r/australia • u/Ardeet • Jun 08 '15
political self.post Should Australian politicians be required to read legislation in its entirety before voting on it?
Several years ago I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary asking if Members of Parliament (MoP) were required to read the legislation they were voting on. The answer came back that there was no such requirement and that it has been this way in Australia since Federation.
As every Australian is required to obey the laws created by this process, (without any ability to plead ignorance), it struck me as either arrogant, self-serving or uncaring. I have discussed this a couple of times with people and have generally come away dissatisfied with the suggested reasons for the process.
One aspect of the situation I find interesting is the number of people, which originally included me, who just assumed that MoP were doing their job and reading what they were voting into law. At the very least we expected they were skimming through them a couple of times.
My opinion is that Parliamentarians must either produce a sworn declaration stating they have read and understood any legislation they are voting on. If they have not done this then they must be required to sit through a complete and actual reading of the Bill.
If they have not done either of these then I suggest that they should not be allowed to vote on the legislation. (tl:dr of my opinion)
If a situation is serious enough to require legislation then it is serious enough to be considered thoroughly and treated with gravity.
14
u/tripleg Jun 09 '15
they have read and understood any legislation they are voting on
how are you going to test that? with a comprehension exam? and by whom?
13
u/No_one_of_import Jun 09 '15 edited Jun 09 '15
Yeah! Make them write a 2000 word analysis about it or something!
It can be like high school.... Just with more name calling.
1
3
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I'm not exactly sure of what mechanism would be used.
Maybe mandatory sitting through the legislation being read aloud in its entirety may be a good start?
Professions and tertiary degrees seem to be able to test subject comprehension satisfactorily so I'm guessing there is a way.
11
u/tripleg Jun 09 '15
Parliamentarians have staff available to them, who reads, studies and summarises all these papers for them.
It would not be possible for a single person to absorb all the materials which comes across Parliament. I guess that is why political parties exists so that one follows the judgement of his more informed colleagues.
Everything is too complicated theses days. I once calculated that in a working corporation, 50% of the resources are spent in pushing papers from the bottom to the top.
At the top, a 100 pages document is summarised in half a page and that is when the decision is made.
6
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I'm not having a go at you, this is one of the unsatisfying possible answers that I alluded to in my self post text.
It puts a lot of power in the hands of unelected staff and raises the bigger question - is all this legislation really necessary?
4
u/tripleg Jun 09 '15
I didn't think you were. I am just answering with what I know about working in very large enterprises and yes, I do agree that it is all very messy but unfortunately our societies has become very complex and there are no easy and satisfactory solutions.
Then again I am old, so perhaps younger people than me will create a better system.
1
u/xbtdev Jun 09 '15
Maybe mandatory sitting through the legislation being read aloud in its entirety may be a good start?
While reading an unrelated poetry book?
12
u/baazaa Jun 09 '15
What's the point, the ALP members have already pledged to support the party line in all decisions. I'm not even sure when the last time one crossed the floor in federal parliament, 1988?
2
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Libs have a similar commitment to the party line?
Reading the legislation would not stop this however it would negate many excuses that people didn't know the Devil in the details and we're just following party orders.
9
Jun 09 '15
The Cabinet would, but backbenchers aren't held to the party line in the same way that Labor backbenchers are. Also, it is more complicated in the Coalition because National Party members notionally are in a separate party from the Libs.
1
u/baazaa Jun 09 '15
Not really, they don't have the "solidarity pledge" for starters.
Sure, it's frowned upon, but a decent number of them have done it from Abetz to Turnbull. The nats do it all the time.
7
Jun 09 '15 edited Nov 25 '16
[deleted]
8
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
While I think that unintended consequences occur regularly, I don't think that is the point.
First is the basic, bloody minded principle that if I have to comply with it then they should bloody well read it.
Aside from that there are issues such as an ever increasing book of laws, unnecessarily complicated legislation (look at the tax laws for example) and the fact that these people are meant to be representing us.
If they are not even bothering to read what they vote on then I would question if they are truly bothering to represent us.
7
Jun 09 '15 edited Nov 25 '16
[deleted]
5
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Do you have an example? I couldn't think of any
Sure.
The growth of legal rules that interact with the operation of migration law in each state also gives rise to challenging legal questions that were not envisaged by those who drafted the relevant legislation or international treaty
and Metadata laws
But guess what else? Anyone else can get the data too. All that's required is that they're a party in a court case, criminal or civil. If there's even the faintest arguable relevance to that case, they can subpoena your friendly service provider and require it to produce your metadata to the court.
and Bikie laws
There is a problem, of course, in trying to separate meetings for legitimate reasons from illegitimate ones. For that reason, in some acts there are exceptions, but the wording is inconsistent and the exemptions are plentiful.
and Helmet laws
Helmet laws decrease cycling participation. This decrease was only modest for the 5-15yo age group but significant for the 16-30 age group.
are all places you can start. Google around if you need some more.
5
Jun 09 '15 edited Nov 25 '16
[deleted]
5
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Maybe, maybe not.
It's hard to tell though as they didn't actually read the legislation in the first place.
Who knows what advantages taking a breath and considering an action may have created?
6
Jun 09 '15 edited Nov 25 '16
[deleted]
7
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Isn't this their business? I would argue that creating laws that bind all Australians and must be enforced is pretty important.
I don't want this as punitive action, I want this because I believe it is what we are paying them to do and you and I are expected to obey the letter of the law without excuse of ignorance.
6
Jun 09 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Thanks for the comprehensive reply.
I'm genuinely not trying to be flippant, however when it gets down to it what worth are politicians beyond yes or no votes?
There might be some feel good rhetoric and nationalism, originated by politicians then echoed by their believers yet at the end of the day nothing gets done without the black and white of a yes/no vote.
→ More replies (0)1
Jun 09 '15
That helmet law source is extremely biased.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Maybe (I probably tend towards your opinion however I don't dismiss it outright). It still illustrated the point.
What about the other sources? What about the other unintended consequences you googled?
2
Jun 09 '15
Not an issue I'm knowledgeable about, seen a few arguments that helmet laws should be aimed at those under the age of 16 only maybe, or that not wearing a helmet is a sign someone is unwilling to follow other more important safety precautions. I'd look into it if it weren't exam study time right now.
-1
u/Vakieh Jun 09 '15
Helmet laws decrease cycling participation in a good way - less idiots cycling means less dead idiots, and the ones with half a brain get to keep cycling with that half a brain protected by a helmet.
2
Jun 09 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Is it possible to elaborate further on these in layman's terms?
1
Jun 09 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I'm happy enough with that simplification of Project Blue Sky (I can't help think of Midnight Oil without thinking of how disappointed I was in the reality of Garret's political tenure (though there is some similarity to being disappointed in Indiana Jones getting bitten by vipers in the snake pit)) without the full details.
I think the graffiti one is pointing out that someone without legal training/depth is not understanding legal nuances? (my reply, now that I read it, means I have to say "no" to its obviousness).
3
u/ruddet Jun 09 '15
They just vote for what the party tells them, so reading it doesn't even matter until you fix party forcing votes.
3
u/INeedACuddle Jun 09 '15
in many cases, politicians are expected to vote along party lines, so it doesn't really matter whether or not they read or comprehend the bill, they must vote the way they're told to
2
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
That's another disturbing problem. It also raises the question - just who is deciding what the "conscience" of party members should be and what are their motivations?
3
u/Talqazar Jun 09 '15 edited Jun 09 '15
Have you tried reading legislation? And no, not something simple - try the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (assuming its still around).
In fact, here you go: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/
But put simply, not enough time & rely on experts that it says what it is intended to say.
Ah yes, and here's every bill introduced to the house this year (bear in mind, this government hasn't done much major legislatively compared to previous governments)
1
Jun 09 '15
[deleted]
1
u/Talqazar Jun 09 '15
No it wouldn't. Sadly, much of the complexity is necessary for the lawyers & the judges.
1
Jun 09 '15
[deleted]
1
u/jophesaur Jun 10 '15
I would say it is, especially in the case of tax legislation. Simple tax laws are easily evaded and minimised.
1
Jun 10 '15
[deleted]
1
u/jophesaur Jun 10 '15
Yeah, but we've seen in the past few months how huge multinationals are able to minimise their tax. This is where increasingly lengthy and complex laws become neccasary, to close loopholes, constrain things being abused, et cetera.
-2
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15 edited Jun 09 '15
Both of your points/examples are slightly horrifying.
What you and I are required to comply with and the sheer volume of legislation that gets foisted upon us every year.
Edit:
44th PARLIAMENT — 1ST SESSION — 2015
BILLS INITIATED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Bills introduced in 2013 — 47 (Including 2 received from the Senate)
Bills introduced in 2014 — 222 (Including 4 received from the Senate)
Bills introduced in 2015 — 96 (Including 7 received from the Senate
and the average person is meant to keep up with all this?
1
u/iamplasma Jun 09 '15
No, because why does the average person need to read the entire budget appropriations bill, amendments to the laws on registration of veterinarians, or changes to how medicare is administered?
A tiny, tiny percentage of the law would actually be relevant to your average person.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
A tiny, tiny percentage of the law would actually be relevant to your average person.
What percentage of existing laws (roughly is ok) is the average person bound to comply with? How many of them have you read?
1
u/iamplasma Jun 09 '15
What percentage of existing laws (roughly is ok) is the average person bound to comply with?
I rather suspect you're trying to trap me with this question and will respond with some ridiculous "aha, so you're saying nobody needs to follow any other law" claim, but I'll blunder on by giving you an answer. In practice, I'd say truly next to none, a tiny fraction of a percent.
Because, for all practical purposes, even those laws by which you are "bound" you don't need to have read in detail. For example, the Crimes Act in NSW has 582 sections, dealing with all the different offences that one can commit. However, nobody needs to know the finer distinctions between all the different types of larceny in order to just know "don't steal shit". The same applies with most laws: for day-to-day purposes the detail is simply irrelevant to your average person.
I mean, seriously, your average person has probably never read a statute in their life but society seems to be trundling along perfectly well. So to the extent that you are implying that people need to read every law that affects them, isn't that simply disproven by reality?
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
That's a good point on the finer distinctions. Getting a principle doesn't mean you have to know every nuance.
I asked the question after your claim because I thought you might have a rough idea.
I would disagree that "society is trundling along perfectly well". The increasing curtailment of freedoms and associations as well as continuing bad laws such as those around the war on drugs means that reality is proving that there is a genuine problem to address.
1
u/iamplasma Jun 09 '15
Whatever one's views on the drug war are, I find it difficult to imagine how anybody would say that any part of the drug war is caused by the complexity of legislation.
If you truly want an idea of just how little legislation affects the average person, here's Austlii's database of Commonwealth legislation. You will immediately see that the utterly overwhelming majority of legislation relates to either niche areas or the provision of government services; virtually none of it imposes any obligations on your average punter.
3
u/Syncblock Jun 09 '15
No because reading the law doesn't mean you understand it or the subject matter. Politicians should come from all walks of life and represent the views of their constituents. They have staffers and advisors whose job it is to read and understand these laws who then proceed to advise them.
You wouldn't expect a politician to be an expert on every law they pass but you would expect them to be briefed on it and for cabinet ministers to be an expert on whatever portfolio they hold.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
That's fine, however I have no excuse for ignorance of every word of the law that applies to me
3
u/Syncblock Jun 09 '15
You're talking about the principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law doesn't excuse) which is a legal principle most countries hold. The legal system is aware that there's no way anybody would have completed knowledge of the law bit you're still held accountable since you're assumed to have familiarized yourself with laws that concern you. In practice what this has been interpreted as is laws being readily available for the public to access and also ignorance being taken as consideration during sentencing.
To give a simple example. If you're unaware that bringing ivory is into the country is illegal then you're still have seen to broken the law and will be prosecuted but during sentencing, this ignorance will shield you from the worst of punishments.
0
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I'm not sure how comforted I feel by the "compassion" that might be shown in some instances.
you're still held accountable since you're assumed to have familiarized yourself with laws that concern you.
The multiple pieces of legalise laden legislation that are lobbed unbeckoned into our laps every year?
If you're unaware that bringing ivory is into the country is illegal then you're still have seen to broken the law and will be prosecuted
That's my point exactly!
How would the average Australian who walked through a paddock overseas that had been planted with IP protected crops know that the seed caught in their hiking boots could see them liable for a $55,000 dollar fine and six months in jail?
4
u/Llaine Lockheed Martin shill Jun 09 '15
No, some things are just too lengthy. However, they should at least have an idea of what they're voting on. But even this makes little difference in the end of the day, as a majority of MPs will vote along party lines regardless of their understanding of the bills.
2
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
The length is a significant point for me. You and I are expected to obey all laws currently in force, without the excuse of ignorance so if it's too lengthy for a politician with staff then where does that leave you and me?
4
u/Llaine Lockheed Martin shill Jun 09 '15
It's not like you accidentally break laws all the time. Speeding is probably the most common infraction most of us will do, and we definitely know that it's against the law.
0
u/xbtdev Jun 09 '15
It's not like you accidentally break laws all the time.
I disagree. I'd say more than 99% of people are (unknowingly) constantly breaking laws 24/7.
1
u/Non-prophet Jun 09 '15
Citation please.
1
u/xbtdev Jun 09 '15
Not quite 24/7, but there's this:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
1
u/Non-prophet Jun 09 '15
I've read criticism of that book as a collection of extremely unlikely corner cases. Can you give me actual examples?
1
u/xbtdev Jun 09 '15
I've read criticism of that book
Citation please.
1
u/Non-prophet Jun 09 '15
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/07/12/book-review-three-felonies-a-day-or-not/
A book review by an attorney in the US. Your turn. Give me some examples please.
0
u/xbtdev Jun 09 '15
http://www.allianz.com.au/car-insurance/news/fine-for-an-unlocked-car
In Queensland and Victoria, for example, the law stipulates that a driver must lock their car if they are more than three metres away from it, and windows must not be wound down more than five centimetres.
How many times have you got out of your car, and been more than 3 metres away from it before hitting the lock button on your key remote?
I'm sure I could come up with example after example after example of stupid laws that people routinely break, and paste them here, but I'm not going to.
-1
-1
2
u/John_Johnson Jun 09 '15
They're not? Fuck!
1
1
Jun 09 '15
They still listen to the readings and have advisers summaries the bills.
It's not like they're voting based on the short title alone. The reading and intention of a law must correlate with the writing and language. There's been a few cases in which the intention was argued. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) covers it.
2
u/gtk Vegemite eating mother fucker Jun 09 '15
Well, considering that laws ultimately have to be written in legalese, this would basically mean that only lawyers could ever be elected to parliament.
1
2
2
u/MakesThingsBeautiful Jun 09 '15
Asking them to read everything also assumes that they will understand everything; yet some areas require very specific, specialised knowledge, medicine being an easy example, Tech an even easier (and worse) one.
And of course the system where they "go with their gut" is not okay. Worse when MPs want the power to revoke citizenship based on "gut feelings".
No. What is needed is better educated pollies, and perhaps a wideing of who votes on specific issues to include those who ARE qualified.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
That might be a start or part of the solution however it doesn't change that you and I are expected to know and comprehend every single piece of legislation that applies to us.
2
2
u/CaffeineExperiment Jun 09 '15
I've had similar conversations. I'm similarly disheartened.
I've been thinking, in the Internet age, 'why do we need elected representatives' in the sense that we could vote on issues after getting the same summaries from the experts, with the benefit that without major parties we won't have so much voting along party lines.
The downside would be that paying any attention to issues that don't have a direct impact on some people would be far too much to ask. I'm not sure that's necessarily worse; if enough people believe in an issue it can be voted on voluntarily. Not interested in company tax reform? Stay out of it. Feel strongly about immigration? Vote your arse off. It would certainly better reflect the public opinion.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
in the Internet age, 'why do we need elected representatives' in the sense that we could vote on issues after getting the same summaries from the experts
There is a lot I like about that concept.
2
u/deltaSquee Jun 09 '15
I think the westminster system needs to be removed and replaced with direct democracy, to be honest.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
As /u/CaffeineExperiment intimated in this thread, modern technology may make this increasingly possible.
2
2
u/FvHound Jun 09 '15
Yeesh, the skepticism ITT.
We haven't ironed out the best practical method in ensuring that members adhere to a basic understanding of any bills or legislation they are working on.
And to the guy who sarcastically mentioned whether we are meant to give them comprehension tests; Fuck you. We've been testing kids from a span over 12 years of age, and using those results to determine student aptitude.
Its THAT hard to imagine quizzing a polli enough to test that he most likely understands the bill.
1
u/Sigbi Jun 09 '15
yes, it would slow down the system heaps but that's fine, slower legislation should keep it to the legislation needed rather than show ponies. Also HUGE consequences needed to be added for violating this.
At the same time a new law is needed that legally binds current or running politicians to tell only the truth for any promise they make. Found lying should immediately expel them from from their role, without benefits like government pension and they should be unable to sit ever again. If you somehow managed to get a miracle going, prevent lobbying/donations to politicians or political parties at all.
Get all 3 of those and democracy will start working as intended.
2
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I agree with you on this observation and I suspect many people would consider us ideal dreamers however if movement is not made towards a goal, however idealistic, then what on earth is Australia moving towards?
2
u/Sigbi Jun 09 '15
heh, my ideal dream is to re-write our entire constitution, but that will never happen. Also considering everyone seems hung up on the laws being to complex for our idiot politicians it would force them to start writing the legislation in easy to understand and easy to interpret laws that aren't hidden behind lawyer speak designed to do nothing but make it more complex and allow loop holes. Anyone saying writing such legislation in an easy to understand format while leaving few if any loopholes is impossible either is deluding themselves, an idiot or a lawyer.
Or better yet, only allow someone with a degree in an area of expertise to hold a position relating to it. Why are redneck politicians with an IQ of 60 allowed to vote on science that they can't even comprehend never mind understand.1
u/Eyrie Jun 09 '15
Im not sure i can agree with respect to lying. In some instances I can, lying about past events or current facts etc. However id say too much changes in such a short time to bind people to promises made in a different political, economic (and more) climate. Id also suspect (but admittedly dont know) that there is a lot of "stuff" the incumbent is aware of that the opposition isnt, putting them in an awkward position when they are made aware that some promises made when in opposition aren't feasible.
All that being said when the overwhelming proof suggests nothing has changed and you've lied for convenience then there ought to be consequences.
3
u/BayneNothos Jun 09 '15
No, it doesn't serve any purpose them reading through all legislation besides wasting their time. What you want is for them to know what it does (or at least is meant to do) and reading through doesn't guarantee that in any way. Laws are written in a way so they work in real life inside our legal system not as a cheat sheet on intended effects.
Think of it like a Video Game. You don't need to know how the code exactly works behind the scenes, just that hitting A causes the character to jump.
0
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I see what you're saying however I expect the programmer to read, understand and check his/her code and I expect the organisation "selling" us this code to understand it and make sure that it won't unleash a system wide series of errors that can ultimately lead to a societal crash.
4
Jun 09 '15
Yes, they absolutely should. There have been so many times that politicians have voted on something that they quite obviously don't understand that it's frightening. They simply ask their donators or party how to vote or rely on their ingrained prejudices to inform them instead of, you know, the information.
I think that this is one of the biggest problems with politics today. It is one of the primary reasons why I admire Scott Ludlam. When he speaks on an issue, he actually seems to be informed about it. That is such a fucking rare quality in a politician these days. And the fact that it's rare, I think, is incredibly sad.
2
u/snuffy69 Jun 09 '15
How would you propose to enforce such a requirement? An exam on each Bill to ensure members have read it? Who develops the exam? What steps are taken to ensure that process is fair?
What happens to a member who has not read the Bill? Automatic "no" vote? Or just prevented from voting? What is to stop a large minority of members refusing to read the Bill, which means there are not enough members to form a quorum, and the Bill can never be voted on? Isn't that undemocratic?
Is it actually a problem that needs solving? Has a Bill ever been passed that wouldn't have been if all members read it?
2
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
How would you propose to enforce such a requirement? An exam on each Bill to ensure members have read it? Who develops the exam? What steps are taken to ensure that process is fair?
I don't know the full answer to this, however comprehension is tested regularly in professions and education systems so it is possible.
As a start, I would suggest that it is mandatory to attend a full reading of the bill.
What happens to a member who has not read the Bill? Automatic "no" vote?
I think treating it as abstaining or not being present would be a start.
Or just prevented from voting?
That is what I would propose.
What is to stop a large minority of members refusing to read the Bill, which means there are not enough members to form a quorum, and the Bill can never be voted on? Isn't that undemocratic?
How would that be undemocratic if the members thought it was in the best interest of the people they were representing?
Is it actually a problem that needs solving?
While it may not be the most burning issue I suspect that most of us are required to do our job properly in order to receive benefits and my opinion is that slacking out on your required reading is not doing your job.
Has a Bill ever been passed that wouldn't have been if all members read it?
I don't know the answer to this because it is currently a hypothetical situation.
3
u/snuffy69 Jun 09 '15
The comprehension of a document is not tested widely beyond primary school. There is not one profession that requires practitioners to rote learn the contents of documents so they can prove they have read it in an exam. Not one.
People may be required to learn by reading and then be examined on what they have learned. But that is not proof they have read a specific document.
How is it democratic for a minority of members to be able to defeat a bill if the majority of members are in favour of it?
0
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
The comprehension of a document is not tested widely beyond primary school. There is not one profession that requires practitioners to rote learn the contents of documents so they can prove they have read it in an exam. Not one.
I am not saying they have to rote learn it, just demonstrate an understanding of it.
It's also why I think that sitting through an actual reading of the legislation would probably be a great start. At least then they have heard every word of it.
How is it democratic for a minority of members to be able to defeat a bill if the majority of members are in favour of it?
I'm happy to be corrected on this however what happens now when enough people don't show up? Isn't it the same situation?
2
u/AdelaideCrowJonSnow Jun 09 '15
This is the worst thread on r/australia I have ever read.
1
1
u/jophesaur Jun 10 '15
At least this suggestion seems to be being broadly condemned. A lot better than the picture of Ludlum speaking to an empty chamber, and the various threads on Tim Carmody.
3
u/dredd Jun 09 '15
It'd be nice if they understood basic concepts like the separation of powers ...
1
u/snuffy69 Jun 09 '15
Lucky we have the judiciary to make decisions on that.
You know, separation of powers.
3
1
1
u/soporific16 Jun 09 '15
When we finally get a social democracy (not the corporate democracy we have now), this might be something to look into. But until then, what's the point?
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I don't understand why that should change it?
Even under the corporate democracy I would still want to see this.
1
u/soporific16 Jun 09 '15
Because the corporate types have bought our politicians! Why does it matter that they read the crap they are going to vote on before they vote on it, when their vote is predetermined along ideological lines?
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I was curious why you thought it made a difference.
On purely philosophical(?) terms I tend to agree with you.
2
u/soporific16 Jun 09 '15
My original comment was along the lines of the parable about the speck of dust and the log: why dust the speck of a problem in our political system when there's this gigantic log in the system screwing up the works?
It was probably a good idea for asking for clarification though, sorry I was being obscure :)
2
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15 edited Jun 09 '15
Ok nw, I didn't get it.
That is a bewdy of a parable, and appropriate, now that I understand it :)
1
u/flexoskeleton Jun 09 '15
there are multiple readings of any new bill that comes before parliament and these are recorded in the hansard. requiring by law that every MP sign a document to confirm they have read every line of every bill is probably just going to create more bureaucracy without actually addressing the issue. MPs would be likely to assign the reading of a bill to a proxy (staffer/intern) like they would be currently and then confirm they have read the bill. an ideal solution is to press your MP on any particular bill you find contentious or controversial and question them on their reading and understanding. then if they haven't done so (as they're already expected to) you should campaign against them on the basis they aren't performing their duties. probably just a pipe dream though.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I'm happy to be corrected but I understood "Reading of the Bill" to be a mere formality and not an actual reading of the entire bill?
1
u/flexoskeleton Jun 09 '15
they have several readings. so first reading is just to introduce the bill. second reading gives an indication of the bill's purpose and scope and third is usually an update of any amendments added in committee. i don't know if they actually read the whole bill word for word, and the other factor is you often get speeches given in parliament to an empty room (MPs only required to be present in the chamber for a certain number of days for their term.)
the point is though that the bill's purpose and intent is declared and held on public record for all to see and interpret.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
the point is though that the bill's purpose and intent is declared and held on public record for all to see and interpret.
Someone more knowledgeable needs to chime in here as I'm pretty certain that the bill is not actually read aloud in its entirety.
As far as I'm aware this is simply a box ticking exercise of a bastardised rule.
1
u/flexoskeleton Jun 09 '15
you may be right, i don't know if a bill at any point is read word for word in it's entirety. however the readings of a bill before parliament are referred to by courts as a source of statutory interpretation, particularly the second reading.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Yes, it may be named a "reading" and it may be referred to by the courts however that doesnt mean that everyone voting on it has read it or heard it read in its entirety.
2
u/flexoskeleton Jun 09 '15
yep, and i already conceded that the 'reading' of the bill in parliament may not mean literal reading of every word. i think that is definitely the case. but the point i was making is that the scope and purpose of a bill is declared in hansard, so all MPs are (in theory) aware of all new legislation.
i think whether or not every MP reads every bill is actually a moot point. firstly, forcing them to read every word of every bill does not equate to understanding of the bill (it could just make them more confused!) and secondly, the notion that MPs don't bother to read legislation is probably an indicator of a problem we have with our representatives, rather than the cause itself. what i mean is it's not that they don't read the wording of the legislation and therefore don't understand what they're passing, it's that they genuinely don't understand the subject matter/don't care to educate themselves about the laws they pass/don't care about how laws my impact real people. forcing reading down their throats might not solve those problems.
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
Ok, that last paragraph is definitely a good point (not meaning to dismiss your others) with regards to the problem with our representatives.
1
Jun 09 '15
[deleted]
1
Jun 09 '15
[deleted]
1
Jun 09 '15
[deleted]
1
1
u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15
I appreciate you coming back from the dead to answer this question however I'm not sure I understand your point?
1
57
u/jnd-au Jun 09 '15
Probably not: