Horse 3042 - Mainly Red, White and/or Blue

On the broadcast for the NASCAR Cup Series race at Pocono this week (the result of which was changed after two cars were deemed to be illegal), someone observed that all of the cars this year that have won race have been predominantly red, white and/or blue. Of itself this isn't a very good observation to make because colours of racecars from about the late 1960s onwards have been mostly determined by the corporate sponsorship of the teams involved. Basically ever since Colin Chapman in Formula One realised that he could make a bit of money by flogging off the colour scheme to corporate sponsorship, the floodgates were opened. His Lotus team changed from being green to red and gold to reflect the cigarette brand Gold Leaf; which says that whomever pays the piano player gets to sing their songs.

As someone who likes to view the world through the lens of sport, where too much is never enough, I think it interesting that of all of the corporate colours of the world, there are far more red and blue ones, with black, white and yellow next, with green, purple, brown and pink, trailing off into obscurity. 

This also applies to national flags for the same reason. Most of the worlds flags contain, red, white, blue, yellow, green, and black. The Olympic Flag with its five coloured rings, deliberately chose those colours for this specific reason; you will be hard pressed to find any country in the world whose flag does not contain one of those six colours.  

Having said all of that, there is still a tendency for corporate identities to favour either red or blue and once you realise that, the fact that all of the cars this year that have won have been predominantly red, white and/or blue seems less remarkable.

Though there's something else going on here. NASCAR which is arguably the most mercenary of all motor racing series when it comes to chasing the corporate dollarpound, also has the problem that because more of the  corporate colours of the world are either red and blue, then this tends to make them less special on a racetrack of 40 odd cars at once. A yellow car in a pack of red and blue ones will stand out more because it is different.

Yet despite this, there is still a tendency for red cars in particular to win; this is not unique.

If you drill down into the data for the colour of the teams that have won in English Football going all the way back to 1861 (this was the biggest and most comprehensive database that I could find), not only is there a weak tendency that when red teams are playing anyone else they tend to win, when blue teams are playing anyone else they tend to win, and when red and blue teams are playing each other the red teams tend to win.

Now of course looking at the data doesn't explain why, and that data contains very obvious blips like Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal who play in red, and very obvious blips like Everton, Chelsea, and Manchester City who play in blue, but its curious that this extends all the way down through all four divisions of English Football. If say Rotherham (red) and Oxford Utd (yellow) were to play each other, then in general across 161 years, Rotherham is likely to win. If AFC Wimbledon (blue) and Plymouth Argyle (green) were to play each other, then we should expect AFC Wimbledon to win. All things being equal if Miscellaneous Utd (red) and Generic City FC (blue) were to play each other, then we should expect  Miscellaneous Utd to win.

I should point out here that the tendency for red teams to win is so very very weak that it's far from guaranteed. The advantage conferred appears to be about 1/10th of a goal and worth 1.01 vs 1. Still, a 1% advantage if you are repeating an experiment literally thousands of times over more than a century and a half, is not mere coincidence.

If you apply this to Formula One, the advantage is hideously exaggerated. Granted that in the early days of the sport that teams flew their national motor racing colours but even so, the world superpowers of motor racing are Italy, Germany and Britain (red, silver, green). After the advent of corporate sponsorship of the teams, Mercedes-Benz was already long gone from the sport, and this leaves the Scarletti of Ferrari and the red and white of Marlboro cigarettes as the two most likely colour schemes to win. Again, Mercedes-Benz had a hand in altering the colours of McLaren when they finally came back in anger and fielded their own Silberferns and men in black of late, and Brabham, Williams, Benetton, Renault, and Red Bull have popped up from time to time for the blue and whites, but in general the tendency remains.

In Australia, Holden, Shell, Winfield, and Vodafone, have been hideously successful for red; while Ford's blue has lagged behind a lot of the time. 

I could argue that humans as bioelectromechanical meatbags with optical systems which are designed to find red things which indicate food, fire, and danger, against the backdrop of green plants and blue skies, have been crafted specifically to respond better to red wavelengths of light and maybe there is a good scientific paper to back this up but that doesn't quite explain why across sporting events, which are made up and ultimately do not matter (which is why they matter so very very much) people and machines driven by people, playing in red, tend to do better.

What I want to know, is if playing in red makes the participants marginally better, or if facing a team in red makes the participants marginally worse. The big red machines of Manchester United, Arsenal, and Liverpoool, all chose their colours long before the corporate dollarpound ever showed up. Ferrari didn't even choose its colours but got its scarletti from and European Sporting Council which gave Italy red, as early as 1911. 

If so, does this explain why the Romans like red standards, why England's three gold lions are set against red, why the English Army were the redcoats; why the communists and socialists raised the scarlet standard high? I have no idea.

Horse 3041 - No, It's Not Just The "Weather". It's Way Way Worse.

There was a graphic on BBC News this week that compared a fictional weather forecast from the Met Office for July 2050 which was made about 10 years ago, to the actual forecast from the Met Office for July 2022, and the results are horrifying. London has for the first time this week experienced 40°C temperatures; not only once but repeatedly this week. 

The United Kingdom being upwards of 50° north of the equator, has housing and infrastructure dating back at least 200 years in some parts and is simply not designed, not merely to cope with this, but even if this was a possibility. To put this in perspective, I have a Philips School Atlas at home which was published in 1980. It has yearly temperature range charts for Europe and the UK and for London, the average daily maximum is stated as being 17°C. 

The Met Office said that the projected figures showed what Britain "can expect to experience by summer 2050 under a high emissions scenario; showing that "some physical changes in the climate we can expect and how they might impact business and industry". Summer 2050 appears to have arrived 26 years too early.

Speaking as an Australian Australian there is a temptation to go "Hurr, hurr, hurr!" and deride the British as being a load of softies but if your whole built environment is designed for something which is 30°C cooler than what you are experiencing, then that's deeply unpleasant. I was in Sheffield in 2003 when it got to 41°C but that was only one day and a freak occurrence at that. Britain and Europe which are 50°N compared with 36°S where I live in Sydney, should not expect this as normal. Sure, like mad dogs and Englishmen we do play cricket in the midday sun but as Australian Australians we live in a nation which expects droughts and floods, upon this prison island which was hidden in the summer for a million years. Normal in Australia is not normal in England.

We as people live at the bottom of a vast ocean. That ocean is mostly made of nitrogen gas, mixed in with oxygen and a bunch of other reasonably inert gases. This ocean goes through yearly warming and cooling cycles, as the earth which is tilted at 23° rolls around on its rotationally locked dance around the sun which is eight light minutes away. That giant miasma of incandescent plasma heats up each pole of rotation for roughly half of the time; which is how we experience seasons.

If the earth was simply a theoretical white body, it would be warm to the touch on the hot side facing the sun and freezing on the cold dark side facing away from it. If the earth was simply a theoretical black body, it would be warm to the touch on the hot side facing the sun and then radiate the heat it just acquired on the cold dark side facing away from it.

The earth though is neither a theoretical white body or a theoretical black body but a small blue rocky marble thing, which is covered in one ocean of liquid ash and a another ocean of gaseous soup. These two oceans retain roughly 15°C of heat, such that the dark side doesn't immediately freeze every night. A Swedish scientist called Svante Arrhenius wanted a better explanation for this and so in 1896, performed a bunch of experiments and then generalised the results to the earth as a whole, then wrote a paper called "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground". What this basically says is that our ocean of gaseous soup acts a bit like a greenhouse on a cold day and retains the heat inside it. That's really useful if you don't want all of your plants to die.

https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

In the world of 1898, we we busily liberating loads and loads of Carbonic Acid (otherwise known as Carbon Dioxide) into the ocean of gaseous soup which we live at the bottom of, by burning loads and loads of coal and oil and doing lovely chemistry in turning solids into gases. It was a revolution! Not only did we discover that burning loads and loads of coal and oil and doing lovely chemistry in turning solids into gases was useful for boiling water to turn into steam for steam engines which were running factories making all kinds of neat stuff, but then we discovered that we could burn those same things to boil water in giant kettles to make electricity to run factories making all kinds of neat stuff, and then the electricity to power all the neat stuff we made which we put in our houses. Then we discovered that if you burnt oil products that you could use that in engines to make cars and trucks and planes and boats go really fast. Then we discovered that by doing more lovely chemistry that we could turn the oil itself into the raw materials to make more neat stuff we made which we put in our houses.

Fun times, yeah? That's totally going to go on forever. 500 years of burning stuff and then knocking down the trees is going to do nothing, right? So long as we keep on making neat stuff, then a few very rich people or very lucky people to do science get to become even more rich and lucky do cool stuff like blasting off into space. 

Then we realised that our little blue rocky marble thing, which is covered in one ocean of liquid ash and a another ocean of gaseous soup, is actually a bit smaller and more fragile than we thought. Then we looked at the other little rocky marble things and saw that doing all that lovely chemistry if let to go out of control, makes it very very hot indeed and not good for life at all. 

The bottom line is that we've done science and we know that adding more and more Carbonic Acid into the ocean of gaseous soup which we live at the bottom of, is a Very Bad Idea™. We've known that it might be a bad idea for about 120 years and now we're beginning to see by means of uncontrolled experiment that is a Very Bad Idea™.

So to everyone who claims that climate change isn't real, wake up to yourself and read a basic science book. You clearly don't know what you are talking about and the fact that you either don't know or aren't aware of the basic chemistry which explains the reason why we don't all freeze to death, says that you are a fool. Also to everyone who claims that climate change isn't real, you haven't actually performed the experiment to prove otherwise; which means that purely from a risk assessment point of view, you should be not only ignored but actively told to sit down and shut up.

Horse 3040 - "You Should Be A Teacher." "No, I Should Not."

I have been told twice in a fortnight that I would be a good school teacher. These people have told me that I have a calm demeanor and that this would make me suited to the profession. The problem with this is that although I might have these qualities, not having children of my own, I know nothing of the skills necessary to be able to keep a class full of children, much less teenagers under control. I bet that within six minutes of me stepping into a classroom, it would be classified as a warzone by the UN and several things would be on fire. In short, putting me in front of a class full of children would be an unmitigated disaster and nothing short of abject chaos and calamity would ensue.

The truth is that there are some people who are built for the job of teaching. Teaching is a vital and necessary profession which is best expressed by people who have a passion for the job, to impart knowledge and wisdom up their students, and whom we've seen through multiple incidents do the job with a contingent risk of harm to their person.

Teaching is a profession which is necessary and hideously important to the maintenance and betterment of society; not just through the improvement of the notional labour stock of the nation but also to some degree, about inspiring the dreams and hopes of people. Teachers are very much part of that web of people who help to build and polish the character of young people. 

The problem is that in addition to being a difficult and undervalued job, which is already subject to self-selection processes, as teaching involves the responsible supervision of other people's children, it is also subject to cancellation processes. Granted, there are people doing the job who probably shouldn't be but by the same token, there are people who might be good at the job who will cancel themselves from the available stock of labour because as a society we deem that there are people who probably shouldn't be doing the job.

Let me ask the obvious question to anyone with daughters. Would you allow me, a male, aged between 25-65, within 10 feet of your daughter, who is under the age of 18? I would wager that the answer in most circumstances, is "no". 

The simple an unavoidable fact is that every single male who enters the teaching profession, is immediately viewed with suspicion; with very good reason. The world is not a nice place and the motives of people are equally not nice. The truth is that no sane parent would actively put their daughters in the same room as a man for extended periods of time. They might put their sons in the same room as a man for extended periods of time but that's mainly because there is a base assumption that due to a physical difference in power between boys and girls, boys are nominally better at being able to fight back. Yet this is what we ask of parents when they send their children to school.

If you multiply this base assumption across several million people, then repeating this same experiment thousands of times should lead to a situation where you will end up with very few male primary school teachers and a slightly higher proportion of male high school teachers; where the latter is still biased towards the STEM subjects. Even looking back upon my own time as a school student, I had no male primary school teachers and only a handful of male high school teachers. 

Then overlay this base assumption with findings of various Royal Commissions into the abuse of children and the incentive for men to enter the teaching profession is pretty low.

Imagine a scenario where a 16 year old girl makes an accusation against a male teacher. In don't even care what the accusation is, just the thought of the risk should inform us that she should be believed. However, even if the accusation is 100% baseless, the just the fact that an accusation has been made is enough to ruin someone's career.

If I can lay out a scenario in just one paragraph, then it stands to reason that every man who has ever even thought about teaching as a profession must have at some point, also laid out this scenario in their mind. One of the benefits of being able to game things out in theory, means that you never have to work them out in practice. Re-ask the question. Should a male aged 25-65 become a school teacher? In most cases "no". Therein lies the inherent problem.

Teaching might be seen by society as one of those professions which is plagued by gender stereotypes. Whether or not it is seen as a female profession, is actually secondary in this case as to whether or not it can even be a profession that males can enter, let alone whether they should or not.

The question about whether or not I would become a teacher, is a very very hard "no". It doesn't even matter whether or not I'd be good at it (which for the record I do not think that I would be), the fact is that the possibility of being accused of anything is enough to completely rule out the entire profession as a viable option.

I have worked in the Commonwealth Law Courts as a court recorder; I have sat in police recordings with people who in all likelihood have committed murder; I have also been sent as a court recorder to military and international court proceedings. I can tell you that the average profile for a murderer is literally anybody. Without exception, quite literally everybody is capable of killing someone else given the circumstances. I think that deep down, not only do we all know this to be true but we know it of other people. Given this as a fact, are parents really likely to believe anything said by a male teacher when that is the case? Again, the answer quite rightly is a very very hard "no".

Horse 3039 - When Are "The Olden Days"?

The definition of "middle age" is pretty easy to work out. If you take your current age and double it and nobody is surprised that you have dies, then you are middle aged. I think that middle age officially beings at age 29, which helps to explain why the official age of ladies is 29... until it isn't. Likewise, "old age" follows a similar metric, where if you double someone's age and everyone would be really surprised that someone is still alive, then you are old. Probably old age begins at 51.

The days of my youth have long since been and gone. Some people my age have had children that are now old enough to have had children of their own. Scrolling through the Facebook (yes, being old gives you licence to add the definite article unnecessarily) is at times, less like a way to catch up with friends and family and more reminder that Tim Reaper with his Massey Ferguson Combine Harvester (he gave up with a scythe a long time ago) is coming very very slowly. In fact, the Reaper moves at 1 mile an hour (1.61km/h) and provided that you can walk faster than him, he will likely not catch you. Walk slower than that and he will keep his appointment. Heaven has a bus stop outside of the pearly gates and Hades has busted gates which are open all the time.

This leads me on to the nebulous term of "The Olden Days". I have now heard the question asked of parents younger than I (I do not have children), of what life was like in The Olden Days. To ask the question is an indicator that the person has enough imagination to realise that the world did not begin when they did. However, as for me who is older than I need to be, hearing the question is like paradigm shifting without the clutch; sparks are flying everywhere (and even now I realise that that turn of phrase indicates that I am old).

There is in fact a definitive test of when The Olden Days are. It is contained in the children's song; which goes:

"In the olden days, in the olden days,

For your grandma was a baby,

In the olden days."

Already, just like "middle age" and "old age", "The Olden Days" comes with a sliding scale depending on the user in question. 

Let's assume that we are talking about the child, of the child, of someone that I went to school with. This would make the person that I went to school with, a grandma or grandpa. The scary thing is that for such a child, then The Olden Days would be when I was a baby; which would be the late 1970s. It is daft to think of The Olden Days as being an age of colour TV but there we are.

I have no idea what the youngest age of a grandma or grandpa is but it could be as early as 30. This would mean that 15 year olds are having children in repeated generations. In such and example, then The Olden Days which would be 30 years ago, would be before July 1992. I find it even more buckwild that The Olden Days is in an age of the internet (but just before Eternal September) and where Mario and Sonic The Hedgehog can be found of consoles. 

For me as an old person, The Olden Days take you right back to the First World War. This is an age before most people have electricity, which also is before the internet, television, microwave ovens, radio, washing machines, and even electric light in most people's houses. It is before indoor toilets and maybe even before plumbed sewerage. It is even before the H1N1 Flu Pandemic; which means that The Olden Days also includes a time before the last major major pandemic.

Relative to me, The Olden Days contains the destruction of 60 million people due to flying metal projectiles because 9 cousins got angry at each other and then the demise of another 100 million people because of a tiny unseen enemy which the best defence at the time was wearing a mask and staying away from enclosed spaces. That's not hard to imagine. Relative to me, The Olden Days gets better with electric trains, cars, and the radio all waiting to be opened like presents for the world.

For my grandparents, The Olden Days will be before the days of electricity. People will have had to collect water from street pumps, fountains, rivers, and they they would have needed a fire going in their houses. There is no gas light, no gas cooking, and likely not even literacy en masse.

I do not think that I would have had fun. I can imagine working in an Olden Days office with physical account books and ledgers, perhaps reading the newspaper and novels, but that assumes that I wuld have been in an upper class family and not died before the age of 7 due to cholera.

What this says is that the sliding scale of The Olden Days is actually a useful window through which to view the world complexly. Humans occupy this strange country called "Now" which includes everything which currently exists. Things which have passed, things which have disappeared, things which have been superseded, can only be imagined. I for instance can imagine The Olden Days as it applies to me and I think that I would have coped reasonably well but even The Olden Days for my parents will put you back into a world without electricity. As it is, the world currently contains exactly zero people who come from a world entirely without electricity.

Applying the rules of logic here, The Olden Days relative to the child who asked the question that prompted this, is very likely to be in the age of the post-war baby boom. The Olden Days im this case includes radio and maybe television, and rock and roll, really cool cars, no franchise fast food places, greasy spoon cafes with bad coffee, no motorways, trams and electric trains and still some steam trains in active service, maybe dying of polio and cancer, and still with a hope that the world was going to get better... which it did... for a bit.

Horse 3038 - How Does One Inherit A Church? Is That Thing Actually A "Church"?

There are some things that you read in the newspaper which make your brain break twice. The following is from the Sydney Morning Herald from about a month ago and I just couldn't let this go.

https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/sydney-rich-listers-flogging-designer-wardrobes-online-for-pocket-money-20220602-p5aqon.html

Hillsong heiress Laura Toggs and Laser Clinics Australia co-founder Kate Champion aren't the only society figures reselling clothes online...

- Sydney Morning Herald, 5th Jun 2022

In the first instance, I was genuinely confused by this statement. The words "Hillsong heiress" were either being used incorrectly because of the ignorance of the writer or perhaps with very exacting precision because the writer did due diligence and checked this fact before they committed it to print.

Perhaps you can see the problem with this statement. Exactly how does one inherit a church? Or perhaps, is Hillsong actually not a church and as such may be inherited? Questions like these have been buzzing around in my head for more than a decade when during my time as a court recorder, the question of what Hillsong is, was being asked by the Australian Taxation Office and rattling through institutions like the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He we are more than a decade and a half later and this legal question, if not the spiritual question, has dared to be asked yet again.

Before we even get to the answers of these questions, we need to set aside all notions of faith. An old saying that may be instructive is that "God does not have any grandchildren". That is that faith itself is not something that can be inherited since one's conception about the universe is ultimately something which people have to arrive at themselves. The grand delusion or not delusion, the last final deception or undeception, can only properly be ultimately proved once someone has popped off this mortal coil, taken a giant gulp of eternity, and has crossed into the unknown forever. The Destroying Angel, a.k.a. The Grim Reaper, a.k.a. The Ferry Man, a.k.a. Mr Death, has an appointment with everyone and because he hates doing paperwork, he only needs to visit everyone once. I think that after Tim Reaper has paid you a visit, that you do get to see the big G looking at his books. Opinions will vary. If I am wrong, then nothing of consequence happens. God might not play dice as Einstein suggested but I am very much playing dice games with Pascal and betting on the outcome.

Setting all of that aside, what we have here is a corporate question and a legal one.

I suspect that the general consensus is that churches generally are not-for-profit and not subscribed corporations. A local church body is likely to either be part of a federation where the local branch is itself its own body, or a sub-branch of a bigger denominational wide body.

A church is likely to be of the form of corporation sole or something similar, just like the Crown. The Crown is of course the classic example of corporation sole, being founded by constitution and having members (that is the citizens) who vote for the executive of the corporation (the parliament). A local church is likely to vote for and appoint officers such as the Pastor/Reverend, Treasurer, as well as Deacons and Elders.

This in principle is why I am incredibly confused by this article. Granted that Laura Toggs is the daughter of Hillsong church's founder Brian Houston but by calling her an "heiress" that assumes that the corporation structure of Hillsong has shares which can be inherited. 

Shares of normal companies, be they proprietary or listed corporations, may be bought and sold like any other pieces of property, even though they are not real. Those shares may or may not have entitlements attached to them, such as the right to vote or the right to receive dividends, or may in fact be specifically excluded from those rights. What I do not understand, as probably most of the attendees to Hillsong also do not understand, is what the nature of the corporate structure is; much less if it has shares that may be bought and sold and inherited.

I am led to a very strange question. In most genuine churches, due to the nature of them being corporation sole, they are not heritable. Quite apart from the statement of fact that it is literally impossible to inherit someone else's faith or buy or sell it, they idea that someone can buy a church, just seems like a logical stupidity to me. Thus, this became a matter of looking through public record.

Details in the registers for both ASIC and ABR indicate that Hillsong Ltd is a Public Company which is limited by Guarantee. Some organisations prefer to use companies limited by guarantee because they are particularly suited for conducting non-profit activities. Specifically:

- they cannot pay dividends

- they cannot issue shares and therefore no person can acquire a controlling interest or profit from a share sale

- each member of the company has a single vote

Immediately we have a contradiction being played out here. Churches generally are corporation sole and can not be bought or sold. In addition to not being able to be bought or sold, title of the single non-subscribed share also can not be traded, transferred, or inherited. 

Hillsong however is in fact a corporation, which is limited by Guarantee. That means that it has a Guarantor and some Settled Sum which stands as the opening proprietary capital. Hillsong has shares which may be bought and sold and inherited. As this is a matter of public record, I am even more inclined to ask the question of fact. That is, is Hillsong actually a church, or is it a corporation which operates a record label?

As far the ATO, ASIC and the ABR are concerned, that might be enough to prove that the thing is in fact a church. Legally the corporate structure of Hillsong appears to be some kind of corporation limited by Guarantee; which may or may not be heritable. 

You can even sprinkle around some appropriate words like "Jesus" and "Holy" and probably as far most people are concerned, the thing looks like a church. I suspect that people do come to Christ through Hillsong and that it might be a useful tool in God's box of bits, however I am still not necessarily convinced that the thing which has managed to manipulate government policy, which has parachuted people into positions of power, is completely what it says on the tin.

Horse 3037 - Constitutional Survey - IV

Part IV - Both Houses of the Parliament

<><><><><>

41. Right of electors of States

No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

<>

Looking back, Section 41 is one of the most disgusting pieces of law which was ever passed in Australia. Read this carefully. It says that if people have the right to vote in a state election, then they also have a right to vote in a federal one. What if the inverse of this condition is true? Suppose that someone doesn't have the right to vote in a state election. That then means that they also do not have the right to vote federally either.

What this meant in real terms is that women in most states wouldn't have the franchise extended to them until the state parliaments changed the law and aboriginal people in Queensland in particular, were explicitly denied the right to vote federally because they couldn't vote in a state election.

Australia famously does not have a bill of rights in the Constitution. In most circumstances I think that this is a good idea because it means that if rights are discovered or invented, or other rights expire or should be withdrawn for the public good, then the sovereignty of the will of the people expressed through the parliament can change this through legislation. The problem is that the franchise is the prime means through which the sovereignty of the will of the people is expressed. After all, how do you know what people want unless you ask them.

A useful principle in the constitution of nations is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Again, how is the consent of the governed arrived at, if not through means of asking for that consent. This is also why I think that the Electoral Act 1918 in defining voting as a civic duty and not a right (in Section 245) is the only sensible and just position. A right can be suppressed. A duty must be enabled to be fulfilled.

<><><><><>

42. Oath or affirmation of allegiance

Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution.

<>

An oath is essentially a promise by a person to perform some act; which has been witnessed by a body corporate or some other authority. In this instance, the oath is one of allegiance and alignment, where the person who wishes to become an MP promises to do good for the parliament and the nation. To break the oath or affirmation of allegiance is to break one's promise to the parliament and that is seen as a very very serious offence; in fact more so than just a mere promise. If a person's word is fraudulent, then we have an instance which is very very serious indeed. 

Having said that, the volume of thieves, scoundrels, bounders, cads, and knaves who occupy the benches of parliament is enough to make your hair curdle and your milk curl. Still, I suppose that's the way the ball crumbles and the cookie bounces.

<><><><><>

43. Member of one House ineligible for other

A member of either House of the Parliament shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the other House

<>

Section 43 requires an MP if they want to sit in the other house, to resign their post and then contest that election and win or be appointed. This is fair enough. Most likely this is to prevent someone from the Reps from voting on legislation and then sitting in the Senate to vote on that same piece of legislation.

The latest and most recently famous case of Section 43 in action was at the 2022 election when Kristina Keneally resigned her Senate seat and unsuccessfully contested the House of Representatives seat of Fowler.

In 1967 when Harold Holt walked off into the ocean never to return, the Liberal Party had an immediate leadership vacuum. From 17th Dec 1967 until 10th Jan 1968, Australia had no Prime Minister but it wasn't like any pressing issues were going to come up over the Christmas break. The Liberal Party then selected John Gorton as the leader on January 9th 1968 and he was sworn in as Prime Minister on January 10th.

To date, Gorton is the only Australian Senator to be sworn in as Prime Minister; he would subsequently win Holt's vacant seat of Higgins at a by-election.

The constitution makes no mention of the Prime Minister or even if there needs to be one. Gorton resigned his Senate post purely through convention; with the assumption that he would win Holt's old seat. As Gorton won the Higgins by-election on 24th Feb 1968 with 69.40% of the vote, there wasn't even a need for second preferences. However, Section 43 provided that if he wanted the seat that Holt had occupied, that he needed to resign his Senate post; which he did.

That means that from 1st Feb until 24th Feb, Australia had a Prime Minister who wasn't even a member of parliament. We shall see later in the Constitution that this is perfectly fine because this falls within the three month window that someone can become a member without having a seat in Parliament.

<><><><><>

44. Disqualification

Any person who:

(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or

(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or

(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or

(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or

(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

<>

What a doozie!

The questions of whether or not someone "holds any office of profit under the Crown", "or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth", is generally taken to be something other than general wages or the old age, unemployment, disability pension, or similar. An old age pensioner or a teacher, does not have to resign from their pension or employment if they wish to pursue a job as a Member of Parliament. 

Section 44(v) says that any person who “has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth” is disqualified from sitting as a member of parliament.

Peter Dutton, as recorded in the parliamentary register of interests, is the beneficiary of a discretionary family trust. The trust (via the trustee) owns two childcare centres in Queensland. Those childcare centres have agreements with the APS to provide childcare services in exchange for childcare subsidies.

Does Peter Dutton have a beneficial interest in a trust that has an agreement with the public service, which might trigger Section 44(v)? Who knows?

Dutton could argue the childcare centres receive a government subsidy on behalf of the parents and does not have a pecuniary arrangement with the Crown. However, if an agreement with the APS exists then it might appear as though Dutton have a position under profit. Why else run a for profit childcare centre?

As it stands, there has never been a referral by the House of Representatives to the High Court, as the Court of Disputed Returns, to answer the question. It might give rise to a disqualification but never asking the question means that his position is for now, safe.

<>

Section 44 became famous in the period of 2016-19 when a series of unfortunate incidents meant that a whole heap of MPs suddenly found themselves to be ineligible to sit in parliament and had to contest their seats all over again.

Back in 2017 there were seven cases of possible breaches of Section 44(i), when when seven members of parliament were found to have dual citizenship. 

Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, both Greens Senators, resigned. National Party Senator Matt Canavan, deputy leader of the Nationals and Senator Fiona Nash, Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce; as well as Nick Xenophon and One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, all had their cases referred to the High Court, through the Court of Disputed Returns.

On 27th Oct 2017, the High Court found in unanimous, in all seven cases that according to the "ordinary and natural meaning" of its language and according to Section 44 (i), that the fact of citizenship was disqualifying, regardless of whether the person knew of the citizenship or engaged in any voluntary act of acquisition. That now means that if anyone is entitled to dual citizenship, that they might be in trouble.

The specific clause at play was whether or not MPs were "entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power"; which usually meant that they were entitles to foreign citizenship, by virtue of being born overseas and/or having parents and grandparents that were.

Suddenly, the question was being asked of the utility of having such a clause within the Constitution, especially given that more than half of the population was either born overseas or are the children of people that were. I for one definitely see the utility in this clause; not because I think that people who might be entitled to foreign citizenship are likely to be disloyal to the country but because Section 44 now acts as a kind of trap clause, which inadvertently makes sure that people have at least read the Constitution before wanting to become an MP. 

<><><><><>

45. Vacancy on happening of disqualification

If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:

(i) becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or

(ii) takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or

(iii) directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;

his place shall thereupon become vacant.

<>

The rules for what happens in the two houses if a seat becomes vacant, are different. The rules for how those seats actually get to become vacant in the first place, is the same. 

In the House, a vacancy after someone has been disqualified will mean that that seat then becomes subject to a by-election. As we have seen, a former MP who has just been disqualified may then recontest the seat provided that they have removed the disability which has impeded their eligibility. That was the case with Barnaby Joyce.

In the Senate, the usual policy is for the state party of the seat which had just been made vacant, to fill the vacant seat with some other person, who may not have even been on the ballot at the previous election. This was the case with Kristina Kenneally.

<><><><><>

46. Penalty for sitting when disqualified

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

<>

The sun of "one hundred pounds" per day at the rate of conversion in 1966 of 10/- to $1 works out to be $200/day.

Section 46 lay mostly dormant for quite some time until the passage of the Common Informers Act 1975 (which meant that the Parliament did provide otherwise) and even then it was not really all that important until David Gillespie was challenged for his eligibility.

Even then, the result of the decision in that case is that Section 46 and Common Informers Act /requires a prior finding of ineligibility by the House of Representatives or the Senate or the Court of Disputed Returns under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This is in keeping with Section 47 that a penalty should only be pursued once a finding of liability has been made. That is, a case has to exist before there can be a penalty exacted.

In the case of Malcolm Roberts, blogger Tony Magrathea began a High Court action in September of 2017; alleging that Roberts had sat in the Senate while disqualified. The case rattled its way through the court and on 24th June 2019, the High Court found the allegation proved and ordered Roberts to pay a penalty of $6,000 to Magrathea.

I do not know what the writers of the Constitution intended what Section 46 was supposed to do exactly but the fact that there have been test cases and even someone falling foul of it and being ordered to pay a penalty to a private person as Section 46 states, suggests that it works well.

<><><><><>

47. Disputed elections

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

<>

It seems a bit strange to me that Section 47 questions should be referred to the House in which the question of a disputed election arises to that same house. It is a bit like putting criminals in charge of a gaol, or thieves in change of a bank. I think that Section 47 by design sets up a conflict of interest because it wants to hold the sovereignty of the parliament as being responsible for that same sovereignty.

After laying out Sections 44-46, the security of whether or not someone should be able to sit in parliament is I think, rather compromised. Since the AEC only conducts elections and doesn't check the eligibility of members, then this section basically leaves parliament to police itself.

<><><><><>

48. Allowance to members

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.

<>

If we assume the very long inflation rate of 4% (which appears to be the long rate from about 1 Anno Urbitae) then this works out to be $95,754; which looks very close to the current rate of AWOTE. It is notoriously difficult to get anything approaching a sensible AWOTE figure for the year 1901 but while searching thorough the archives of the Sydney Morning Herald, I found an advertised clerk's position at a bank paying £5/5/9 per week. That works out to be £274/19/- per year.

What this says to me is that the Commonwealth is going to pay over and above average wages for being a parliamentarian, with the expectation that a Member of Parliament will treat this like a full-time position because that's what it is. It isn't overly generous; which means that the captains of industry are less likely to want to sit, thus leaving behind a more representative sample relative to the population of candidates who want the job.

It must also be said that £400 per year will have bought you a very very nice house in the centre of any of the capital cities of that time, including bang in the middle of Melbourne where the first parliaments sat.

<><><><><>

49. Privileges etc. of Houses

The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

<>

Here we have the admission that in principle, the Australian Parliament is equal to the House of Commons but not equal to the House of Lords. It should also be noted that in 1901, appeals could still be made to the appellant courts of the House of Lords and the Privy Council et cetera. 

Section 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 suggests that the debates in parliament should not be questioned and that debates outside of parliament which relate to that also aught not to be questioned. However the doctrine of Parliamentary Privilege, that is the right for an MP on the floor of the parliamentary chambers to say literally anything and not face any law with regards defamation, sedition, et cetera, is an almost unique privilege attached with the extension of immunity of consequence; which is found in no other context that I can think of.

<>

There is an interesting aside here. In 1910, the United Kingdom Budget made allowances for things like old age pensions and attempted perhaps for the first time to begin building the welfare state. This was met with absolute ire and scorn from the House of Lords who point blank refused to pass the legislation. This caused a parliamentary crisis and it wasn't until some brokering from the King and the Commons, that the Parliament Act 1911 placed limits on what the House of Lords could block. The 1911 Parliament Act very heavily limited the veto power of the Lords and completely removed the Lords' ability to block supply and money bills from the Commons.

This does not apply in Australia. As Section 49 explicitly stated that the Australian Parliament has the "powers, privileges, and immunities" which "shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom" then the Australian Senate back then and still now, retained it's veto power over bills coming from the House of Representatives; including money bills (which is how we got to the 1975 Parliamentary Crisis). 

<><><><><>

50. Rules and orders

Each House of the Parliament may make rules and orders with respect to:

(i) the mode in which its powers, privileges, and immunities may be exercised and upheld;

(ii) the order and conduct of its business and proceedings either separately or jointly with the other House.

<>

This is the underlying section which gives the houses the power to make and enforce their own Standing Orders and the Rules, Powers, Privileges, and Immunities therein. 

Again, Section 50 in conjunction with Section 49 suggests that the two houses have the ability to make their own orders, rules and privileges but they had to start somewhere. Almost certainly and following Section 49, they probably would have just copied the standing orders from the British House of Commons.

Horse 3036 - The Howling Morons Have Stopped Howling

All the way back in Horse 2188, I said that:

https://rollo75.blogspot.com/2016/11/horse-2188-trump-wins-in-2016.html

In the UK, Britain voted to leave the EU and David Cameron resigned because he couldn't hold the party together. The current Prime Minister Teresa May always looks perpetually stunned and I would not be at all surprised if she too is knifed by a blithering idiot like Boris Johnson. It just might be possible that by the next British General Election, that Donald Trump and Boris Johnson could be leading the governments of the anglosphere. Of course Australia would have to follow suit at some point and probably appoint Spud Dutton or worse, Christopher Pyne or Treasurer Scott Morrison, to form a grinning triumvirate of Howling Morons across the anglosphere.

The only thing that I can say is that the Howling Morons are howling louder than ever before and it is beyond my ability to comprehend why. What is this? I don't even.

- Horse 2188, 9th Nov 2016

Now I am not going to claim for a second to have the gift of prophecy but it seemed pretty obvious to me back then that parts of the Anglosphere were being pushed massively to the right; at the expense of common sense and decency. This was being aided and abetted by church groups who were being openly used as vote vending machines and sections of the secular right who couldn't honestly give two hoots about the welfare of anyone but themselves. In short, you do not need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows and back then, the winds were guff powered. 

I can report that following the revolt of more than 50 Tory Ministers and Aides, it looks like that Boris Johnson will finally be convinced that he should enjoy the Stewardship Of The Chiltern Hundreds, and that the Festival Of The Howling Moron might finally be coming to a close.

As usual, there is no story told in a vacuum; so we have to look back into the fog of history to see how we got here.

Way back in the day, after Maggie Thatcher had sold out the soul of the Conservative Party to the lowest bidder and John Major (Britain's last actually good Prime Minister) successfully lost the unwinnable election, Tony Blair was swept to power in a wave of Cool Britannia and abandoning everything that Labour stood for. Maggie Thatcher celebrated her successful destruction of the fabric of British life, by being kicked upstairs to the House of Lords, going off in an alcoholic haze, getting Alzheimer's and ultimately never answering for what she did.

Tony Blair after spending three glorious years by not doing anything but most importantly not being Maggie Thatcher, then decided to pony up to George W Bush. Together they

went to war in Iraq on the basis of lies, and in time Blair was replaced by Gordon Brown (texture like sun), and would also never answer for what he did.

The Tory Replacement Bus Service made a deal with UKIP after having to endure five years of sharing (no) power with the Liberal Democrats and after a period of austerity, David Cameron made a promise to the racists of Britain to go for a full English Brexit. That promise foisted Cameron by his own petard, exploded Teresa May, and after nobody at all wanted the job, comedy blatherer and pantomime Mayor of London Boris Johnson took up the job, and has spent his time comedy blathering and pantomiming it up in Number 10 Downing Street. Has he been a good Prime Minister? Oh no he hasn't!

Basically ever since Maggie Thatcher sold out the governance of the United Kingdom to "The City", Westminster and Number 10 have been on a default project of dancing the Charleston while Great Britain aka HMS Colander, slowly sinks beneath the waves. 

Cruelty, Boredom, Cool, Apathy, Austerity, Awkward, Comedy - this is the worst production of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, ever. 

Johnson never really stood a chance of being even a part way decent Prime Minister because as the head of the executive of the Tories, decency just hasn't been a policy option open to him. It certainly hasn't helped that this plague came along; which has only heightened the visible signs that the Tories do not think that the rules apply to them. Even the phrase that he was "Ambushed by cake" when giving an explanation as to why there were parties going on inside Number 10 Downing Street while the rest of the country was in lockdown, is emblematic of a party whose consistent policy line has been to ensure that more rewards of society go to the already rich and powerful. Even in the middle of an inflationary period which is being driven by an shock in oil prices, the solution being put forward is not the destruction of money through taxation which would have stabilised the value of the Pound Sterling but ever more tax cuts.

This current chain of events which led to the massive walkout, started on 29th June when the Conservative deputy chief whip Chris Pincher, went to a private members' club in London and was accused of groping two men. He claimed that  "drank far too much and embarrassed himself" and Johnson was not aware of any specific allegations about Mr Pincher before appointing him as deputy chief whip in February. The problem was that Johnson completely knew about the allegations and appointed Mr Pincher anyway.

This led to a review of Johnson's voted to pause a 30-day suspension for then-Conservative MP Owen Paterson who had broken lobbying rules, to try to benefit companies who paid him under the table.

All of this is in addition to the report by Sue Gray who described a heap of parties going on inside Number 10, while Metropolitan Police issued 126 fines to 83 people for breaking lockdown rules in Downing Street and Whitehall.

If we had entered a sensible timeline, then Boris Johnson would have been a perennially beloved comedy blatherer on BBC Radio 4 panel shows like Clement Freud or Gyles Brandreth. Mind you, the most sensible choice of American President would have been Paul Ryan but that didn't happen either. Instead, the world got accidentally switched to Stupid Mode and the Anglosphere performed an experiment in executive government by Top Bantz. Guess what? It doesn't work.

The problem for the Tory Party is that it now has the same job that it was facing only a few years ago. It has to fill a job which nobody wants to do, with candidates who are definitely committed to not doing the job well; except that on this occasion it has to fill the job from a pool of candidates whom nobody has heard of.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the next British Prime Minister might very well be the current Minister For The 1920s, Jacob Rees-Mogg. 

Here we are. The Festival Of The Howling Moron might be coming to a close. Australia has elected a remarkably competent Prime Minister to office. America has elected a calm President to office. We do not yet know who Great Britain will install.

What we do know is that we the audience of BBC Radio 4 panel shows have been denied Boris Johnson as the comedy blatherer that he should have been and that's terrible.

Horse 3035 - What If America Lost The War Of Rebellion?

As the United States of America celebrates its Independence Day in the most American way possible, with yet another mass shooting in Illinois, I was posed the question of what I think would have happened if the American Rebellion was put down and there was no Independence Day. The question is certainly worth asking because it constantly seems from the outside looking in, that the United States of America was a bad idea in the first place and it has never ever come to terms with its own existence.

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The history of the nation consistently proves that as a nation, it holds these "truths" either in contempt or not to be true at all, and if you actually read through the list of claims directed at King George III, they also turn out not to be materially true either. 

So, on this July 5th as the rest of the world stares in horror at yet more people's lives, liberty and happiness, being destroyed in an instant at the point of a gun, I will attempt to answer the question of what would have happened had America not gained its independence and remained within the realm of Empire.

The original agitation against the British Government had to do with an imposition of taxation on the import of goods coming unto the American Colonies, which undercut the prices being charged by the East India Company. Most famously the residents of Boston decided to make the world's biggest, weakest and saltiest cup of tea, when they threw many many cases of tea into Boston Harbour. The actual effective rate of taxation on those goods works out to be about 2.9%. 

The less famous story is why the British Government reacted the way that it did. Quite apart from wanting to fund the administration in America, the sheer volume of slave labour in America meant that goods being produced in America were way cheaper than home in England. When your labour costs are next to nothing for producing things like cotton and metal goods, then this quite naturally caused outrage.

Already there was dissent in England over the issue of slavery and while anti-slavery cases were slowly rattling through the English court system, the idea as Hansard suggests, is that taxation might dissuade the practice of slavery in the colonies. Part of the reason for imposing taxation and enacting the so-called Punitive Acts was .to try and impose some kind of costs inward because of the outrage of slavery,

It also is true, that having fought a war with France on the North American continent in the 1750s, that Britain thought that fighting a war on the other side of the ocean was expensive. Part of the reason for imposing taxation was about recovery of costs from the people who benefitted the most from driving out the French.

If we for instance assume that General Burgoyne didn't surrender at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, then I suspect that the outcome would have been vastly different.

News of Somerset v Stewart in 1772 and Knight v Wedderburn in 1777, which together held that slavery was repugnant at English Common Law, would have leaked their way into the American Colonies. Remember, the so-called Punitive Acts were in part to dissuade the practice of slavery in the colonies and the news that it had been abolished at Common Law would have changed both the available force and the propaganda of the rebellion.

No longer is this a purely war for independence but a war being fought with the now open and uncomfortable truth that rich people are fighting for the right to keep and retain slavery in the American Colonies. The United States never really resolved this problem and in the 1789 Constitution, in counting the number of citizens by which Representatives and ergo Electoral College votes are apportioned, it counted people who were considered as chattel goods (aka slaves) as only being worth 3/5ths of a person. Assuming that this truth the rich people of the American Colonies have commandeered the bodies of poorer people to keep the institution of slavery, then we have a very different set of demographics at play.

America is now a seething battle of internal contradictions and I suspect that the American armies which were raised internally, would have been fought from within as well as from without.

If the American Rebellion is put down by about the end of 1778. Then the internal agitation to remove slavery at statute law would have accelerated. When the French Revolution kicked off in 1789, then ideas such as a Constitution and a more open form of democracy would have spread like wild fire in the American Colonies. I suspect that the Slave Trade Act of 1803 in Britain and the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833 would have both been telescoped to the early 1790s. 

All of this leads to an interesting question. What happens to the law as applied in the American Colonies? My suspicion is that an even bigger American Confederation which would have included what is now Canada, would have been granted dominion status a lot lot sooner. 

The Dominion of America would end up looking very much like Canada or Australia eventually did. It still would have had a series of bicameral parliaments, with Premiers inside the parliaments and with relatively impotent Governors as that last check on power.

If the Dominion of America exists, then the US Constitution doesn't exist with its very strange form of government and daft Bill of Rights also doesn't exist. Instead, the positive rights at law will have been deemed to exist in the first place and the existing Bill of Rights 1689 would have still been in force.

America's insane worship of guns almost certainly would have never have happened and the really really wild thing is that very possibly the entire North American continent may very well have been incorporated into one very very big country.

That puts America on a very different path; which is shaped by a less militant birth and would have meant that the idea that "all men are created equal" would have been an idea enshrined in law; instead of being a glib statement which was consistently proven by law to be a lie for 189 years. Things like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act simple do no need to exist if the statement that "all men are created equal" was held to actually be true in the first place.

I still think that given the space and the amount of resources across the vast and unwieldy North American continent, that the Dominion of America would have been the world's biggest economic superpower, except more so and even faster.

Of course I realise that what this means is that the country which I live in, that is Australia, would have never been taken as a British possession and would more than likely be a French Overseas Department. That also means that the game of Cricket also would have probably taken off in America and we'd have this massive powerhouse of the game.

Horse 3034 - Maybe The Old People Are Finally Listening To The Young People

The really interesting thing about the current narrative to do with train and bus strikes, teacher strikes, and nurses and medical workers complaints, is that the right-wing trashmedia such as the Daily Telegraph and Sky News Australia and increasingly the NineEnt Co. group which isn't even pretending that The Age or the Sydney Morning Herald deserve their spots as newspapers of record any more, is that the general public appear to be voting with their dollars and just aren't buying it any more.

Having been through one of the most vicious elections in recent memory and the persistent story that Dictator Dan in Victoria is a communist, that Anna Palaszczuk is a rampant socialist, the right-wing trashmedia is now trying to portray teachers, medical and transport workers as Marxists. It doesn't appear to be working.

Evidence that the media is losing not only its grip on the hearts and minds of the general public but also its grip on reality, while I was on the 611 bus on Thursday instead of a train (railway workers were taking protected industrial action), callers to 2GB in Sydney and Ben Fordham's program were ragging on the rags.

"Have you read this story in today's Daily Telegraph?"

"I wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with that garbage."

"Well that's yout opinion."

"And I'm not swallowing yours. Goodbye."

The general sentiment appears to be that the good and fair people of NSW, actually like the teachers, medical and transport workers; with some expressing the opinion that they support what they are trying to do.

I think it telling that the vast bulk of journalists in NSW, come from east of the Red Rooster line and have no idea what anyone on the other side of the line thinks about anything. The former newspaper network which used to employ a skeleton staff who would walk around with their cameras and take photos of grumpy people pointing at things, no longer exists. Any time that there is a news article posted to social media like Twitter or Facebook, articles are stuck behind a paywall; they are hidden away behind paywalls. As for buying a physical newspaper, people don't do that in anything like the numbers that they used to.

I think what the right-wing trashmedia hasn't learned is that people like the people that provide who with essential services and without the former inputs that used to tell them what to think, they are more likely to listen to the concerns of the people who provide them with essential services.

Probably this is also generational. The most likely consumers of old media are the Baby Boomers (and older) and the older members of Generation X. At the last census we were told that the percentage of the raw population was:

21.9% - Greatest Gen, Silent Gen and Baby Boomers

18.8% - Generation X

21.9% - Generation Y

Admittedly that does leave about 40% of the population in Generations Z and Alpha but seeing as less than half of Generation Z do not yet have the franchise by virtue of not yet being old enough, that cohort is not yet a significant driver of political policy.

Everyone before 1964 saw the welfare state put together and lived through the peak of real wages. The very first members of Generation X turned 18 in 1983 and wages were already on the slide and before the end of Generation X arriving at the franchise, the massive project to sell off our stuff which we used to hold in Commonwealth, was almost over. Generation Y, practically never had a say in anything; so by the time they got the franchise, they has already had all of their economic teeth punched out.

So in relation to train and bus strikes, teacher strikes, and nurses and medical workers complaints, most of Generation X, Y and Z are likely in sympathy with anyone trying to fight for better conditions and actually liveable wages. They've mostly accepted the fact that the world is increasingly becoming a deliberately nastier place and when you have a political party which was setup by the former proprietor of a right-wing trashmedia company, then even strikes are another dormant tool to try and take back what was never afforded or extended.

The young'uns can't listen because old media like talkback radio and newspapers (and whatever the heck Sky News Australia is) doesn't speak to them at all; now it seems that the old'uns might have finally woken up and are listening to the young'uns for maybe the first time in a long time.

Horse 3033 - Constitutional Survey - III

The thing that you very quickly realise with any survey of the Australian Constitution is how much it doesn't say. Part III which sets up the House of Representatives, spells out the mechanics of the House and precious little else.

There is nothing to do with where the members sit in the chamber, there is nothing at all to do witb te interaction of political parties with legislation, and there is nothing to do with executive cabinet or any of the ministers, much less the office of Prime Minister, or even if one needs to exist. Also, nowhere in here does it say that the House has the power to make or unmake itself. 

Part III is therefore little more than an expanded formal version of what might appear in Joske's Rules For Meetings. All of the conventions inside the House, including the Standing Orders, are nothing more than convention and have practically zero legal weight. 

This then is Part III:

<><><><><>

Part III - The House of Representatives

24. Constitution of House of Representatives

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.

The number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people, and shall, until the Parliament otherwise provides, be determined, whenever necessary, in the following manner:

a quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the Commonwealth, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by twice the number of the senators;

the number of members to be chosen in each State shall be determined by dividing the number of the people of the State, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by the quota; and if on such division there is a remainder greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the State.

But notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least shall be chosen in each Original State.

<>

Section 24 with its requirement that the House be roughly twice the size of the Senate, is as the result of a series of referenda to do with what became known as the nexus provisions. The Senate is by design, supposed to be unrepresentative and people often look to the fact that Tasmania which has less people than Western Sydney has 12 Senators whereas if you look in the House, just the people of Western Sydney if they wanted to, could cancel out the votes of Tasmania forever.

<><><><><>

25. Provisions as to races disqualified from voting

For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

<>

There have been rather well made arguments that Section 25 is very obviously racist and was deliberately put in to diminish the power of the votes of First Peoples in Queensland and South Australia (which included what is now the Northern Territory). The argument quite honestly says that because this is a Section which reflects a racist past, that we as a country should move on from it and repeal it.

I like the argument.

I also like the real world provisions which have been placed which render Section 25 inoperative by legislation. Things like the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and changes to the Electoral Act 1918, mean that there are no people who are "disqualified from voting at elections" on the basis of race. 

I think that if Section 25 is going to be repealed that it should be still included in things like the official publication of the Constitution and just like Section 127, be marked with a strikethrough.

<><><><><>

26. Representatives in first Parliament

Notwithstanding anything in section twenty-four, the number of members to be chosen in each State at the first election shall be as follows:

New South Wales - twenty-three;

Victoria - twenty;

Queensland - eight;

South Australia - six;

Tasmania - five;

Provided that if Western Australia is an Original State, the numbers shall be as follows:

New South Wales - twenty-six;

Victoria - twenty-three;

Queensland - nine;

South Australia - seven;

Western Australia - five;

Tasmania - five.

<>

26 + 23 + 9 + 7 + 5 + 5 = 75

Already you can see in the first parliament that NSW had more than a third of all members in the House. By itself, if everyone in NSW chose to all vote the same way, it could have completely negated the wishes of three states. 

Yes, the Senate is unrepresentative but it was always designed to be so. The House, which is representative according roughly to population already fulfils that function.

I do no think that people who dislike the Senate on the basis that Tasmania or South Australia have equal representation as NSW, appreciate that not only is the Senate explicitly barred from introducing money bills but that even legislation introduced in the Senate still has to be sent to the House for approval.

Any talk about minor parties becoming king makers in the Senate, misses the point that not only will you not find any mention of the Prime Minister but you will also find no mention of political parties either in the Constitution. Parliament could just as easily survive without them and demonstrably, State parliaments actually did so before the invention of party machines to game the system.

In fact, the Labor Party didn't get its first Prime Minister until 1910 and the Liberal Party didn't get its first Prime Minister until 1949. At federation, the Federal Parliament was a mish-mash of Protectionist, anti-Protectionist, Free Soil, Labor, Liberal (old), and independents all yelling furiously at and across each other.

<><><><><>

27. Alteration of number of members

Subject to this Constitution, the Parliament may make laws for increasing or diminishing the number of the members of the House of Representatives.

<>

When the parliament was started, there were 75 members in the House and 36 in the Senate. There are now 151 members in the House and 76 in the Senate. The number of members in most states has gone upwards except for Tasmania which still has five and there have been occasions where during the reallotment of members after a census, then some states have lost members.

<><><><><>

28. Duration of House of Representatives

Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.

<>

Australia learned from the United States' House of Representatives that two years is way too short to be able to get anything done. As soon as a government has settled in, they're already back into campaign mode. In the United States, the primary system means that for 8 months of 24 or a full third of the time. Likewise, the US Senate has Senators which sit for 6 years; which seems like a long time until you realise that the upper house has one-third of its members up for election along with the House. Th President of the United States sits for four years; which is fine if you have a benevolent ruler but if you have a complete knave in power, then those four years drag along.

The 1898 Convention finally decided that three years was about right for the House and six years for the Senate.  Before the 2022 general election, I saw calls for Australia to adopt fixed terms but that really fails to address the nub of the problem: how do you get rid of bad government? Fixed terms don't actually address the issue but they feel like they should; hence the angst in late 2021 and early 2022.

<><><><><>

29. Electoral divisions

Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of any State may make laws for determining the divisions in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen, and the number of members to be chosen for each division. A division shall not be formed out of parts of different States.

In the absence of other provision, each State shall be one electorate.

<>

The Parliament has provided otherwise. The Electoral Act 1918 is the piece of legislation which determines the divisions in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may be chosen. It could have been possible for the states to arrive at multiple-member districts and that was the case for the very first election in the state of South Australia. Instead, we arrived at single member districts and the Australian Electoral Commission draws the boundaries. 

<><><><><>

30. Qualification of electors

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives shall be in each State that which is prescribed by the law of the State as the qualification of electors of the more numerous House of Parliament of the State; but in the choosing of members each elector shall vote only once.

<>

The Parliament has provided otherwise. The Electoral Act 1918 is the piece of legislation which determines the  qualification of electors of members. 

Currently, voting is compulsory and the voting age is 18. Both of these things are excellent.

<><><><><>

31. Application of State laws

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but subject to this Constitution, the laws in force in each State for the time being relating to elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State shall, as nearly as practicable, apply to elections in the State of members of the House of Representatives.

<>

The Parliament has provided otherwise. The Electoral Act 1918 is the piece of legislation which determines the nature of how elections are conducted.

There is a great deal of the newly minted Federal Parliament trying to cover the legislative holds that it would immediately find itself in, by virtue of being newly minted. The number of laws which were passed by the  Federal Parliament would begin at zero. This means that for a brief period of time, the only law which actually applied to the Commonwealth of Australia was in fact the Constitution; so of course it had no provisions on how to conduct elections. Why should it? The Constitution is the standing ruleset which determined how you make laws and not what those laws are.

This also has the rather insidious consequence that the various state laws which were in place at the time, had some rather nasty implications. Depending on where you lived in the country, you might be denied the franchise, if you were a woman or if you were an indigenous person.

<><><><><>

32. Writs for general election

The Governor-General in Council may cause writs to be issued for general elections of members of the House of Representatives.

After the first general election, the writs shall be issued within ten days from the expiry of a House of Representatives or from the proclamation of a dissolution thereof.

<>

Section 32 in practical terms says that the writs for an election will be issued at least ten days before the end of a parliamentary term. Other provisions of law which play together with this, generally mean that we have six week election campaigns in Australia; which is still mostly too long. 

Political wonks and nerds even get to calculate the election calendar, beginning at the date of the last election. 

<><><><><>

33. Writs for vacancies

Whenever a vacancy happens in the House of Representatives, the Speaker shall issue his writ for the election of a new member, or if there is no Speaker or if he is absent from the Commonwealth the Governor-General in Council may issue the writ.

<>

Section 33 is by operation, the legal instrument which determines who gets to make the call to hold a by-election. Also, the use of the word "whenever" also seems to apply in the instance when all Members Of The House Of Representatives simultaneously become vacant, in that grand circus we call a general election.

<><><><><>

34. Qualifications of members

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives shall be as follows:

he must be of the full age of twenty-one years, and must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such elector, and must have been for three years at the least a resident within the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time when he is chosen;

he must be a subject of the Queen, either natural-born or for at least five years naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom, or of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, or of the Commonwealth, or of a State.

<>

Twenty-one years of age was generally considered to be the age of legal majority; which says something a bit crazy because someone could have been conscripted and have been sent to die for the country, before they ever got the right to vote and have a say in the matter.

This section also contains a rather interesting piece of cultural sexism. The franchise in Australia was only extended to women in South Australia in 1895 and indeed at the Federation of the Commonwealth, many women still did not have the right to vote. The assumption that if someone does not have the right to vote, then they also do not have the right to run and sit as a member. 

Various Acts Interpretation Acts and amendments to those acts have over the years corrected this blatantly sexist assumption and policy but the use of the word "he" without irony at all, is still telling of a time which has long since passed.

In think it interesting that even though the Commonwealth wasn't even a thing when this was passed, there is still a bit of nativism going on. Someone who wanted to be a Member of the very first House, was required to have been a resident since 1898. I imagine that that was to prevent Great Britain from sending over people to just swan in and take up a House seat. This is extended to five years for people outside of the British Empire.

Unlike the Qualifications of Members of both houses under Section 44, Section 34 does not appear to make any qualification that someone could not be a dual citizen. Interestingly, the idea that there was a separate Australian Citizenship as opposed to just being a citizen of empire, didn't even become formally a thing until after the Second World War.

This is where we get to dance in the land of imagination. The time probably already has passed when a Colony is likely to become a state but lets assume that through the weirdest series of events, Gibraltar decides to join the Commonwealth Of Australia and is admitted. Those people in theory would be instantly eligible to become Members of the House.

<><><><><>

35. Election of Speaker

The House of Representatives shall, before proceeding to the despatch of any other business, choose a member to be the Speaker of the House, and as often as the office of Speaker becomes vacant the House shall again choose a member to be the Speaker.

The Speaker shall cease to hold his office if he ceases to be a member. He may be removed from office by a vote of the House, or he may resign his office or his seat by writing addressed to the Governor-General.

<>

This is a procedural matter and it would seem obvious that in a room full of people that someone does need to at as the Speaker, President, or Chair of the meeting but there two considerations here.

Firstly that whoever controls the chair, controls the procedure of the House's business. It is nominally the Speaker of the House who determines what appears on the agenda of the House's business for the day. A particularly nasty Speaker, could force someone's matter never to be tabled. 

Secondly, one of the traditions that was present in the British House of Commons, is that because the Speaker of the House effectively lost their normal vote on the floor of the chamber, they were then exempted from having to go through re-election in a general election. That tradition may have been expected to carry over into the Australian House of Representatives but it did not.

<><><><><>

36. Absence of Speaker

Before or during any absence of the Speaker, the House of Representatives may choose a member to perform his duties in his absence.

<>

Again, this largely has to do with the same procedural matters as Section 35 but as the House is an argumentative and contesting body, it makes sense that this needs to be explicitly spelled out. If the Speaker isn't there because they might be sick, dead, or stuck on the dismal dirt ruts that passed for roads in the 1900's, then someone else is to be given the big chair.

<><><><><>

37. Resignation of member

A member may by writing addressed to the Speaker, or to the Governor-General if there is no Speaker or if the Speaker is absent from the Commonwealth, resign his place, which thereupon shall become vacant.

<>

Even though being a member of parliament is a responsible job, these may be cause for someone to quit the post. Increasingly in state parliaments it is because that the member has found a golden parachute into a cushy corporate job and cites "family reasons"; which makes sense if you consider the great god Dollar as family. More sensibly it might be because of actual family reasons, such as an elderly relative or younger person needing acute care.

Section 37 doesn't even stipulate that there needs to be a reason. A member just might not like feel doing the job any more because they are bored, or because they find it too hard, or perhaps because they want to resign the seat so that someone else can take over (although this would risk losing the seat for the party in a by-election). 

<><><><><>

38. Vacancy by absence

The place of a member shall become vacant if for two consecutive months of any session of the Parliament he, without the permission of the House, fails to attend the House.

<>

No loafing. Show up. You've got two months.

I do not know why someone wouldn't want to show up to the parliament. Having a say on the legislation of the land seems like something that an obviously interested person would want to do. 

Sickness and/or death are pretty good reasons why someone might not show up; so this provides that a by-election can be held in such cases.

Perhaps the most famous example of Section 38 being triggered involuntarily was that of the then Prime Minister Harold Hold, who was missing presumed drowned, presumed dead. Wild theories abounded including that he was taken by a Chinese submarine but perhaps the most buckwild theory was by someone called Damon in my Year 9 History class who suggested that Harold Holt was taken by a giant migratory squid. 

The lesson from Section 38 is swim between the flags, lest Section 38 be triggered and they have to hold a by-election for your position.

<><><><><>

39. Quorum

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least one-third of the whole number of the members of the House of Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers.

<>

In 121 years, the Parliament has not provided otherwise. Currently, the minimum number of members required for a quorum is 51. 

I should also point out that even during the height of the 1918-20 Flu Pandemic, the Second World War, and the current pandemic, there has never been an occasion where a quorum has failed to be met. 

<><><><><>

40. Voting in House of Representatives

Questions arising in the House of Representatives shall be determined by a majority of votes other than that of the Speaker. The Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then he shall have a casting vote.

<>

Again we look to the United States which has idiotic provisions with regards the filibuster and cloture motions. The Australian Constitution never enforced the two-thirds provisions that you'll find in the US Constitution, for the simple reason that the Australian Constitution is designed to get stuff done, whereas the US Constitution si deliberately designed to slow down and gum up the works.

It's hard enough to get two-thirds of people to agree on anything, much less key points of legislation. Australia already had six working parliaments; which in the case of NSW being the oldest, had been working for 46 years. Westminster Parliaments had long since established that a simple majority of members on the floor was enough to pass legislation. 

<><><><><>

Procedurally, Part III says nothing really about the powers of the House, nor what it was expected to do. This Part of the Constitution and the mirror Part which details the Senate, is a bit like defining the equipment necessary to play cricket. These are the stumps; this is the ball; this is the width of the bat et cetera.