When I was a partner in a law firm, my secretary had one standing instruction – keep me away from the Thought Police.  That was my term for ‘management’.  I was there to practise law.  They were there to manage the business.  My attitude to management reflected that of a famous motion in the House of Commons – ‘the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.’

On similar grounds, I avoid any entry into what are called ‘culture wars,’ or any stuff about ‘woke’, or ‘cancel culture’, or the like.  It is peddled by people of small minds and eager appetites for moulah.  It’s a bit like reading history from the Left – another word I try to avoid – when you just switch off when the word ‘masses’ looms into view.

I may have to rethink all that. 

Recent reports in the press tell of a magistrate being ‘counselled’ for making a comment in court about rape that was found to be ‘inappropriate’.

This morning’s Age has a report of proceedings against a controversial surgeon.  The case has enough meat in it to make dilating at the periphery unnecessary.  But in what was obviously a life and death moment, there is evidence that the surgeon used language that was fruity and urgent.  The headline reflects what the report says were the terms of the complaint – surgeon’s ‘language inappropriate.’  I don’t know if counselling is one of the remedies if the complaint is made out, but loss of the surgeon’s ticket almost certainly is.

The same paper had a report of a testy interchange between two senators, Simon Birmingham and Penny Wong, two of our more sensible politicians.  Birmingham wanted Wong to say whether comments by Kevin Rudd were ‘appropriate’ and if he had been ‘counselled.’

That is to say, a prominent former Minister of the Crown asked a current Minister if she thought that comments of a former Prime Minister were appropriate and whether he had been counselled.

What are these people on about?  Are they running a bloody government, or a posh kindergarten headed by Emily Post?  And if God is unavailable, whom will they get to counsel Kevin Rudd?

I will have something further to say about the Judicial Commission and the powers it asserts to deal with inappropriate behaviour by judges.  Up until now, our judges have not been subject to direction from an arm of government – because it is basic to our way of life that the judiciary must be quite independent of the executive arm of government.

But these straws in the wind are alarming.  One thing we learn from history is that if you cede power to the government, it is bloody hard to get it back.  The repeal of abolition stands out on its own.  The emergency tax that Pitt introduced purely to deal with Napoleon was a tax on income. 

I can’t speak for doctors, but there are times when a lawyer has to be firm.  That is more so when the lawyer runs a court or tribunal.  Your approach as a lawyer to a client may be one thing for the Chairman of BHP, another an uppity entrepreneur, or a timid widow taking on a banking sphynx, or a ludicrously foul-mouthed builder’s labourer physically threatening a terrified employer sitting at the back of the Federal Court. 

You can if you like burble on about ‘client autonomy’.  You may even talk of ‘democracy’ – but mine was of a very ‘guided’ kind.  I see no real alternative if someone is putting at hazard their name, fortune, sanity, or liberty. 

And I would be surprised if doctors don’t have the same experience when the stakes are very high.

I hesitate to think how often my conduct as a lawyer or presiding member of a tribunal would have been challenged as being inappropriate.  It could have been like confetti.

Three post-scripts.

According to The Age, the surgeon has been briefing the press outside the hearing.  That is inappropriate.  Viscerally.

Steve Waugh bowled up to lend support to the surgeon.  That was inappropriate.  And it may well have been unhelpful.  When I was hearing a case at the Fire Brigade where dismissal was on the cards, the union wheeled in mum and the kids.  It was so blatant that it was embarrassing, and I told them to cut it out.  I would not be surprised if now the union said that was inappropriate – or if the regulator agreed with it.

Finally, did it occur to Senator Birmingham when inquiring about the appropriateness of the conduct of a former Prime Minister, that he had recently served under a Prime Minister who had great difficulty in understanding just what the word ‘inappropriate’ may mean?

Passing Bull 347 – Thought Police

When I was a partner in a law firm, my secretary had one standing instruction – keep me away from the Thought Police.  That was my term for ‘management’.  I was there to practise law.  They were there to manage the business.  My attitude to management reflected that of a famous motion in the House of Commons – ‘the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.’

On similar grounds, I avoid any entry into what are called ‘culture wars,’ or any stuff about ‘woke’, or ‘cancel culture’, or the like.  It is peddled by people of small minds and eager appetites for moulah.  It’s a bit like reading history from the Left – another word I try to avoid – when you just switch off when the word ‘masses’ looms into view.

I may have to rethink all that. 

Recent reports in the press tell of a magistrate being ‘counselled’ for making a comment in court about rape that was found to be ‘inappropriate’.

This morning’s Age has a report of proceedings against a controversial surgeon.  The case has enough meat in it to make dilating at the periphery unnecessary.  But in what was obviously a life and death moment, there is evidence that the surgeon used language that was fruity and urgent.  The headline reflects what the report says were the terms of the complaint – surgeon’s ‘language inappropriate.’  I don’t know if counselling is one of the remedies if the complaint is made out, but loss of the surgeon’s ticket almost certainly is.

The same paper had a report of a testy interchange between two senators, Simon Birmingham and Penny Wong, two of our more sensible politicians.  Birmingham wanted Wong to say whether comments by Kevin Rudd were ‘appropriate’ and if he had been ‘counselled.’

That is to say, a prominent former Minister of the Crown asked a current Minister if she thought that comments of a former Prime Minister were appropriate and whether he had been counselled.

What are these people on about?  Are they running a bloody government, or a posh kindergarten headed by Emily Post?  And if God is unavailable, whom will they get to counsel Kevin Rudd?

I will have something further to say about the Judicial Commission and the powers it asserts to deal with inappropriate behaviour by judges.  Up until now, our judges have not been subject to direction from an arm of government – because it is basic to our way of life that the judiciary must be quite independent of the executive arm of government.

But these straws in the wind are alarming.  One thing we learn from history is that if you cede power to the government, it is bloody hard to get it back.  The repeal of abolition stands out on its own.  The emergency tax that Pitt introduced purely to deal with Napoleon was a tax on income. 

I can’t speak for doctors, but there are times when a lawyer has to be firm.  That is more so when the lawyer runs a court or tribunal.  Your approach as a lawyer to a client may be one thing for the Chairman of BHP, another an uppity entrepreneur, or a timid widow taking on a banking sphynx, or a ludicrously foul-mouthed builder’s labourer physically threatening a terrified employer sitting at the back of the Federal Court. 

You can if you like burble on about ‘client autonomy’.  You may even talk of ‘democracy’ – but mine was of a very ‘guided’ kind.  I see no real alternative if someone is putting at hazard their name, fortune, sanity, or liberty. 

And I would be surprised if doctors don’t have the same experience when the stakes are very high.

I hesitate to think how often my conduct as a lawyer or presiding member of a tribunal would have been challenged as being inappropriate.  It could have been like confetti.

Three post-scripts.

According to The Age, the surgeon has been briefing the press outside the hearing.  That is inappropriate.  Viscerally.

Steve Waugh bowled up to lend support to the surgeon.  That was inappropriate.  And it may well have been unhelpful.  When I was hearing a case at the Fire Brigade where dismissal was on the cards, the union wheeled in mum and the kids.  It was so blatant that it was embarrassing, and I told them to cut it out.  I would not be surprised if now the union said that was inappropriate – or if the regulator agreed with it.

Finally, did it occur to Senator Birmingham when inquiring about the appropriateness of the conduct of a former Prime Minister, that he had recently served under a Prime Minister who had great difficulty in understanding just what the word ‘inappropriate’ may mean?

Political correctness? -Doctors and lawyers – Birmingham and Wong