As he mentioned WorkChoices-

There have been 4 referenda on the issue of referring State IR powers to the Commonwealth. The people have rejected a unitary system 4 times.

Now the elitists in Parliament and the High Court will (probably) subvert the will of the people to pass laws which most benefit foreign owned corporations.

I note that in his excitement about the US Constitution he does not mention the Bill of Rights, I mean you wouldn't want the great Australian unwashed having some rights, now would you ?

Where do these guys come from ?!!

Ah, Mercurius,

Its hard to find a better word, isn't it? Hilarious. He must have taken a bet with some of his mates after a Melboune Cup party as to how many false assertions relating to the Constitution could be packed into two pages of A4 paper, or something. I can count at least six on the first page of the printable version. Wonder how much grog they polished off between them all? Did James Mc Convill lose so much on the Cup that he had to get them all fired up for this challenge to have a chance at recouping his money? Wonder what the top bet was as to how many he could pack in?

But please be careful, Mercurius. He already has you within the shadow of Godwin and His law! "Dear Leader" indeed! That's sailing just too close to the wind. The nazi little bait-trailer will get you disqualified from the argument too early, and that would be a pity. THIS one promises to be real fun. Might even make me larf.

In fact, why don't we hoi poloi start a competition of our own as to how many false assertions we can spot in his article? If n be the number of identifiably false assertions on the first page (the page ending at ".....and I believe this procedure is appropriate for constitutional change."), I will bet right now to being able to find (n+1). Graham to referee. Game on?

Come in spinner!

Before we all get too excited, this article was not meant to be read by us.

It was published in Lawyers Weekly, "Australia's leading information resource for the legal professional", and therefore was the equivalent of a contribution to "The Shooter" advocating relaxation of the gun laws.

It is simply a glimpse into the closed world of the "legal professional", who quite probably lapped it up without questioning the premise, the arguments, or indeed whether there was a single supportable idea in it.

A quick run through other pieces in the same journal delivers some gems.

There is one article on ethics that says, apparently with an entirely straight face:

"Practitioners also owe their clients a duty to exercise due skill and diligence, to maintain their obligations of confidentiality and to avoid conflicts of interest. Finally, practitioners owe a duty to fellow practitioners to deal with them in an honest and professional manner"

I'm sure they all howled into their cornflakes at that one.

It also gives an insight into the tough environment they work in. Here's an excerpt from the NSW Law Society's commentary on awarding a trophy to the Crown Solicitors Office:

"...the CSO is in many ways an ideal place to work. It sets reasonable working hours: a standard seven-hour day with an average of five billable hours. And 'if they work more than seven hours a day, they accrue the balance towards flex leave,' [the CSO] said.

Sick leave can be converted to carers leave, work from home is an option, and the CSO even allows staff extended periods away to study, travel..."

Much can be learned from their view of themselves, certainly enough to put this irritating little piece into perspective.

So much for democracy!

Thanks Pericles, I always find it very useful to understand what group or audience an article is written for. Your examples of the other articles in that journal were enlightening. One wonders how Dr McConvill's article made it here, and for what purpose?

Flaneur,

Thank you for the timely observation that it would not have been rare for a political party in government in Australia to have had an absolute majority in any notional joint sitting of any Commonwealth Parliament since 1949. I think James McConvill must have been mentally straying back to his brief resume of the two thirds majority of State legislatures required to alter the Constitution in the land of the free and the home of the brave in saying what he did in paragraph 13 of his article. In saying "given that it is only on rare occasions that a political party will have a sufficient majority at a joint sitting to force through their desired constitutional amendments" he has been just plain foolhardy, and undermines his own credibility. Maybe he had a joint, sitting on his own after that Melbourne Cup party! Sadly, Flaneur, paragraph 13 is not on page 1 of the article, so it cannot count in the competition. It was a most important point. Thank you once again.

To the game.

False Assertion 1. Paragraph 3, "This case is the first time in a while that the constitution has been the subject of significant public attention." Er, what about both the republic and preamble questions at the November 1999 referenda? The virtual totality of the Constitution was put under the magnifying glass on that occasion. Every elector had to vote on it. Only seven years ago. Is that not recent enough?

False Assertion 2. Paragraph 3, "...the constitution is dead boring and in need of fundamental reform." No it's not. Actually, read with a little understanding, it is a riveting document, choc full of possibilities and guidance for governance. Inspirational, from "Whereas the people..." to "....according to law." And this to a mere lay mind! How much more so should it be to a lawyer? Quick and Garran, Evatt and Forsey...the list goes on and on. Stars in the firmament of the law. Bored or boring? I don't think so. James, are you happy in your work? Have you missed your vocation?