That's all somewhat insubstantial, George Jetson.

>>It better represents the many gender specific social issues.<<

How so? What gender-specific social issues that require attention at the parliamentary level would not be equally well handled by existing processes?

It always helps to provide examples.

>>It better represents the many non gender specific social issues.<<

Same question. Give one example of how a non-gender-specific social issue might be better handled through separate legislatures for men and women.

>>It puts checks and measures on the other leader.<<

In what way? Who gets the "final" say, if one were required?

>>A two leader system is a tried and true method - res publica, or if you prefer, Sparta.<<

The Roman Republic, (if that's what you mean by res publica) did not require two leaders to enable it to function. And there were no women's assemblies at all.

While Sparta was, for a while, ruled by a pair of hereditary monarchs, as you know, that didn't last.

Neither example is particularly convincing.

>>The 'little woman' syndrome would have no currency, because the system proposed would not support it.<<

Nor does the existing system.

>>More significantly, there is no justification for the one leader approach to government, except to say that it was born of monarchy and imperialism, both of which promote inequity.<<

And as the Spartans proved, multiple monarchs didn't work either. Nor did Roman duumvirates survive. If there is no justification for a single leader, it would appear that there is even less for a pair.

hi Pericles, the doctrine of original intent holds Australia's legislatures are dedicated men's legislatures. The High Court would in all probability void referenda removing men from legislatures on grounds of original intent. Women and men undergo different life experience. Genuine leadership recognises difference, leadership in denial of difference is obstructive.

I wouldn't be too sure of that, whistler.

>>hi Pericles, the doctrine of original intent holds Australia's legislatures are dedicated men's legislatures. The High Court would in all probability void referenda removing men from legislatures on grounds of original intent.<<

For a number of reasons.

One is that original intent is not used in Australia. It is not even particularly strong position in other systems, although it does surface from time to time in the US.

Have you any examples where it has ever been used here?

There is also no evidence to support your suggestion that the intent of the Constitution was for men's legislatures. In fact the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

The Constitution was entirely at ease with the enfranchisement of women in SA, NT and WA, and an early order of business was to formalize this in the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902. This would indicate a strong original intent towards gender equality, in my view.

So even if original intent were admissible, your argument would not hold.

>>Women and men undergo different life experience. Genuine leadership recognises difference, leadership in denial of difference is obstructive.<<

Our leaders are presently predominantly women, as I have pointed out before. So who exactly is leading "in denial of difference"?

Again, it would help if you were able to provide just one instance where our system of gender equality before the law, in the legislature and within the electorate, has disadvantaged women.

Pericles:"it would help if you were able to provide just one instance where our system of gender equality before the law, in the legislature and within the electorate, has disadvantaged women."

I can give you a few examples of how it has disadvantaged men...

hi Pericles, original intent is a founding principal of Statute Law which holds the intent of lawmakers is a significant consideration in the interpretation and administration of the law. Every judicial decision in every court in Australia takes original intent into account. On occasion the Courts discuss original intent, as former Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Anthony Mason indicates http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_constitu.htm. Original intent may be reinterpreted in a contemporary sense in some circumstances, as with laws governing the use of modern technologies.
It is preposterous to suggest the two Westminster legislatures which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures which intended to enable dedicated men's legislatures because both prohibited women. It's even more preposterous to suggest state legislatures enabled during the Victorian era are anything other than dedicated men's legislatures.

NT was beclared a territory on 1 January, 1911. It didn't exist when the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 was enabled. The Constitution refers to franchise granted by state legislatures, where original intent resides with regard to electoral arrangements, not to the enfranchisement of women per se. The original intent of the Constitution applies to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 not the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902. By rule of law, Australia's women leaders remain under male supervision and can all be removed entirely at male whim by reason of gender. The same power does not attach to women.

Every instance of contact women have with the law in Australia is ultimately disadvantageous because the law fundamentally discriminates against women. Women are subject to, negotiate, represent, interpret, administer and enforce laws made in men's legislatures. Any perceived advantage obtained from prejudice reinforces the prejudice. Perceived disadvantage to men is of their own making and bears no responsibility on women whatsoever. Blaming women for the interpretation or administration of laws enacted exclusively by men's legislatures is an act of cowardice. Men are responsible for the law as it stands. Women are further disadvantaged by the irreparable damage to the environment, roller coaster economics and incessant warfare an imbalance of male power has caused.