4.34 Making new laws where existing laws suffice - New rule 151A\n\nIt is common practice for law makers to "make redundant laws", that is,\npropose new laws (where present laws already suffice) without regard for\nexisting laws. Although there are rules about making laws, it appears none\nspecifically require the law makers to fully understand the issues or\nexisting laws before making new laws. This has resulted in the cult belief\nthat uninformed drafting of new laws (an inherent burden on the community)\nis recognised as acceptable behaviour of law makers.\n\nIt is intended to impose the same behaviour on law makers as is already the\ncase with other professionals, that is, understand the issues involved and\nthe existing law, and only make new laws when necessary. If it can be\ndemonstrated that new laws are required, an informed amendment proposal may\nbe drafted. This submission is structured to demonstrate that this\nbehaviour is not universally followed by the law making community.\n\nImpact: The submission is expected to point out the current behaviour of\nlaw makers, in that they are apparently able to make laws without\nunderstanding the issue and current law, where they are expected to become\nfully informed about the problem and whether its covered by existing laws\nand then only if required draft new laws that address the problem in\ncareful balanced language without the need to resort to misleading\nstatements and emotionally biased language. Although the extra work for law\nmakers is expected to be minimal, opposition can be expected from some law\nmakers as it involves a change in behaviour. Nevertheless, this parody\npoints out that the general community expects a certain level of\nprofessionalism from its law makers.\n\nCosts: The costs imposed by this submission are those normally involved in\npublicly pointing out inadequacies in other peoples professional work,\neducation of people doing that work, and advice to the people responsible\nfor overseeing and approving it. It is understood that this parody is part\nof the contemporaneous legislative review. Additional cost may also be seen\nin minimal time delays for law makers becoming informed about issues and\nlaws. However it is not possible to quantify a monetary value, as it is not\npossible to estimate how many law makers currently draft laws without\nadequate research, and how many will continue to do so after reading this\nsubmission.\n\nBenefit: The benefits are to achieve a self consistent set of laws that the\ncommunity will respect and abide by, which will assist in reducing unlawful\nbehaviour. Furthermore, a general reduction in redundant laws is expected\nwhich will benefit not only the law makers, but also his/her family and the\ncommunity in general when presented with, yet again, another poorly thought\nout road rule amendment.