Bringing Home the Crown of Australia

Australia is a constitutional monarchy. This means we have a King—currently His Majesty King Charles III—as our head of state. But there's something unusual about our arrangement: our King lives and has always lived on the other side of the world in Britain, not here in Australia.

The Witenagemot Acts are a proposal to change this. Instead of jumping straight to becoming a republic (which would mean getting rid of the monarchy entirely), the twin Acts take a different path. They would require the King to actually live in Australia, at least some of the time. If he doesn't, an Australian citizen would step in to do the King's job through something called a "Regency."

'His day is our night. His winter, our summer.'

Right now, the King of Australia has only set foot in Australia once as King, a short six day "tour" in 2024.

The King performs his duties here through a representative called the Governor-General, who he appoints on the advice of our Prime Minister. But without the King exercising those powers, the constitutional gears of the nation would begin grinding to a halt as the incumbent Governor-General and State Governors progressively vacate offices without any clear means to replace them.

While this system has worked for over a century, it means that the formal head of our nation—the person who actually holds the power of the Crown of Australia and the authority to enact government—doesn't live here, or have strong ties to Australian life. From a national security perspective alone, that's a slightly unsettling thought. What happens if he ever falls into the hands or influence of powers who are not well disposed towards Australia?

The King has visited Australia 16 times as Prince and even spent 6 months here as an exchange student, but that was by far his longest visit. He didn't grow up in Australia and has never lived here on any permanent basis. He does not wake to the background hum of Australian society, isn't surrounded by Australians every day in the community and doesn't socialise with his mates in an Aussie backyard.

In saying this I do not mean to insult His Majesty but simply to point to the fact of the matter: the King's first and strongest attachment is to the land where he grew up and has lived most of his life. That's only natural and it will always be true while Australia's head of state is born, raised and keeps their home around 10 time zones and a hemisphere away. His day is our night. His winter, our summer. Literally.

The Witenagemot Acts propose a simple requirement: the King must spend at least 120 days each year living in Australia. In the likely event that he can't do this, then Australia could enter a period of "Regency" where an Australian would be entrusted to hold the powers of the Crown instead, locally here in Australia. To avoid doubling up on paycheques, the same person would also be Governor-General.

Enter the President-Regent

A regent is someone who rules in place of a King when the King cannot. Historically, regents were appointed when a King was too young, too ill, or otherwise unable to perform royal duties. The most famous British example was the Prince Regent (later King George IV), who ruled from 1811 to 1820 while his father, King George III, was unable to govern due to mental illness.

Under the Witenagemot Acts, if the King doesn't meet the residency requirement, Parliament could declare a Regency. An Australian citizen—called the President-Regent—would then hold in trust the King's remaining powers here in Australia, in addition to filling the practical, day-to-day role of Governor-General.

The King would still technically be King, but he wouldn't be able to exercise his powers in respect of the Commonwealth. If a future King came to the throne as a child or developed permanent psychosis, it wouldn't materially impact Australia if a regency was in place. The President-Regent would already hold, in his own right, all the powers needed to keep the machinery of government running.

How Would a President-Regent Be Chosen?

This is where things get interesting. The President-Regent Election Bill sets up a unique two-step process.

First, anyone who wants the job can nominate themselves, provided they meet certain requirements. They must have been an Australian citizen for at least 21 years and must never have been a national or state politician. The idea is to keep this position completely separate from party politics.

Then comes the clever part: a temporary body called a Witenagemot (pronounced 🔊 "WIT‑en‑ah juh‑moat") reviews all the nominees and selects between 3 and 5 candidates to put on the ballot. In medieval England, long before Parliament existed, the Witenagemot was an occasional council of nobles and bishops who advised the King and even had a say in choosing new Kings.

The modern Witenagemot would include two groups: "Honoured Witan" (former Governors-General and State Governors) and "Ordinary Witan" (everyday Australians randomly selected, like jury duty). The body would call on the experience of those who have actually done the job combined with the wisdom of an equal number of ordinary Australians. Together, the Witan would interview nominees privately and in-depth before deciding who should appear on the final ballot.

Finally, all Australians would vote in a nationwide election using preferential voting, the same system we use for the House of Representatives. The winner would serve as President-Regent (and Governor-General) for the next five years.

Why Not Just Become a Republic?

Good question! The Witenagemot Acts take a different approach because they recognise that Australians are divided on whether to become a republic. The 1999 referendum on becoming a republic failed, partly because people couldn't agree on what model a republic should use, particularly around how a President should be appointed.

There remains a strong underlying sentiment among Australians that if Australia was ever to become a republic then the people should be able to elect the President. Equally, there remains a strong desire to preserve the apolitical nature of Australia's head of state, especially when we see hugely political actors fill this role in some other lands.

The Acts answer these concerns by keeping the monarchy but "Australianising" it. If the King wants to hold the powers of the Crown of Australia in practice, he needs to live here. If he doesn't, we get an Australian doing the job anyway but via a process designed to ensure the position remains non-partisan. Over time, this would normalise having an elected Australian citizen as our effective head of state, which could make a future transition to a full republic much smoother.

The beauty of this approach is that it preserves everything that currently works about our system of government while providing a practical solution to the question: shouldn't the head of state of Australia actually live in Australia?

Whether you support the monarchy, prefer a republic, or aren't sure yet, the Witenagemot Acts offer something to think about. They're a uniquely Australian solution to a uniquely Australian situation—pragmatic, evolutionary, and designed to build consensus over time rather than forcing irreversible change.

Learn more by reading the full text of the Royal Residency and Regency Bill and the President-Regent Election Bill, or check out the Frequently Asked Questions.