. What does "Witan" mean?

Witan (singular Wita) is a word from Old English that literally means "wise men" or, in a modern context, "wise people". The word gemot (pronounced with a soft "g" like in general, gentle or giant) comes from the same period and simply means an "assembly" of people. Therefore a 🔊 Witenagemot is an assembly of wise people. While the word Witan is very well attested in historical records, the regular use of the term Witenagemot is somewhat harder to establish.

Q. Historically, what was a Witenagemot?

In the 9th and 10th centuries, long before the evolution of Parliament and the Courts of Law, the Witan were summoned ad hoc by the King to a Witenagemot. It had no fixed membership or set location for meetings. Membership was small, exclusively by summons of the King and varied from meeting to meeting depending on the subjects needing attention. It was in no way democratic or representative. Its primary function was to advise the King on legislation, judicial cases, land transfers, and other matters of national importance. Notably, the Witan also assumed the power to both elect and depose the King in certain situations, such as when the throne fell vacant or the King had proved himself tragically incompetent.

Q. What are the Witenagemot Acts?

The Witenagemot Acts are a pair of proposed laws that would introduce a new, semi-permanent office of an Australian President-Regent and provide a mechanism allowing for popular election of that office. This system aims to normalise uniquely Australian processes for selecting a representative head of state within the existing framework of constitutional monarchy. The Royal Residency and Regency Act (RRR) will be a constitutional document, establishing the framework for regencies and the office of President-Regent. The President-Regent Election Act (PRE) would be ordinary supporting legislation that uses the framework provided by the first act to implement a process for popular election of the President-Regent.

Q. Do these Acts make Australia a republic?

No, the Acts do not abolish the monarchy. They provide for a regency if the King is non-resident in Australia (RRR); Australia would remain a constitutional monarchy with the King as the head of state, but an Australian citizen would hold and exercise the majority of the Crown's powers during a regency period. This is formally recognised by the fact the regency office is called the President-Regent, not simply the President. The President-Regent would act on behalf of the legal Crown of Australia while the monarch is non-resident.

Q. Why not simply become a republic now?

Altering the Australian Constitution is deliberately difficult, requiring a national referendum with a "double majority" (a majority of voters nationwide and a majority in a majority of states). The 1999 republic referendum failed largely because of divisions over the proposed model; many republicans who wanted a directly elected president voted 'No' because the model proposed a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament, which was seen as a "politician's republic".

The Witenagemot Acts offer a more incremental approach, building a local model that might facilitate a future transition to a republic if desired. They allow Australians to elect one of their own to hold nearly the full power of the Crown of Australia in trust. This can build public familiarity and consensus over time, making a full break from the monarchy in a future referendum seem less radical and more a natural progression of Australian independence.

Q. Will the Acts abolish the Governor-General?

No, the office of Governor-General is not abolished and retains all its existing legal powers and duties (RRR s.12(3)). During a period of regency, the same person would hold both the office of President-Regent and Governor-General simultaneously. That person would exercise the duties of the Governor-General as embedded throughout Australian law by virtue of occupying the office of Governor-General. Separately, that person would hold the remaining powers of the Crown of Australia in trust by virtue of occupying the office of President-Regent.

Q. Isn't having two offices a waste of money?

No, the proposed Royal Residency and Regency Bill addresses potential concerns about wasting money by providing that the President-Regent will not receive an additional salary for that role (RRR s.20(1)). The individual holding the office would be the same person who holds the office of Governor-General during a Regency period. That person would receive the single salary already fixed by Parliament for the office of Governor-General.

Q. What changes for day-to-day government after the Acts commence?

Literally nothing until at least after the next General Election. After that, one day a regency may be declared and the Governor-General will get a second job title (President-Regent). In a day-to-day sense that's all there is to it. With or without a regency, Australian government and political life will go on as normal. Practically, after a declaration of Regency there will be a special process to fill the office of Governor-General (appointment by virtue of being elected President-Regent) two or three times a decade. That's it.

Q. What happens to the King the day a Regency is declared?

In a practical and personal sense, nothing happens to the King; he simply has one less constitutional "hat" to wear. He remains the Sovereign and the King of Australia in title, status, and dignity. The declaration of a Regency is not an act of abdication, nor does it dethrone the monarch; it is a functional mechanism to ensure the continuous administration of the Australian government when the Sovereign is not resident within the Commonwealth. The King continues his life and his duties in other capacities, unaffected in his person or his roles as the head of other realms.

The primary change is a legal shift in the exercise of the Royal functions. Upon the declaration of a Regency, the King’s executive and legislative powers regarding the Commonwealth of Australia shift to the President-Regent, who holds them in trust. While the King remains the formal Head of State, he is effectively "moved to the bench" for the duration of the Regency. He is relieved of the specific legal requirements of Australian statecraft—such as granting Royal Assent to bills or commissioning ministers—while the local President-Regent ensures the machinery of government remains fully operational on Australian soil.

Q. Can these proposed Acts be changed if passed into law?

One of the proposed Acts, the Royal Residency and Regency Bill, would be treated as a constitutional document meaning it could not be amended or repealed just by a normal Act of Parliament (called entrenchment). The Act defines its own repeal mechanism: complete repeal in a single act would require a national majority in a referendum (RRR s.23). This is a higher standard than for changes to ordinary legislation, but short of the national majority plus "a majority in a majority of states" required for any other change to the Constitution.

The President-Regent Election Bill, which provides an election procedure, would not be entrenched and could be amended or repealed by a normal Act of Parliament. This preserves the option to return to a traditional appointment process if popular election proves unworkable for an essentially non-partisan office. It also allows for an entirely different election process to evolve over time. This flexibility to test and refine the election process and the lower threshold for repeal of the entrenched act is a key benefit of not integrating these processes straight into the main text of the Constitution.

Q. What would trigger a regency under the Witenagemot Acts?

A regency could be triggered if the King is not "ordinarily resident" (physically present) in Australia for at least 120 days in a calendar year (RRR s.5). Parliament could then pass a motion declaring a state of Regency (RRR s.6).

Q. Can the King refuse assent to the Acts or a regency declaration?

Technically yes but, practically no. While the King does hold the historical power to refuse assent to a bill, this has never been exercised within Australia. The last monarch to refuse royal assent was Queen Anne in 1708, when she withheld assent from the Scottish Militia Bill on the advice of her ministers. By modern constitutional convention, it is considered a formality. Reserving assent for the King in this case is a simple act of respect that notionally gives the King the final say in the changes being made in respect of his powers in Australia.

Q. Can the King unilaterally reclaim power by moving to Australia?

No, once a Regency is in place, the King must remain a resident in Australia for a full year before the Regency can be terminated (RRR s.7). Even then, both the House of Representatives and the Senate must pass a motion to declare the Regency terminated, which they have no obligation to do.

Q. Will this cause a constant flip-flop between regency and non-regency periods?

The proposed Acts are designed to prevent constant shifting of arrangements. The residency requirement that triggers a Regency is 120 days in a single calendar year. To terminate a Regency once declared, the King must reside in Australia for a full year (RRR s.7). This higher threshold for termination creates a stable period of at least a year between changes, during which the King must demonstrate a sustained commitment to residence before the Regency can be ended. Even then, a regency is unlikely to be terminated before a change in the government that first passed the declaration of regency.

Q. Would passage of the Acts make a Regency inevitable?

Not necessarily. A declaration of Regency under the Witenagemot Acts can't be made until after the first General Election after they commence. This gives the Australian people the opportunity to throw out the Government that passed the Acts before they can be used.

A new government may attempt to repeal or amend the Acts by referendum, or leave them untouched and simply not use them. It's possible that by not actually declaring a regency, even after the conditions for one have been satisfied, the Government establishes a new convention that continues to be observed by later governments.

Regardless, all the possible scenarios assume the King doesn't simply decide to move the Palace to Australia for four months every summer/winter. In that case a Regency couldn't be triggered anyway and Australia would end up with a much more Australian monarchy than it ever imagined possible. King Bruce the First?

Q. What is the role of the President-Regent?

The President-Regent would be a semi-permanent office established to act as the Regent for the Crown of Australia during any declared Regency period (RRR s.9). The person holding this office would also hold the office of Governor-General, exercising virtually all the powers of the monarch in their stead. Outside of a Regency period, the office of President-Regent would be vacant and dormant.

Q. What are the qualifications for a President-Regent?

The President-Regent must have been an Australian citizen for at least 21 years and be qualified to be elected as a member of the House of Representatives (RRR s.10). To ensure political neutrality, nominees are explicitly disqualified from having held previous elected office in the Federal or a State Parliament (RRR s.10) and are prohibited from accepting political endorsement (PRE s.7(1)).

Q. How long is a President-Regent's term?

The proposed term is a single, fixed five-year period (RRR s.17(1)). The House of Representatives could extend the term by up to an additional two years (RRR s.17(2)). This allows the House to defer the end of a President-Regent's term during periods where it is likely to clash with the expiry of Parliament and a General Election.

Q. Could a political party endorse a candidate for President-Regent?

No. The proposed legislation explicitly bans party membership and official endorsement for candidates (PRE s.7(2)). Registered political parties would face substantial fines (2,000 penalty units, or $660,000 AUD as of early 2026) for doing so.

Q. Why can't the President-Regent be a former member of Parliament?

A core principle of Australia's system of government is the convention that the person acting as head of state must be independent of party politics and able to act as a non-partisan safeguard in a constitutional crisis. This is not only true for the Governor-General but also for the King himself, and by extension for the President-Regent. Currently, the Governor-General is appointed after the Prime Minister recommends a person they consider suitably non-partisan for the King to appoint while the Palace simultaneously tries to prevent him from recommending anyone too partisan (yes, really).

The Witenagemot Acts legally disqualify former members of Parliament and prevent candidates for election to the office of President-Regent accepting political endorsement or being members of a political party between their nomination and election to ensure the office is filled with a politically neutral figure. Under these Acts, an Australian citizen can choose to pursue a career as an elected state or federal politician, or they can hold onto an ambition to be chosen as President-Regent, but not both. The President-Regent is a high office for the rest of Australia, not the politicians.

Q. Why do constitutional experts dislike direct election?

The primary concern with electing a non-executive Head of State is the creation of a "rival mandate" that threatens the stability of the Westminster system. In a parliamentary democracy like Australia’s, the executive is responsible to the Parliament, and the Head of State is intended to be a neutral figure who acts only on ministerial advice. However, a person chosen by a national vote of millions possesses a unique democratic legitimacy that a purely appointed official lacks. This "mandate from the people" can embolden a Head of State to challenge the Prime Minister or the Parliament during political disagreements, potentially transforming a ceremonial "referee" into an active political player.

An elected figurehead may feel a moral or political obligation to intervene in government affairs. This could lead to constitutional deadlocks or a "two-headed" executive branch where the President and the Prime Minister vie for supremacy. Experts point to examples in other parliamentary republics where "non-executive" presidents have used their public profile to criticise government policy or refuse to sign legislation, effectively becoming a second centre of political power. The risk is that the election process itself introduces the very friction that the office of the Crown—and its surrogates—is specifically designed to avoid.

Furthermore, direct elections almost inevitably lead to the politicisation of an office designed to be a symbol of national unity. Even if candidates are legally required to be non-partisan, as proposed in the President-Regent Election Bill, the process of a nationwide campaign requires funding, media exposure, and the adoption of public platforms. This can degrade the office into a prize for those who can command the most attention, rather than those with the best constitutional judgement. By removing the "distance" and "convention" that currently govern the role, a direct election risks turning a stable constitutional safeguard into a source of ongoing political instability.

Conversely, the Republic of Ireland is often cited as a successful counter-example, where the President (Uachtarán na hÉireann) is directly elected but maintains a strictly non-executive, neutral role. Since the office was established in 1937, nine successive Presidents have largely avoided clashing with the government, despite many having previous political careers. While Ireland suggests that a popular mandate does not guarantee conflict, critics of the model in an Australian context argue that such neutrality is a product of specific historical conditions and "gentleman's agreements" that might not survive the more adversarial nature of Australian federal politics.

Q. How is a President-Regent proposed to be appointed or elected?

The selection is a unique, two-step process: nominees are first shortlisted by an independent body called a Witenagemot (PRE s.8), and the final President-Regent is chosen via a nationwide direct election using preferential voting (PRE s.17).

Q. What is the Witenagemot?

According to the President-Regent Election Bill, the Witenagemot is an ephemeral nominations review committee responsible for assessing nominees and returning a final list of 3 to 5 candidates for a national election. The purpose of the Witenagemot is to offer Australians a large enough selection of suitable candidates such that no elected President-Regent can claim an enormous mandate (on first-preferences) to undermine the existing systems of government, yet not so many candidates that the ballot paper ends up looking like an election for the Senate.

Q. Who are the Witan and how big is the Witenagemot?

Witan are the members of the Witenagemot (PRE s.9). The body is composed of two groups: "Honoured Witan" (former Governors-General and State Governors) and an equal number of "Ordinary Witan" (randomly selected citizens, like a jury) (PRE ss.9-11). There must be at least 12 ordinary Australians called in this way regardless of how few former State Governors or Governors-General attend, so the absolute minimum size of a Witenagemot is 12 Witan. As of early 2026 there are approximately 20 living former State Governors or Governors-General, so the maximum size of the Witenagemot if they were all able and willing to attend is around 40 Witan.

Q. Why will the Witenagemot meet behind closed doors?

The general practice for real-world nominations committees usually involves confidentiality to facilitate open and frank discussion about potential candidates' qualifications, flaws and general suitability. This private deliberation is key to ensuring the Witenagemot can thoroughly evaluate individuals and aim for the best choice of candidates without external political pressure or public scrutiny influencing the selection process.

The Witenagemot is more like a jury than a House of Parliament. At least half its members are ordinary people summoned randomly, not seasoned, political performers or public figures. A public Witenagemot risks encouraging performative displays by nominees and Witan alike. It could also result in cases of gross public humiliation of nominees whose flaws meant they were never likely to make the final list of candidates anyway.

Q. Is the Witenagemot an alternative or rival to Parliament?

No. It is a temporary, specific-purpose body created by Parliament that dissolves after it completes its task (PRE s.14). It has no power to legislate, make executive appointments, or rival the legislative supremacy of Parliament.

Q. Could a more Australian name be used for the Witenagemot?

Yes, it could use a different name. The terms Witan and Witenagemot provide a symbolic connection to ancient constitutional practices that preceded the evolution of the modern Westminster system of government used in Australia. A deliberate echo of that in the President-Regent Election Bill is the concept that the Witan have a role in approving a new King (or in this case approving the candidates for election to the office of President-Regent). Using Indigenous Australian terms is a viable alternative and is actively encouraged in modern place-naming and terminology guidelines, but it must be done with appropriate respect and consultation.

Q. How are the the Courts impacted?

The Witenagemot Acts do not change or impact the fundamental function, operation, or impartiality of the Australian judiciary. Under the existing constitutional framework, judicial power is vested exclusively in the Courts of Law, and these Acts do not alter that separation of powers. While the Crown is symbolically the "fountain of justice" in whose name criminal prosecutions are brought, the day-to-day administration of the law and the independence of the bench remain entirely separate from the office of the Sovereign or any surrogate acting in their stead.

The impartiality of the courts is further safeguarded by the requirement that the President-Regent remains a politically neutral figure. Because the Acts disqualify anyone who has held elected office from serving as President-Regent, the person exercising the powers of the Crown remains a non-partisan official. Furthermore, the President-Regent continues to act on the advice of the government of the day regarding judicial appointments. This ensures that the transition from a Governor-General to a President-Regent during a Regency does not introduce political interference into the judicial branch, preserving the courts as the independent arbiter of the law for all Australians.

Q. What is the relationship between the Crown and the Australian States?

The Crown is defined by the principle of "divisibility," meaning the Crown acts as a distinct legal entity within each state—the "Crown in right of the State"—independent of its federal counterpart, the "Crown in right of the Commonwealth". While the same individual person occupies the throne, the Australia Act 1986 formalised that the states have a direct constitutional link to the King, independent of the Governor-General and Commonwealth ministers. Consequently, each State Governor serves as the King’s personal representative for that jurisdiction, exercising executive power solely on the advice of the respective State Premier. This structure ensures that each state remains a "sovereign" polity within its own constitutional sphere, even while remaining subject to the overarching Australian Constitution.

Q. How do the Witenagemot Acts impact the Australian States?

The Acts have limited direct implications for the Australian States, mainly through the involvement of State Governors in specific transitional or emergency roles. For instance, the longest-serving State Governor available is empowered to act as an interim President-Regent and Governor-General during vacancies or incapacity in the office, ensuring continuity in federal executive functions. They can also execute the removal of the President-Regent on the Prime Minister's advice. This assigns State Governors a potential federal responsibility but does not alter their core duties within their respective States.

Furthermore, the Acts include consequential amendments to the Australia Act 1986, particularly adding a provision that subjects the exercise of powers under the Royal Residency and Regency Act (RRR sch.3). This could indirectly influence how royal prerogatives are interpreted or applied at the State level during a regency, as the President-Regent would hold and exercise Crown powers on behalf of the non-resident King of Australia. This potentially affects the advisory or representational roles of State Governors in matters tied to the federal Crown. However, the Acts do not impose new obligations on the States, nor do they modify State constitutions or the division of powers between the Commonwealth and States.

Q. Is all this constitutional?

The most controversial aspect of the Witenagemot Acts is that the Royal Residency and Regency Bill asserts that it is a constitutional document, having equal force with the Australian Constitution (RRR s.4). It can do this because it would be passed in accordance with section 128 of the Australian Constitution, giving it the same weight of authority from the Australian people as any constitutional change. While having multiple constitutional documents in force is not unprecedented historically (particularly in British law), it hasn't yet occurred in Australia.

The advantage of passing the Royal Residency and Regency Bill as a distinct constitutional document is that it allows the main text of the existing Constitution to remain totally untouched. The new act would stand beside and in addition to the Constitution, allowing it to be easily read and understood on its own while also allowing for its relatively easy repeal without having to "unscramble the egg". Nothing would stop the Acts from being incorporated into the main text of the Constitution by a later constitutional change, after Australians have experience with the arrangements.

Q. Do the Acts recognise Indigenous Australians or provide them a Voice?

No, the Acts do not provide for the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians or a Voice to Parliament. Indigenous Australians, like all other citizens, are part of the general body of electors and can also potentially serve as an Ordinary Witan if randomly selected from the Commonwealth Electoral Roll, or as an Honoured Witan if they previously held the office of Governor-General or a State Governor.

Q. Do these Acts address the issues that led to the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in 1975?

No, the Acts do not address the issues that led to the dismissal of the Whitlam government, nor do they prevent similar circumstances from arising in the future. Despite the crisis around the dismissal, the existing arrangements arguably worked to successfully resolve the situation, ultimately resulting in a new government being elected. No shots were fired, no blood shed and the people democratically decided the path forward.

The Royal Residency and Regency Bill preserves the arrangements that allowed for the so called "race to the Palace". Currently the Governor-General can dismiss the Prime Minister provided the Prime Minister doesn't manage to advise the King to dismiss the Governor-General first (hence the "race" to see who is dismissed). The Bill allows for the same situation but with the senior State Governor playing the role currently played by the King (RRR s.21(2)).

Q. Where is all the pomp and ceremony?

There are significant opportunities for ceremonial practices built around key moments. Prior to a Witenagemot commencing the Witan must take an oath or affirmation before a Justice of the High Court. This provides an opportunity for a public ceremony where the oaths are administered before the Witan enter into their work. Another opportunity is around the return of the list of candidates and their formal announcement to the people of Australia.

The most significant opportunity would be the swearing-in of the new President-Regent. This could be a large public ceremony involving the new office holder taking the oath of office, followed by the formal Assent and handover of power by the outgoing President-Regent. This could be accompanied by addresses from government leaders, the national anthem, and other protocols, potentially incorporating a smoking ceremony or other indigenous customs.