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 ?