You might like to re-read your own reference material, whistler.

>>Every judicial decision in every court in Australia takes original intent into account.<<

Except, as Justice Kirby points out:

"...even an assertion that a particular construction of the text is 'settled' by many past decisions does not necessarily bolt the door against re-examination of the Constitution if new scrutiny is considered necessary by the majority of the Justices of the High Court."

He points to Sue v Hill as the clincher, where a determination on s 44 of the constitution was required.

The question was whether the UK should be regarded as a "foreign power", for the purpose of deciding who could stand for the Senate.

"Plainly, having regard to the political realities then, the Convention debates in the 1890's and textual provisions in the Constitution itself, such a classification of the United Kingdom as a "foreign power" would have been inconceivable in 1901. Yet the majority of the High Court expressed the conclusion that the Constitution, read today, had that consequence."

That pretty much nails "original intent", wouldn't you think?

>>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.<<

Colour me preposterous.

>>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.<<

That quite plainly is not the case, Philip. There is no "supervision", except in your mind - I'm pretty sure Julia Gillard doesn't consider herself under any form of male supervision, nor that she holds her position on a male whim.

We have gender equality in Australia - in principle, at least, which is what we are discussing. To introduce a form of separate decision making process based solely on gender would appear to be a significantly retrograde step, on the arguments you present here.

I suggest that you find a more compelling rationale for your campaign, since this one has far too many holes.

Pericles "That quite plainly is not the case, Philip. There is no "supervision", except in your mind - I'm pretty sure Julia Gillard doesn't consider herself under any form of male supervision, nor that she holds her position on a male whim."

In view of how Kevin07 lost his job Julia10 may not be quite so confidant about that but not for the reason's whistler is raising.

R0bert

hi Pericles, if the original intent with respect to the provision of legislatures of the Westminster parliament which enabled Australia's Constitution was reinterpreted in a modern context, as Justice Kirby indicates can occur with other matters, the outcome in all probability would be the provision of women's legislatures as well as existing men's legislatures on grounds of difference because women are now fully qualified and experienced to convene legislatures of their own. Women were prohibited from the Westminster parliament which enabled Australia's Constitution. The parliament proceeded on the basis women and men are different to the extent its chambers were comprised exclusively of men's legislatures, which thus enabled men's legislatures in the governance of Australia. The parliament did not have the option to enable women's legislatures in recognition of difference because women had no experience in convening legislatures.

With respect to difference and the capacity women now have to convene legislatures, the natural outcome of the reinterpretation of the original intent of the Westminster Parliament in 1900 would be governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees as a referendum of the people, a more appropriate option than application to the High Court with the direct inclusion of citizens in fundamental democratic reform, would confirm if conducted next Saturday because there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equal rights between women and men.

Australia is governed by dedicated men's legislatures which admit women under male supervision inclusive of leadership, as the capacity for the removal of women from governance altogether on grounds of gender attests. This is neither gender equality nor recognition of difference the parliament which enabled the governance of Australia held as a founding principle. You can't have it both ways. Either women and men are different or every bloke in Australia is a woman. The prospect of your counter argument to my proposal succeeding on the basis of convincing a majority of enrolled voters in a majority of states, or the High Court for that matter, that all men are women, is nil.

Look, I know this is your hobby-horse, whistler. But you really shouldn't let yourself be defined by such a threadbare argument.

You're better than that.

>>hi Pericles, if the original intent with respect to the provision of legislatures of the Westminster parliament which enabled Australia's Constitution was reinterpreted in a modern context, as Justice Kirby indicates can occur with other matters, the outcome in all probability would be the provision of women's legislatures... because women are now fully qualified and experienced to convene legislatures of their own.<<

I'm pleased that you have let go of the doctrine of original intent, at least. That was a dead end.

But you still miss the key issue.

Which is that women have been "fully qualified" for a very long time. Ever since, not to put too fine a point on it, they became educated en masse, and were able to marshal and present their arguments in a cogent manner. For more than a century, I'd say, wouldn't you?

>>Women were prohibited from the Westminster parliament which enabled Australia's Constitution.<<

Only just, in historical terms.

John Stuart Mill began the process by initiating a debate in Westminster in 1867. And by 1869, women ratepayers were allowed to vote in local elections.

Admittedly it was a long-drawn-out battle, but the first female member of parliament was installed in 1919. (Actually she was the second to be elected, but the first was a member of Sinn Fein who never took her seat.) By 1923 she had piloted the first ever bill sponsored by a woman onto the statute book. By 1924 there was the first woman minister, who by 1929 attained Cabinet rank.

In other words, women have had demonstrable equality with men since my parents were at primary school. And that's a pretty long time.

The two situations - separate legislatures, and equal rights - are not one and the same. They do not even overlap.

We presently have gender equality. There needs to be a very strong argument why we should back away from that position, and so far you haven't given us one.

hi Pericles, the application of the doctrine of original intent to the Constitution with reasonable certainty results in the requirement for a women's legislature regardless of the method of interpretation. It is extremely unlikely the High Court would accept an application to reinterpret original intent on the preposterous notion the Westminster legislatures which prohibited women when enabling the Constitution were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures intent on enabling men's legislatures, as preposterous as the assertion gender equality exists when men can remove women from legislatures at whim. Even if the High Court did reinterpret original intent the likely outcome is the requirement for a women's legislature with regard to difference. You're on a hiding to nothing to argue against original intent on gender.

160 days ago Australia's first female Governor-General appointed Australia's first female Prime Minister. Would you fly in an aeroplane with pilots who'd never flown before? Men deserve a medal and everlasting world peace and sustainable prosperity for the skills women have achieved. It's not rocket science we can't do it alone.

We are fated to continue to disagree, whistler.

>>the application of the doctrine of original intent to the Constitution with reasonable certainty results in the requirement for a women's legislature regardless of the method of interpretation.<<

As I see it, the application of original intent to the Constitution would clearly reveal the intention to include women, at all levels of government. The evidence for this, as I have stated before, is found in the progress Westminster had already made towards women's suffrage, and in the specific acceptance of the foothold in SA, NT and WA. The framers had a perfect opportunity to insist upon a male-only environment, but they chose not to do so.

>>It is extremely unlikely the High Court would accept an application to reinterpret original intent<<

Even if we assume your version of original intent, I would suggest that High Court judges who are able to redefine UK citizens as aliens for Constitutional purposes, are perfectly capable of redefining the people of Australia as being equally composed of women and men.

It is crystal clear that with or without asserting original intent, women and men are treated equally under the Constitution.

>>...as preposterous as the assertion gender equality exists when men can remove women from legislatures at whim.<<

It is "preposterous" to suggest that men are able to remove women from legislatures on a whim. It most certainly stretches the definition of a "whim" far beyond any linguistic boundaries that I have encountered.

But your observation on our female Governor General appointing a female Prime Minister is quite confusing.

>>Would you fly in an aeroplane with pilots who'd never flown before?<<

As I mentioned earlier, women have been holding the reins of power for many years, in many places around the world. In whose eyes are they suddenly just learning to fly?

We have enjoyed gender equality before the law, at the ballot box and in all legislatures for a very long time. What puzzles me is why you would want to re-introduce gender separation?

Have a great day.