(SUGGESTED) NEW AUSTRALIAN FLAG WITH (SYMBOLIC & LARGER) SPRIG OF WATTLE - SEVEN FLOWERS AND SEVEN LEAVES. [ OVERLOOKED ]

THE ABOVE REPRESENTATION IS (AGAIN) BASED ON A QUEENSLAND SILVER WATTLE. THE COLOURS USED ARE GREEN AND GOLDEN-YELLOW.

(SUGGESTED) NEW AUSTRALIAN FLAG WITH (SYMBOLIC) SPRIG OF WATTLE -SEVEN FLOWERS AND SEVEN LEAVES IN GREEN AND GOLD. [ OVERLOOKED ]

THE SEVEN FLOWERS AND SEVEN LEAVES RESPECTIVELY MATCH THE SEVEN POINTERS ON THE COMMONWEALTH STAR. NB: BOTH THE FLOWERS AND THE LEAVES IN THE ABOVE REPRESENTATION ARE THOSE BASED ON A QUEENSLAND SILVER WATTLE. THE COLOURS USED ARE GREEN AND GOLD.

NEW AUSTRALIAN FLAG WITH SEVEN UPRIGHTS [ OVERLOOKED ]

NB: THERE MAY BE SIMILAR DESIGNS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED OF SUCH AN OBVIOUS DESIGN.

(SUGGESTION) FOR A NEW AUSTRALIAN FLAG WITH COMPASS ROSE AND WATTLE [ OVERLOOKED ]

THE COMPASS ROSE SYMBOL ( INCORPORATING A SPRIG OF WATTLE (NATIONAL FLOWER)), REPRESENTS AUSTRALIA AS AN (ISLAND) CONTINENT - THE CIRCLE BEING THE COASTLINE - `...OUR HOME IS GIRT BY SEA...`( FROM THE NATIONAL ANTHEM - ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR.

(SUGGESTED) NEW AUSTRALIAN FLAG [ OVERLOOKED ]

THE COMPASS ROSE SYMBOL REPRESENTS AUSTRALIA AS AN (ISLAND) CONTINENT - THE CIRCLE BEING THE COASTLINE -`OUR HOME IS GIRT BY SEA`- (FROM THE NATIONAL ANTHEM - ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR).

FUN FUN FUN - BRIGHT WINTER`S DAY - JULY 2019

What about having a fun day set aside each year, each second or third Friday in July for the ladies of any age to wear bright coloured variety onto their attire, to brighten up the day midst winter`s chill and bleakness.

It would be just a fun day- fun at work, fun at anywhere.

QUESTION:  Do you think that Australia needs to have fun colourful days during the coldness of winter?

AUTHOR: Peter Holland 
EMAIL :    peterh9142frz@gmail.com

LET THE BIRDS BE BIRDS :::: END THE CRUELTY OF CAGING BIRDS

Clearly, captive birds (cage, aviary) give their owners amusement and companionship.

Clearly, also, is that the birds`(natural) movement is severely restricted; Budgerigars (for instance) `...occur throughout the vast inland area of the (Australian) continent. It is highly nomadic and ranges over great distances in quest of water and seeding grasses.`1

`Since its introduction (introduction ?) into captivity, the budgerigar (or budgie) has been bred into a variety of colour forms...`2

The NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice No. 4 - Keeping and Trading of Birds states in its introduction:
          This code recognises the following principals (?) -
          1.1(a)  A primacy concern for the welfare of birds  (welfare of birds ?)
and under General requirements and Accommodation, the Code states
          2.1(b)  freedom of movement and ability to exercise or fly appropriate to the species  (freedom of movement ?)
          5.1(e)  sufficient space ... to meet the needs of all the birds in the cage or aviary.  (sufficient space  ?)  3

They don1t get it, do they.

`Flight is an innate biological function for birds  ...birds that normally fly vast distances in the wild are confined in small spaces...` 4    All birds should be able to come and go as they please.

The caging of birds is an axiomatic act of cruelty, is it not.

(This sentiment should apply to all captive animals)

           LET   THE  BIRDS  BE  BIRDS

If we can `` introduce ``  birds into captivity then we should be able to extricate all birds from  captivity providing our unselfishness and our compassion and justice for the birds doesn`t stop at the cage door.

LAW 

Question: What crimes have birds committed that they should be incarcerated. 

Our political law-makers have to show principle, humanity and effectiveness if laws are to be enacted
by which all birds are extricated from captivity.
The role and the only role private aviaries (of any size) should have is one for the caring of sick and injured birds and that subject to tight regulation and effective policing thereof.
Public zoos, whilst also caring for ailing birds, have an additional role involving population restoration programs for species threatened with extinction providing that case is demonstratively evident. Other than stated, Public zoos should not be exhibiting healthy birds.

email;   peterh9142frz@gmail.com

References:
     1. Donald & Molly Trounson, Australian Birds, PR Books, Frenchs Forest, NSW, 1989, p68.
     2. Birdlife Australia, Budgerigar.  
     3. NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice No.4, Keeping and Trading of Birds, NSW Agriculture,
         1996.
     4. Animal Liberation NSW - Exposing Cruelty to Animals, Freedom for birds, 2015

FOR THE EXPANSION OR REMOVAL OF PRAYERS IN/FROM THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT

Contention

In its defence of prayers being read in Federal Parliament, the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney cited the Leader of the Senate, Eric Abetz as `describing the prayer at the start of each sitting day as `` a very rich part of our cultural tradition and a humble acknowledgement by the Parliament collectively of its responsibilities (and that) part of the Greens on going attempt to rewrite our history, and deny our heritage`` and pointed out that Australia`s freedom and wealth have been built upon our religious underpinnings, making us the envy of the world`(adding) `` the Greens refusal to acknowledge their country`s own heritage and rich traditions and belief is as sad as it is divisive.`` 4

Whether these heritage and traditional claims are true or otherwise is left to others to adjudge. One wonders if Parliamentary prayers are ever answered given the quarrelsomeness displayed among the Members and if the (Forgive Our Trespasses) interpretation of the Lords Prayer (below) is correct. Additionally, where Governments and Oppositions have conflicting policies , how are `our deliberations ` resolved - which policy will succeed; and further, why (presumably) have Governments, since 1901, made mistakes.

The problem with this defence of prayers is the absence of other (relevant) `parts of our culture tradition` -
             What about the heritage and tradition of inclusiveness
              What about the heritage and tradition of representation.

To this-

QUESTIONS FOR EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ANSWER:

(1)  WHEN YOU PARTICIPATE IN PRAYERS IN PARLIAMENT
           DO YOU REPRESENT ONLY YOURSELF OR
           DO YOU REPRESENT ONLY PART OF YOUR ELECTORATE OR
           DO YOU REPRESENT ALL OF YOUR ELECTORATE.

(2)   HAVE YOU EVER ASKED THE MEMBERS OF ALL THE FAITHS (OTHER THAN
        CHRISTIAN) IN YOUR ELECTORATE
            IF THEY ARE HAPPY FOR ONLY CHRISTIAN PRAYERS BE READ IN
            PARLIASMENT OR
            WOULD THEY PREFER THAT PRAYERS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR PARTICULAR
            FAITH ALSO BE READ IN PARLIAMENT

(3)  HAVE YOU EVER ASKED THOSE MEMBERS OF YOUR ELECTORATE WHO
       CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE EITHER AGNOSTIC, NON- RELIGIOUS OR
       AETHEISTS
             IF THEY ARE HAPPY FOR ONLY CHRISTIAN PRAYERS BE READ IN
             PARLIAMENT OR
             WOULD THEY PREFER SECULAR OBSERVANCES ALSO BE READ IN
             PARLIAMENT.

(4)  HAVE YOU EVER ASKED THE MEMBERS OF YOUR ELECTORATE IF THEY WOULD
       PREFER THE SITUATION THAT NO PRAYERS NOR SECULAR OBSERVANCES BE
       READ IN PARLIAMENT.

(5)  AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -
              WHAT DOES `REPRESENTATION ` MEAN TO YOU;  AND
              WHAT DOES `INCLUSIVENESS` MEAN TO YOU.

Clearly, how the Members of the House of Representatives deal with the answers is how they deal with Representation and Inclusiveness. The choices are obvious.

Background

A prayer was read at the opening of Parliament in 1901, later adapted in the same year, and that adaptation `was adopted by the House (of Representatives) as a standing order under pressure from church leaders within Australia` 1
At present there are two prayers read in the House of Representatives, both read by the Speaker; the first, a variation of the 1901 prayer-
         Almighty God , we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia.
          The second prayer is the Lords Prayer. 2

The Judeo-Christian nature of these prayers has been questioned claiming that the Lords Prayer is `not generally Christian`, though citing former Prime Minister John Howard: `that to get rid of parliamentary prayers would be to ``abandon our Judeo-Christian heritage``.  3   Elsewhere, the prayers have been indicated as being Christian.  6   For this argument, the prayers are considered to be Christian.

The Lords Prayer - an interpretation

The Lords Prayer has been described as `the most important of all the Christian documents...a compact formula for the development of the soul...(from Our Father) all men are indeed brethren, the children of one Father...(with) the implied command that we are to pray not only for ourselves but for all mankind...(from Thy kingdom come) we must never for a moment try to live for ourselves, or make plans or arrangements without reference to God... (from Give us this day our daily bread) In its inner and most important meaning our daily bread signifies the realization of the Presence of God ...He will supply all that we need to have; teach us all that we need to know, and guide our steps so that we shall not make mistakes...(and from forgive our trespasses, as we forgive their trespasses against us) The forgiveness of others is the vestibule of Heaven...if your prayers are not being answered, search your consciousness and see if you are not really holding a grudge ... against some individual...(against) a social class ... (against) a political party, or whatnot.`  5

References

1  G.S.Reid & Martyn Forrest, Australia`s Commonwealth Parliament 1901- 1988 Ten Perspectives, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria,1989,pp 153-154.

2  Anne Twomey & Helen Irving, Prayers in Parliament and the Constitution- Constitutional Critique, University of Sydney,2012.

3  ...

4  Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, Give Us This Day Our Daily Prayer, Catholic C
ommunications, Sydney Archdiocese, 15-1-2014.

5  Emmet Fox, The Sermon on the Mount, the key to success in life and The Lords Prayer- an interpretation, Harper- Collins, New York, pp 181- 224.

6  Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney.

FOR THE REFORM OF QUESTION TIME IN THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT

If each House of Parliament - the (mainly) combination of the Government and the Opposition - is accountable, then their action together in the management of the procedures and internal discipline including Standing Orders, must also be accountable (to the wider electorate); or is it the case that the Standing Orders operate under the auspices of an alliance `` LIBERAL PARTY - LABOR PARTY  we know best club`` from Parliament to Parliament.

Part of the Standing Orders (of the House of Representatives) refer to` Questions without notice`  (Question Time). For `Questions without notice` to be both creditable and utmost effective, Question Time needs to be massively overhauled and formulated, it is suggested, around the following core conditions:

(1)  The Opposition and only the Opposition may ask questions in Question Time.

(2)  The Opposition may orally ask questions of Government Ministers including the Prime Minister (respondents) without notice for immediate response on any Government decision (conclusion) and on any premise/s from which the conclusion is drawn and on any premise/s from which any (related) intermediate conclusion is drawn, and questions may be asked as to the adequacy of any decision and on any matter relevant to or affecting that adequacy. Decisions include Government - policies, actions, inactions, reactions to propositions and events, and claims. Adequacy includes suitability, necessity, and fairness.

        Note: Where Opposition is mentioned in (1) and (2) above it is to mean The Opposition, Independents and other (minor) political Parties

(3)  Any Government decision which is currently (sessional) debated shall not disallow any questions arising from Condition (2) upon that decision.

(4) In respect of Condition (2) all questions and all answers must relate to and confined by the provisions in Condition (2) and not contain any reference to any extraneous matter.

(5)  Each answer shall not be verbose and the duration of each answer shall not exceed 3 minutes.

(6)  In respect of Condition (2) the respondent may not ask for any question to be placed on the Notice Paper (or the like); if the respondent is unable or unwilling to answer a question, that question may be asked at following Question Times until such time an answer is forthcoming.

(7)  Question Time - exclusively for the asking of questions - shall be of a duration of 1 hour each day of sitting; each hour shall consist of divisions of time; a respondent shall only answer questions during one and only one division; the time duration of any division shall not exceed thirty (30) minutes; a division shall end when the questioner ceases questioning.

(8)  For the entire length of a division (of time) a questioner may ask questions on a continual basis without re-introduction from the Speaker, and for that period the questioner shall remain seated in the same place; the respondent may sit and/or stand.

(9)  All questions and all answers shall be made without interruption.

(10)  Questions other than those of Condition (2) and of a general nature shall be placed on the Notice Paper for written reply if so requested by a respondent.

(11)  ADDENDUM:  For one day only of every (normal or short) week of sitting, the roles of the Government and the Opposition in Question Time shall be reversed, and as such, the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Ministers shall make themselves available for questioning by the Government in accordance with and only with all the above Conditions. ( Three days of scrutiny of Government decisions and one day for the Opposition in a normal week of sitting is a judgement based upon the situation that the Government is the legislator).

        The Senate should follow suit.

         NOTE:   For the full argument go to pchlindy.blogspot.com.au/ 
AUTHOR:  Peter Holland
EMAIL:    peterh9142frz@gmail.com
QUESTION:  Do you think Question Time in Parliament is acceptable as it stands? .