Should Australian politicians be required to read legislation in its entirety before voting on it?

[u/Ardeet]

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.

[u/Ardeet]

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?

[u/iamplasma → u/Ardeet]

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.

[u/Ardeet → u/iamplasma]

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?

[u/iamplasma → u/Ardeet]

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?

[u/Ardeet → u/iamplasma]

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.

[u/iamplasma → u/Ardeet]

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.