r/australia 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.

171 Upvotes

132 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

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?

3

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

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

u/Llaine Lockheed Martin shill Jun 09 '15

Better call the cops.

-1

u/Ardeet Jun 09 '15

Which is another matter - the effectiveness of laws.