I'm a lawyer myself and I share your concern.

First, I agree with you that lawyers have a very particular way of looking at the world which is not representative of the rest of the population.

Secondly, I'd distinguish between a lawyer who has practiced (particularly someone who is a litigator), because they are likely to have had a lot of interactions with people from all walks of life, compared someone who has gone straight into politics.

My friends and I have been discussing political apparatchiks - people who have treated politics as a career. This includes some of the lawyers in parliament, but also the former staff members of pollies, union hacks etc. I think these people get disconnected from the way the rest of the world thinks because they haven't lived in the real world for a long, long time.

It could be far, far worse, if we had diplomats instead of lawyers.

Julia is a bad case, being a lawyer who has run in tandem with a diplomat, for a few years.

Lawyers tend to see problems as legal issues and therefore tend to see legislation/regulation as the solution. I'm not suggesting lawyer politicians are solely responsible for the spaghetti of laws that invade our daily lives. Bureaucrats tend to see regulation as the solution to so much as well. It's an irony that as we ordinary citizens become better educated and thereby better able to make reasoned decisions about a whole load of stuff, including our personal lives, the politician lawyers reduce our opportunity to do so by passing so many laws. If it's not a law, it'll be a regulation. If not that, a code of conduct. If not that, a protocol. And so on.

As a lawyer myself I accept and to some extent share the concern - it is, after all, far from unique. It may well not be a good thing for our parliaments to be dominated by any particular segment of society.
That said, is it necessarily a problem? Like the author points out - it has always been this way more or less. Generally speaking we seem no worse for it. Or is it perhaps suggested that if we had more tradespeople, miners and factory workers in our parliament we would be much better off than we are now?

Well I think one of our best Prime Ministers or is my favourite anyway, (though I wasn't around at the time) was Ben Chifley - an ex Train Driver, who apparently taught himself law. I myself have become so sick of blooming lawyers. But he was definitely a man of the people. He actually use to sit in a park and would listen and talk to people who had approached him. He lost his election for wanting to nationalise banks. What a good idea that would have been!

<< Lawyers have traditionally been the largest professional sub-group not only in the federal cabinet but also in the parliament…..a whopping 40 per cent of the whole legislature! >>

So then, why do we have a poor rule of law in this country??

Why are something like 50 000 visa overstayers allowed to continue breaching their visa conditions year after year, in an apparently permanent and politically condoned (or blind-eyed) breach of the law?

Why wasn’t onshore asylum seeking just clamped right down on as soon as there was any sign of our border-protection laws being breached?

Why aren’t speed limits policed at face value instead of a few kilometres over?

Why aren’t Queensland nude beaches denudified, given that they are technically illegal?

Why isn’t our national police force boosted so that they can properly administer the full gamut of the law, instead of being constantly stretched and unable to properly do the job?

In short, why haven’t we got a much better rule of law if we are run by lawyers??

In Melbourne, yesterday the 8th July 2010, a lawyer for the first time I know of argued that Australia is one country, has one Queen, and that because of the Constitution, the rule of lawyers, who have expanded their cartel, from Magistrate to High Court is illegal and unconstitutional.

The Labor Party enacted some pretty hot legislation, towards the end of last year, reenacting the anti Cartel legislation in the Statute of Monopolies, with a $10,000,000 penalty for breach. Trouble is that there has been no court, as opposed to Court, willing to award this sum against the main users of lawyers, criminals, the Banks and big corporations. It is in the Trade Practices Act 1974 and those who aid abet counsel and procure, a lawyer to persuade a Court, to break the law, can now be held accountable.

Since Ah Yick v Lehmert (1905) 2 CLR 593 said that a Magistrate and a High Court Justice in Chambers, exercise the same Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, and that S 39 (2) Judiciary Act 1903 gives a Magistrate the same power in Original jurisdiction, as a High Court Justice, it is only a matter of time before the Commonwealth can be held accountable for its failure to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth. The Magistrates in Victoria, have the same power in Equity, as a Supreme Court Judge, and by their Rule 35.04, can grant the injunction authorized by S 80 Trade Practices Act 1974. This is frightening the Commonwealth, but in our World Best Practice democracy, this really restores the balance of power back to the people.

A Magistrate and a High Court Justice, can both give directions for the further conduct of a matter. In Victoria, a magistrate can either decide the matter himself, or refer it to either the County Court or Supreme Court, for trial with a jury. They have only to accept that a Summons, is the same as an indictment, information, or presentment, and all of a sudden, the rule of lawyers will end and corruption will be abolished

The trouble with lawyers is they are often, as Julia says she is, atheist. The first and most successful rebel lawyer was Jesus Christ. With an IQ they say was about 200, and a deep understanding as a Rabbi of the Old Testament, Christ offered an alternative to the ruling Jewish Lawyer Class, and gave a few hints along the way, that have been picked up by all successful societies since. The first hint was not to judge people. Matthew 7;1:6, reflected in the Magma Carta, as the Roman Catholic English Scholars embraced Christianity. The second hint was to install a Magistrate with all the power of Almighty God. A request to a court is still called a prayer, to this day.

So Jesus Christ said: Ask and it shall be given to you, seek and you shall find, knock, and it will be opened for you. These wily English, in 1363, in an Imperial Statute, enacted, and had not repealed, in 1900, gave a Remedy in Chancery for breach of Statutes. 36 EDW III Ch 9. If any man feeleth himself grieved, contrary to any of the articles above written, or others contained in divers statutes, will come into the Chancery or any for him, and thereof make his complaint, he shall presently there have Remedy by Force of the said Articles and Statutes, without elsewhere pursuing to have remedy.

The Chancery, in 1363, was a common law court, run by the most educated person in the community, the Priest. He had the same power as a Magistrate has today, except that Magistrates get really uncomfortable without a lawyer, representing people before them.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 has the word court, uncapitalised and generic, in Ch III 21 times. This Statute governs all others. S 2 of the latest reprint of the Judiciary Act 1903 includes the definition of Appeal. It includes an application for a new trial, and any application to examine and call in question the proceedings decision or jurisdiction of any Court or Judge. These two combined, give representative democracy a new meaning

Peter, the problems with Lawyers is not that they are atheist (which is a pretty big call BTW.) it is that they are combative rather than cooperative.
Lawyers are trained to line up all arguments for one side or another and fight. The idea of compromise, optimum solutions (win-win) is anathema.
Perhaps if we had a French style inquisitive legal process our politicians wouldn't be so polarising?

Representative democracy is a unique Christian concept. Countries that have adopted it, are governed by a rule of law unequalled in any society. All Christians are equal before Almighty God and when Jesus said, in John 5:22 and 23, For the Father ( Almighty God) judges no one, but has vested all judgment in the Son. That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Jesus knew he was doomed to die. The separation of powers in the Constitution, derives from that section.

To comply with God’s will, the English decided that God was a three part God. In every Christian Church, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are revered as the Triune God, God in three persons, Holy Trinity. This is universal, and catholic. To create a court, in which Gods will be done on earth as it is in heaven, the Judge represented the Queen, who represents Almighty God. The two or more gathered together, from Matthew 18:20 Jesus is with them in Spirit; To be safe the English picked 12 to gather in a court, and that was legislated into law.

Those 12 had absolute power of life and death. The Judge was only an administrator, because as a Christian he was not allowed to judge others. To examine and call in question the legality of Statute Law, the English invented the feigned issue. The object of a feigned issue, was to establish as fact, if the law in question came within the scope of the Constitution. It is still possible in Queensland, and was a cornerstone of representative democracy. Lawyers had the task of throwing stones at Statute Law, and if it was illegal destroying it. They have fallen down on the job, both in Parliament and outside its walls.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is enacted as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. If our lawyers in Parliament accepted its enactment, Christian Principles would prevail, in every State

So now the Christians are claiming democracy and law as their own! You obviously haven't studied the Dark Ages when Christianity ruled absolutely.
Granted, a few Christian *ideals* went into civilisation, but these ideals were largely inherited from predecessor religions and apply to most historical philosophies. Ideals are one thing, excess wealth due to knowledge are the sole means to achieve the freedom to implement those ideals.
Next you'll be claiming that Motherhood and Apple Pie are Christian!
"If all you have is a hammer, you see the world as nails."

J S Mill: "Or is it perhaps suggested that if we had more tradespeople, miners and factory workers in our parliament we would be much better off than we are now?"

Why have you turned this conversation into a class thing? The workers v the professional classes, the latter represented in this instance solely by lawyers.

You sound as if you have some stereotyped notion of the sophistication and intelligence of workers, as opposed to lawyers.

I'd have to be waterboarded before I'd waste my vote on either major party. If the over-representation of lawyers in these parties is what is leading them to their escalating idiocies then get the lawyers out, is what I say.

Is your name really J S Mill?

Peter the Believer:
I've really had it with you Christians.
I've listened to and read so much twaddle from Christians that now I can't even hear anything you say.
Bear that in mind when you're trying to bring people round to your way of thinking. We're twaddled out.
On the other hand, I find an awful lot of what Jesus reputedly said pretty interesting.

It seems difficult to defend a situation where 'ignorance of the law is no defence" yet in order to understand the law or argue the law we need to employ people who typically make 3,4 or more times more than the median wage, and who quite often make as much money out of litigation as the litigator.
It has been argued that putting lawyers in charge of drawing up legislation is a clear and egregious case of 'conflict of interest', I believe the expression is; although I don't see any conflict as such.
Drawing up legislation so only a lawyer can understand it must be very much in the interests of lawyers.

One could call all parliamentarians lawyers because they create legislation, not merely because of their educational or professional background. Lawyers have been in control of parliament, and effectively in a position of rule in parliamentary democracies, since the 17th century constitutional struggles in England.

Democratically elected representatives in parliament give most people a voice in how they would like their state to be run. Would you all prefer to be ruled by an autocratic dictator like a monarch?

What I would like is a representative who is representative.
I find having someone 'represent' me, who is in the top five percent of wage earners tax bracket is hypocritical and offensive.
It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to believe 'they' are not acting in 'our' best interests.
All it takes is a pay rise.

Grim,

I don't reconcile with your view on parliamentarians' pay and representation. They have been democratically elected to represent an electorate. The role they play is to represent the views of their electorate in Parliament. The reasons they are paid relatively well is that their work involves responsibility and long hours. Furthermore, MPs are often talented people who could earn much more in the private sector.

Hence, there needs to be remuneration regime that ensures these people are kept in the public sector. Some would argue there is a talent deficit on the basis of relatively low remuneration. Be honest, are they paid well for the work they do? They do carry much responsibility and often work long hours. I wouldn't say that they are earning too much.

Do you feel that because they are classified into the highest income bracket, parliamentarians are not representative of lower earning people who elected them? I feel that politics is more than just about the money.

I agree with Grim.

AGS1: <"Furthermore, MPs are often talented people who could earn much more in the private sector.".

Sorry to be a drag about it but I get a bit sick of hearing that about pollies and other people who are in government. The government certainly does have some hard working people in it; but it also is a fine repository for some of the laziest but rat-smart blood suckers I've ever encountered. I could shear about a million dollars off the national budget just striking off about 10 over paid; under functional jobs/people within my own locality. I can't imagine what that sort of trimming would accomplish if applied across the nation. People in government employ are also rewarded with a range of additional benefits as well as job security that about 2/3 the population can only dream about.

As to politicians being able to earn much more in the private sector - that would still place them in one of the top (remote from average Joe) income categories and indicates that the majority of them are drawn from a pool of social haves rather than from the ranks of the have-nots. Our social reality is that we don't have a classless society - we navigate social strata based on income and power and influence. We have less social mobility than we like to think. Who you know and where you're from etc does matter.

Briar Rose probably represents a fair chunk of readers, and calls what Christians write as twaddle. I would not be so critical of lawyers, if they were properly educated. If they came with an implied warranty, that the Workers Party, the Labor Party supports in the Trade Practices Act 1974. Accountants should come with the same.

Most lawyers in Australia, if they were made by Toyota, would face a recall. Since 80% of the hopefuls when I started law, were female, it is extremely important that the education of lawyers is properly done. We have two classes of people who used to lead our communities. One was the lawyers, and the other were the clergy. There have always been the top two percent who one way or another made things happen. Half of those were always women, and the way women used to make things happen was by influencing a man to do the right thing. Now we have a direct leader, a lawyer and a self proclaimed atheist, showing us all just how education is deficient, because she is a self proclaimed atheist.

Nature abhors a vacuum. This has been one of the essentials of physics, since man first started being curious. Create a vacuum, and something will move to fill it. Sectarianism, when factions within Christianity like the children of one family, settled down to fight, allowed a class of individuals to slip into the vacuum caused by their short sightedness. That class of individuals, is lawyers.

To understand the role a Village Preacher played in a community, Briar Rose should look up Oliver Goldsmith’s poem, The Ruined Village. The ruined spendthrift, now no longer proud, claimed kindred there and had his claims allowed, attests to the power of that individual. We have now got a Village Magistrate, available throughout the communities of Australia. The same power and authority that a Village Preacher used to wield, is now vested in a Magistrate. It is absolutely essential that these people understand what they are. They are where government and the people meet, and they should be properly paid

Actually, AGS1, I regard the incomes of parliamentarians to be far more important than whether or not they are lawyers, particularly as they insist, on a fairly regular basis, on trotting out statistics like the 'average' wage while rarely mentioning the much lower median wage.
Politicians need to be truly disconnected from reality to think about 70% of voters like to be told they don't even make (or come close to) the average wage.
But $66k makes a much more reasonable comparison to our representatives wages, than $40k; about double, instead of more than triple.
I think most of us are agreed that defence, like it or not, is an important function of government. How is it we can expect our children to risk giving up their lives, but expect no sacrifice from our parliamentarians? Aren't they supposed to love their country as much as our soldiers?
If our representatives are more interested in making money than serving their countrymen/women (almost all of whom make far less than they do) how can we possibly be confident they are acting in our best interests, rather than their own?

110 years ago, a bunch of wise men gave a lasting legacy to their future generations, and called it the Commonwealth Constitution. They never intended to allow us to be governed by lawyers at all. That is something business has cooked up, to give criminal business a great chance to make us slaves again. You see Christianity abolished slavery, because Christianity means government of the people, by the people for the people.

Our ancestors did this by incorporating the Queen or Her Majesty, forty times in the Constitution. The Queen represents Almighty God, not the God of the Islamics, or the Gods of Buddhism, but the triune God of the Christians. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit God, of love and mercy, not the nasty vindictive God of the Old Testament, but the one in the New Testament. Neither Jews nor the Islamics, accept that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but the Queen must, or She cannot be Sovereign. The Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) mandates it, and makes a Monarchy into a practical republic, by obliging all Law to comply with the Gospels, or the Queen cannot assent to it. Peter Jensen the Archbishop of Sydney accepts this, but Chief Justice Spigelman, as a lawyer, and former scriptwriter to Gough Whitlam, has trouble.

New South Wales for forty years, since 1970, has been governed by lawyers. S 6 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 ( New South Wales) says, and I quote: Inconsistency with rules. Any Act in force immediately before the commencement of this Act which is inconsistent with the rules shall be superseded to the extent of such inconsistency and while such inconsistency continues to exist. This gave nine lawyers in the Rules Committee absolute power in New South Wales. By stacking the High Court with New South Wales Barristers, this gross insubordination has been continued until 2010. Kirby was an exception and so was Callinan. It was almost rolled and defeated in 2002, when Kirby and Callinan stood side by side for justice in Gerlach. Rudd did nothing, but lets hope Gillard fixes it

I'm not sure how well you understand the Australian Constitution, Peter the Believer.

It is an imperial Act and was the result of years of negotiations and compromises between the colonial states about economic and representative issues, and also balancing the interests of the UK by retaining links to Westminster but allowing some independence for the newly established federation, but also ultimate subservience to the UK. Today, Australia is legally and politically independent of the UK.

The role of the Queen in the Constitution is executive and the right is Queen of Australia, a separate crown. The model is based on the unwritten UK constitution and ensures a clear separation of personnel in the executive, legislative and judiciary arms of government. Our shared monarch, HM E II, is also the head of the Anglican Church, however I seriously doubt that the supremacy of God was a key consideration in the arrangements as head of state. Nonetheless in the 17th century, the English Parliament required a Protestant monarch. Wiki the 'Glorious Revolution 1689' for some background information on these issues.

The role of MPs in our parliamentary democracy is to represent an electorate, as a result of majority-wins popular election. Sure, minorities in this process could argue lack of representation. But, how about the top 5 percent of income earners? Are these people included in the majority? The same applies for the bottom 5 percent of income earners.

Finally, the imperfect system of democracy ensures that eligible voters have a say in who they'd like to represent them in parliament. The core of democracy is civic participation, and that is empowering on all people who vote. In my view, this system is much better than autocracy. You can also contact your MP if you have community issues that you'd like addressed in Parliament, even if you didn't vote for him/her. They're installed to serve your electorate. Instead of worrying about what they're paid, let them know your viewpoint on community issues.

Peter thoroughly knows his history AGS1 in addition to the Acts within Acts of the Law; an admirable trait: a legal historian of christian faith who is teaching Australians sufficiently wise to take notice. Those people who do not bother to educate themselves will regret it later. Similar to Taxation laws. How many people have ever bothered to read the Taxation journals to learn about the additional items they are able to claim throughout their lives. Most leave it to their Accountant, do their own [without having read Tax Journals and updates], or rely entirely on Taxation's little booklet which only touches the surface of what Australians are entitled to claim.

Never leave defence work to lawyers alone. Similar to Legislation and Acts. When Australians sit back moaning and groaning not contesting to have certain Legislation and Acts changed; it wont occur.

When the Communism spreads with the current Legislation and Acts in place, you labor voters: do not complain when you find yourselves in hot water.

I vote on facts and the facts are that each time a leader is non-christian or a labor leader, this country is up the creek in terms of deficit.

Athiests and Non-believers believe or do not believe; your choice. Do not complain when things across the Nation turn sour for you.

Time to quote the Good Book.. quoting the main man of history.

"46Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."

Who would want to be a lawyer ?

Australia is a secular state. Communist, democratic ... label it as you please. There is no official religion of Australia. If one believes there is a direct place for God in the state, then does one believe that citizens are subject to God's justice? Is there not a role for a system of human justice amongst theists ... are 'laws' invalid because they do not come from God, but from Acts of parliaments and the courts? There are inconsistent theological beliefs amongst theist Australians. How then can a society ensure common values, beliefs and assumptions about life? Valid law.

Posted by AGS1, Saturday, 10 July 2010 10:50:33 PM
" ... Australia is a secular state. ... "

I'm sure I've seen the politicians saying "Lordy's Prayer" before parliament, have I not? Accordingly, can we really be termed a secular state given that this the case?

..

Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 10 July 2010 10:08:43 PM
" ... Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them." ... "

..

Tags with *Boazy*

..

I have a friend who is a wiggie. A partner in a supposedly "reputable" and long established firm, and one with more than 1 public accolade to its credit.

However, the price of his employ with this particular group of parasites, is that the terms of his firms insurance policy, in conjunction with his employment contract are such that, he is STRICTLY PROHIBITED from doing pro bono in good conscience of his own volition, whether it be for family, friend or otherwise.

[Leans over and pukes on the crown]

He is charged out at $AU500 per hour and his firm only accepts clients who will bring in a minimum of $AU25,000 per year in fees. Indeed "Remorseless Mercantilisation," stated 1 High Court Judge.

..

And regarding the Oz Con, another High Court Judge notes something to the following effect:

" ... Appeals to *Lizzie Winza* in Council remain enshrined. ... "

[S74 Appeal to *Lizzie Winza* in Council]

But as we know, notwithstanding provisions in the Oz Con as to the only mechanism by which said document can be changed,

[ ... 128 Mode of altering the Constitution
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: ...]

the reality is that the parliament of the pom always retained the power to alter the Oz Con pre, up to and including the "Australia Act," and now appeals to *Lizzie* have been abolished.

..

What a piece of TOILET PAPER!

Hi 5 -> Dreamy

AGS1 "Is there not a role for a system of human justice amongst theists"

Well..being much more than a 'theist' myself.. in fact a conservative evangelical fundamentalist.... of course there is a role for 'human justice'

The Biblical framework is found in Romans 13:1-7 or so.

The Christian belief system does not deny or reject 'human law' as a principle..what it does reject is unjust law.

For example... a law implemented with the sole objective of protecting a financial interest and monopoly held by friends of the lawmaker.

Laws which demand our participation in the greed based territorial expansion of our nations area's of control.

MOst particularly..a law which would force us to embrace or comply with anything which is 'anti God'..such as worship of the Prime Minister..that kind of thing.

RULE OF MAN.....

While on that thought :)

"Welcome to Melbourne... a vibrant cosmopolitan city which provides for your every need. Here is St Pollos' temple.. inside we have friendly assistants who will give you the opportunity to express your religious fetish as you deem fit. We have both heterosexual and homosexual assistants.. feel free to make use of them in relieving your sexual tension as they are there to accomodate..
WE take pride in our civic mindedness in this area. If you are a visitor to our fair city, there is no charge for this service... for those who are local.. a small fee is required. For those so inclined, we even have dominatrix and bondage experiences on offer"

Now.. replace "Melbourne" with 'Ephesus' and you will understand what Paul wrote in his 2nd chapter of his letter to that Church.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2&version=NIV

"Human Law"...without the Anchor of God's guidance.. will simply take the line of least moral resistance and we would end up like Ephesus.
It was only the coming of the Kingdom of God which lifted the debauched Roman Empire OUT of this kind of thing....so there is value in a healthy dose of the Divine in our human thinking about 'law'.