Augusto Zimmermann & Gabriël Moens have a very interesting Quadrant piece on a pernicious Australian problem which is also a British problem - too many laws and regulations are destroying respect for the law. In some areas of UK law, that should read have destroyed respect for the law.
Hence the Two Tier Keir jibe which was far more than a mere jibe. It is exceedingly unlikely that Three Tier Burnham will even acknowledge the problem.
More Laws, Less Rule of Law
On February 3, 1949, Winston Churchill, the UK’s wartime prime minister warned in a House of Commons speech that “If you make 10,000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”[1] He argued that the proliferation of laws, which defined the post-war Labour governments, undermines free markets and erodes the public’s trust in the nation’s institutions.
Churchill’s warning is timely, considering the explosion of legislative activity in Australia which has made compliance with the law difficult at best and impossible at worst. For example, it is estimated that the Australian tax law is contained in over 14,000 pages – clearly an impossible task for even the most disciplined tax lawyer to know or understand.
On February 3, 1949, Winston Churchill, the UK’s wartime prime minister warned in a House of Commons speech that “If you make 10,000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”[1] He argued that the proliferation of laws, which defined the post-war Labour governments, undermines free markets and erodes the public’s trust in the nation’s institutions.
Churchill’s warning is timely, considering the explosion of legislative activity in Australia which has made compliance with the law difficult at best and impossible at worst. For example, it is estimated that the Australian tax law is contained in over 14,000 pages – clearly an impossible task for even the most disciplined tax lawyer to know or understand.
The whole piece is well worth reading. Here in the UK, uninformed voters effectively vote for even more laws with no prospect whatever of understanding even the gist of those we have already.
One former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, even boasted on one occasion that no other Government in this nation had passed as many laws as her government had,[5] as though this were something to celebrate rather than viewed as a potentially serious problem for the realisation of the rule of law in Australia.
One former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, even boasted on one occasion that no other Government in this nation had passed as many laws as her government had,[5] as though this were something to celebrate rather than viewed as a potentially serious problem for the realisation of the rule of law in Australia.
Of course, matters have become considerably worse since Gillard made that notorious statement. If it were not bad enough that Australians have since enacted an enormous number of additional legislative measures, many of such measures also have undermined an important element of our Western legal tradition: the legal protection of inalienable rights – that is, our fundamental human rights to life, liberty and property.
7 comments:
When we lived in Oz we were struck by how meekly the Aussies accepted such a plethora of interfering twerps. For instance you could be arrested for driving with the window open and your elbow propped on it because then some part of your body was outside the outline of the car.
The chumps do rather spoil their piece with an allusion to "inalienable rights ... human rights". You get no rights simply by virtue of being human and you get no rights that are inalienable. Silly nonsense!
Here in the UK people who choose to register their names on the governments register of electors can if they so choose and can provide the requisite government issued and approved identification documents can register their vote for the election of a member of the parliament to represent them in the parliament.
His majesty invites the leader of the party which gains the overall majority of politically affiliated members in the parliament.
The leader presents his majesty with a list of people they want to form his majestys government and his majesty make his formal approval thus bringing his government into being.
Laws are proposed by his majestys government and his majestys opposition. Every name on the electoral roll has signified they consent to be governed by the laws enacted by his majestys government which gain his majestys royal assent.
At no point do voters informed or uniformed have any say or input into the creation and implementation of laws gaining royal assent.
dearieme - sounds as if the ruggedly independent Oz image is like many other images.
Yes, the inalienable rights and human rights guff doesn't sit well with a piece about law. We could usefully rid ourselves of "human rights" and especially human rights lawyers and just talk in terms of laws.
Bill - I don't think voters could have input into the procedures of enacting laws, not in any practical sense. Even the subject of a referendum is not chosen by voters and adherence to the result is not enforced by them.
Input has to be indirect, but as we know, voter sentiment is too easily manipulated on a scale sufficiently large to nullify the whole business of voting.
I think I've written in the past about the huge number of petty rules and regulations and the things we do to get around them, or just plain ignore them, and how it teaches people that the law is something that doesn't need to apply if it can be ignored.
What really annoys me in our modern times, are the new laws we get that are named after people. When they are proposed, it's so that 'This never happens again', or 'Nobody else will have to go through this again', and anyone with critical thinking skills who opposes it, is painted as someone who is happy to kill children, or some such
Bucko - "What really annoys me in our modern times, are the new laws we get that are named after people."
They annoys me too. There is something creepy about the sentimental manipulation.
Post a Comment