I spoke as second speaker for the lawyers in the inaugural NSW Young Engineers v NSW Young Lawyers debate. The topic was (or at least should be interpreted as): ‘That Engineers make better politicians than lawyers’.

As I seem to know many more engineers than I had ever previously realised, and as they all seem to be very interested in the outcome of this debate, I thought I would post the lot.

With engineers outnumbering lawyers by about 10 to 1 in the crowd, the event emphasised the importance of having a sympathetic audience. It can be difficult attacking engineers in a room full of engineers.

The experience made me reflect of the glory days of represeting Sacred Heart College and St Marks College. The debating teams enjoyed the advantage of a large supportive crowd every time. The debate truly begins well before the debate.

We lawyers had a moral victory, we like to think.

Here is my speech (as second speaker for the negative):

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Here is my reply (as fourth speaker for the negative):

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Here are the judges (picking on me):

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Here is the whole debate:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

For those who prefer to read rather than listen, here is an edited version of my speech(es)

Some weeks ago, I participated in the inaugural Young Lawyers v Young Engineers debate. The topic (drafted by engineers) was: ‘Engineers, rather than lawyers, make better politicians’. The venue was NSW Parliament House. A hundred engineers, and a handful of lawyers, showed up to watch. We lost. This was my (potentially unhelpful) speech…

Ladies. Gentlemen. Engineers. Good evening.

I would like to begin tonight by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land… the NSW ALP Right.

And the lands around this land are the lands of the lawyers – the courts, the law libraries, filled with big books – [under breath, to engineers’ team] with all words, and no pictures, so you wouldn’t quite understand them I’m sure – and of course our blessed Law Society. And these places all act as feeders into this place of politics and into Canberra and off to the UN go the lawyers. And the engineers? They go to Engineers Australia: 8 Thomas Street, Chatswood. Chatswood… where the North Shore partners of politicians and lawyers go to shop.

What we have heard from the engineers’ team tonight is that a better politician would have values, integrity, honesty. Bless them – [under breath, to adjudicator Tanya Gadiel MP] they’d be eaten alive by the ALP Right. But bear in mind, this debate is not about who is the better person. This debate is about who is the better politician, and that’s a multi-faceted concept. It’s not something binary, my dear engineers.

Sure, being a better politician is about being good, but it’s also about getting elected. It’s about doing the numbers, the sometimes hard, ugly work, the deals, the backroom stuff, and the challenge for the engineers is to tell us why they are good at this. Lawyers can do this dirty work, but we can also be ‘good’. We have all heard of Legal Aid. Is there such a thing as Engineering Aid? Can one ask… “I need my extension, please come and help.”

We lawyers acknowledge that just because lawyers make up more of our politicians does not necessarily mean that’s how it should be. We would not fall into the trap of thinking ‘what is’ is necessarily what is best or what ought to be. But we know what is best. We is best. We are what is, and is what ought to be.

Just look at your average engineer. Male. Lives off defence contracts. Watches Mythbusters. Has a woman for a mother. Would like to have one for a girlfriend. And look at your average lawyer. Erudite. Handsome. Watches, and wins, Masterchef. Has a woman for a mother. And might even be one herself.

And look at the situation we find ourselves in today: a hung parliament. Sworn enemies must come together as partners. We lawyers invented going into partnership with people we hate. The ethos of suppressed division and rage is exactly what makes your average law firm such a pleasant place to work.

Then there’s money. Let’s look at how lawyers handle money: money in trust – before I touch your file, before I do anything – very sensible. And how do engineers handle money? Retention money! They actually let their customers retain part of the funds until the project is complete. Madness! Can you imagine if a politician worked this way? “Donate to me… but keep some of it until I finish building the education revolution, ‘til no child is living in poverty, ‘til I have addressed and countered the greatest moral challenge of our time… and the defects liability period has expired.”

What we have heard from the other side is that engineers are good people – which would be a persuasive case if the debate was about whether or not engineers or lawyers are good or better people – I daren’t show for such a debate – but what they have failed to show us is why engineers are better politicians because, as I say, there’s more to being a politician than being nice. There are certain skills that lawyers will always be able to bring to the field of politics – certainly, values, and integrity, and honesty – but also electability. Engineers. Bless ‘em. They’re lovely, but they’ll never cut it in the real world… Vote 1.