On section 44 of the constitution

Susan Winstanley writes: Re. “Poll Bludger: section 44 is a sticky wicket in need of reform” (Wednesday)

Good coverage (much better than MSM goof-balling) and the point in the last paragraph is widely ignored and underestimated. Liberal and Labor have experienced party secretariats with the legal machinery and finances to screen their candidates, unlike minor parties Greens, PHON and independents, who are mostly the ones to fall foul of s44, causing periodic disruptions, upheavals and humiliations for the annoying Senate crossbench. Pragmatically, the two major parties have no incentive to seek to change the Constitution when this works so well for them politically. Just let the debacles roll on. Haw haw. This should be of concern to we the people and to the free press.

On the intelligence review recommendations

Daniel Sharp writes: Re. “Intelligence review recommendations are all empire-building, out of sight” (Wednesday)

Is it only me who thinks that much of the work done by the intelligence community used to be done by investigative journalists? I suspect more of that work is done these days in general. War may be “the continuation of politics by other means.” Am I the only one who sees this development as formalizing the notion that intelligence is also politics by other means?