I put this up on another thread, but no one responded (:>(

With so many lawyers in our federal government, and in state governments, I find it baffling that the veracity of the law is so poor. You’ll understand what I mean once you’ve read this post.

Tim O’Dwyer points out in his OLO article of 8 July 2010 that almost half of our 27 prime ministers have been lawyers, and 10 out of 28 people in Gillard’s ministry and 17 out of 33 in Abbot’s team are legal eagles! http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10655

So why then 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 appreciation of our own laws? Why doesn’t government strive to make sure that what is declared in law is what applies in real world at face value, instead of there all-too-often being a quite different interpretation or even a blind-eye turned to some laws?

This is baffling to me, and all the more so given the preponderance of lawyers within our government.

Ludwig,
It is all to do with politics.

Some time back I asked the NSW Health Minister, why has not anyone ever been prosecuted for FGM crimes, as it is against the law in all states. Her reply is that there are 'cultural considerations'. We do not even keep records of any forced marriages, yet I estinate that there are something like 1000 per year.

I cannot see the situation changing unless we have a few deaths and honour killings. In the meantime we have periodical raids on cockfighting venues and people are charged. So we have higher values for roosters than we do for the welfare of Australian girls.

If the polys think there are votes in it, they will act.

In some cases I think the laws are expanded to allow more powers to police in certain cases to be used with discretion to offset another problem rather than stick to an absolute interpretation of the law. Moving-on Powers are a bit like this if there is a threat of street brawling etc.

However, I agree with your concerns Ludwig and Banjo in regard to FGM and similar.

What is worse is that 'cultural considerations' that flout the law often involve force. It is often not done on a voluntary basis so it appears forcing young women is condoned under this blanket of cultural political correctness.

From Wikipedia:
"In 1994 there were several anecdotal reports of FGC being practised amongst migrant communities in Australia.[91] By 1997, all Australian states and territories had made FGC a specific criminal offence. It is also a criminal offence to take, or propose to take, a child outside Australia to have a FGC procedure performed.[92] The incidence of FGC in Australia is unknown as it is unreported to authorities and is often only uncovered when women and girls are taken to hospital due to complications with the procedure."

Some spokespeople on this issues are calling for more education in immigration programs to offset this growing FGM problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/circumcising-young-girls-is-child-abuse-goward-20100528-wjhc.html?comments=175

Most people have no idea why Australia was such a good country and has now gone to the dogs. At the risk of upsetting some quite sincere people, I say you haven’t got any idea what the law is. Because we have a Queen, and a special type of republic, everything not forbidden is permitted. If a person does anything, and it does not hurt his neighbour, under English law, he was entitled to do it. No law that a jury would not enforce was ever law in Australia before the lawyers took over. That was why Claim of Right, to property always resulted in a jury trial. That preserved the freehold estates of all people. It meant that peace reigned supreme.

Julia, Julia wherefore art thou Julia. Your Workchoices was only inflicted on workers because the lawyers did not understand our system. Your Government, has almost fixed it, with its Anti Cartel Conduct legislation. Summary Jurisdiction where a dictator makes an edict, and the Dictator is a lawyer, is now banned. Off your butt Julia. The penalty for cartel conduct is ten million dollars. Lawyers have cartels in every State. They monopolise the law, and keep most people in fear. S 44ZZRA – S 44ZZRI, Trade Practices Act 1974 is excellent law. You may no longer be welcome in the Slater and Gordon Dining room, or at Bar Association Dinners, but you will serve as Prime Minister for a long time. I will demonstrate some sloppy legislation in the next post.

Instead of allowing the Australian Government Solicitor to frustrate your legislative intentions, insure they are up to speed and assist anyone who wants to, to enforce them. The Australian Government Solicitor should be assisting anyone who sees a crime committed, to have the criminals brought to account. Instead, they are obstructionist, dishonest, lazy, and many are unwilling to face the fact that there are serious criminals in government, taking advantage of unconscionable and unjust laws, and failing to enforce the good ones. Become the Boadicea of Australian Politics. Lead us out of slavery. Be brave and resourceful

The Director of Public Prosecutions is a cartel, and uses S 9 (5) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, to enforce its exclusive rights to bring criminal charges. That section says:

(5) For the purposes of the performance of his or her functions, the Director may take over a proceeding that was instituted or is being carried on by another person, being a proceeding:
(a) for the commitment of a person for trial in respect of an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth; or
(b) for the summary conviction of a person in respect of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth;
and where the Director takes over such a proceeding, he or she may decline to carry it on further.

This is not only sloppy law, its illegal. This Public Servant Thief, is authorized by an illegal Act, to acquire property from private individuals, and trash it. Of course it gives the Minister for Home Affairs property to sell. He can be approached, and the government probably was, to accept protection money from criminals.

The Australian Federal Police is almost afraid to pass wind, unless it asks the Director of Public Prosecutions first.
S 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution says: The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.

Call for a report on every case the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken over and discontinued. Every time it does so, it should pay the prosecutor the $165,000 that the Parliament of the Commonwealth has prescribed as a penalty for attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth.

It’s a protection racket, Julia, because it protects criminals, and has been illegal since 1487. In 1487, King Henry VII had a law enacted that only a jury could discharge a criminal charge laid in criminal or civil jurisdiction. It is reinforced by S 44 Crimes Act 1914. Australians deserve better. Remove this offending legislation, and let competition shine on the Director.

<< If the polys think there are votes in it, they will act. >>

That seems to be about the size of it Banjo. No scruples. No principles. Just poll- or lobby-driven actions.

No matter how glaring the discrepancy between the law as written and general practice, our ‘illustrious’ politicians won’t go near it unless there is a very large level of concern expressed.

There seems to be no principle amongst the lawyers within our different levels of government that the laws need to be either observed as intended or changed to match accepted practices.

I think that our lawyer politicians do their profession, or ex-profession, no good at all.

And they certainly don’t do their political profession any good at all, as it is one of the most fundamental duties of our government to make sure that the laws and regulations are appropriate and properly adhered to.

Wow, isn’t FGM an absolutely horrible example of this legal duplicity.