Instead of speaking to a mate about a ghost, he should have been lecturing Australia’s parliamentary drafters, or more pointedly, Australia’s Members of Parliament. Between them, they are responsible for the passing of legislation. And there is more and more of it each year. The trouble is the legislators and those advising them think that passing a law is the best way of dealing with a mischief.
When they pass a law they invariable try to think of every possible combination of events, people and places and make provision for them. They leave nothing to chance. The trend is to give precise meanings to words in the law and to define circumstances precisely, sot hat judges will know what to do. The laws get longer and longer. The ACT Motor Traffic Act, for example, is 250 pages long. It has a 53-word definition of “”headlamp”; and a 96-word definition of “”dipped”; and a 69-word definition of “”public place”.
Despite the length, however, we still come unstuck because, even leaving heaven out of it, there are more things on earth than dreamt of in the philosophy of those who draft the laws.
Thus is was that Justice Terence Higgins found in the ACT Supreme Court last week that an unlicensed man doing burn-outs in the car park of some flats in Lyons was not a breach of the law. The drafters, in their desire to define every thing had not thought of that one. The 69-word definition of “”public place” did not embrace the car park of the Lyons flats and so the man was acquitted of driving while disqualified and negligent driving.
Now anyone with an ounce of brain or morality knows that doing burn-outs in the car park of a block of flats is dangerous, wrong and should be punished. But the result of 250 pages of close-packed detailed definitions and descriptions of times, people and events results in the obvious being turned on its head. The judge is forced to say that this is not criminal conduct.
It is a very self-defeating way to go about making law. It is most noticeable in the corporate area.
In the past two years the Federal Parliament has passed about 1500 pages of corporate law. While everyone was carrying on about deregulating the labour market to create more efficiencies the capital and management markets were being stifled by regulation.
The result of all this regulatory detail has not been better corporate morality or more convictions for dishonesty. To the contrary. Detailed regulation in fact promotes dishonesty. Society now puts before managers and directors such detailed prescriptions of commercial conduct that it would be quite reasonable for them to conclude that conduct not proscribed is within the law and therefore within acceptable bounds of morality.
The corporations law has 33 pages devoted to duties of corporate officers and directors. It would be reasonable for a director to presume that this represented the totality of his or her obligations. Anything that fell outside such a detailed exposition would obviously be legal. Two thousand words are devoted to loans from a company to a director. Ah-ah, there is nothing about a company lending money to the trustee of a third cousin of the director’s father-in-law who has a company in the Hayman Islands. So that must be legal and right, even though if defeats the very purpose of the law.
How much easier to say: “”Directors will act honestly and diligently. Penalty five years.”
With that sort of law a lot of directors would think twice about seeking a company loan for cousin-in-law Alfonse to buy Hobie cats in the Hayman Islands.
The reason for not doing it this way has been that legislators in the past have been disappointed with some judges’ decisions. They have thought too many crooks have escaped through loopholes. So they tried to close the loopholes with massive regulation, only to create more loopholes. And even with this mass of regulation there is no evidence to suggest it catches more crooks (or once caught puts more crooks in jail) than the simpler laws of all. Indeed, the evidence points to the contrary.
The worst of it is that the vast majority of corporate office-holders are honest, but they are saddled with the regulations, too. They have to learn and fulfil a mass of reporting duties just so that a tiny few crooks might be caught. If they were actually caught there might be some justification for it.
This is creating mass inefficiency, just a the over-regulation of the labour market is.
It is also creating injustice and disrespect for the law as we see corporate crooks get off and disqualified drivers do burn outs in flats car parks with impunity. The new Parliament about to meet in Canberra has a great opportunity to fix it.