Since the 1990s, the number of single-member district seats decided by (compulsory) preferences has increased markedly: 31 in 1983, 63 in 1993, 87 in 2001. It was 102 of 150 seats in 2016.

In the last three federal elections, around 60 parties were registered, not counting state branches of the major parties and the Greens.

My conclusion is that under the current electoral system, single-member district, we no longer produce major-party governments that can truly claim a mandate.

The remedy is to change to proportional representation - party list, based on multi-member districts. It is used in 89 democratic states in the world, including New Zealand.

It produces majority government and mandates and ends the adversarial two-party tyranny.

NO reasonable person would condone discrimination on the basis of gender in matters such as employment or political involvement, but I believe we should be at liberty to decide with whom we do or do not socialise.

It is called freedom of association.

At a time when there is concern over obesity and the mental health of men in particular, one would think that a group of men forming a tennis club to get some exercise and shoot the breeze with their mates, without their better halves being concerned about what they are up to, would be a good thing.

Apparently the Adamstown Rosebud Tennis Club has been operating for 50 years ('Court order', Newcastle Herald 25/6) but lord mayor Nuatali Nelmes says the organisation she leads will put a stop to it unless they change their policy.

What next, men's sheds?

I recommend the tennis club engage someone from the Women Lawyers' Association of NSW. Only female lawyers can be ordinary members. Male lawyers can be associate members, but cannot vote or hold a position on the committee. Female law students can join for $30. Male law students can join for $60.

I had not known of either the tennis club or the lawyers' association until I read last Tuesday's Newcastle Herald.

I HAVE a question for the Australian Christian Lobby.

Take, for example, a pastor at one of the Christian churches. Let's say, for instance, Hillsong. One who worked in several Christian schools delivering scripture lessons.

If that hypothetical pastor suddenly released a social media proclamation alleging there is no God and that Jesus is a fraud, and he did that not once but several times even though Hillsong asked him politely not to do so, would you champion his right to free speech, support his right to express his view, and allow him to continue to work in your church and your schools giving spiritual guidance?

Rather, would you demand that he leave your church and remove him from all contact with Christian school students?

After you have answered that question honestly and correctly, stop giving money to a rich sportsman for his provocative legal costs and donate it instead to a genuine cause of need, according to the teachings of Jesus. Then again, you could just use it to buy more Audis and Apple products.

REGARDS Mac Maguire, about the Australian national anthem being a throwback to colonial days (Short Takes, 27/6): you may not be far from the truth if 1878 could be classed colonial days. The song became the anthem in 1984 by a vote of the people.

Now in my opinion, if I am allowed one these days, it would not matter if the anthem was Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star. If it is the anthem, it should be shown respect, as should those who live here show respect for this once great country.

I agree that no person should feel they have to sing the anthem, just show respect and take ya bloody hat off.

Advance Australia Fair is the national anthem of Australia.

Created by the Scottish-born composer Peter Dodds McCormick, the song was first performed in 1878 and sung in Australia as a patriotic song.

It replaced God Save the Queen as the official national anthem in 1984, following a plebiscite to choose the national song in 1977.

Other songs and marches have been influenced by Advance Australia Fair, such as the Australian vice-regal salute.

FREDDY is blind, but switched on. We both love rugby league but Freddy knows the rules. Once we find our way through the turnstiles he senses the atmosphere.

The cheer or moan from the crowd tells Freddy what is going on. "It's for not getting back the ten in the play the ball" I say.

Freddy replied "perhaps they can't run backwards that fast".

Freddy reiterated that the rule says "a player in possession is tackled when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball". Freddy added "unfortunately if they let the player play the ball as the rule requires most will be off side".

Blind Freddy reckons five metres will help fix the problem as well as making the scrum a competitive element of the game.

DENNIS Petrovic "cannot understand how any organisation can put an injunction on a person's right to work because of that person's personal views" (Short Takes, 28/6).

The NSW Department of Education's Code of Conduct document demands all employees "be aware that if your conduct has the potential to damage the reputation of the Department [of Education], even if it is in a private capacity, this could lead to disciplinary action".

It also notes that "at times you may not personally agree with decisions..... however your views.... (cannot) take precedence over the department or government's policy and decisions".

I expect all government employees would be subject to similar work requirements.