Suggesting, even to me, that I need to get a life, I briefly listened to the Senate on ABC radio today. There was the usual excoriation of the Governor General, and then that august body of 76 moved on to the first 'reading' the current round of legislation, including the government's latest attempt to enhance ASIO's powers. Some wag senator called for a quorum, though, delaying matters slightly. The commentator took the opportunity to remind the audience (me alone, I should think) that a Senate quorum is 25% of the total, or 19 Senators. It had previously been one-third, but cut back in 1991.

All this got me to thinking about a powerful way to restrict parliamentary intrusions in the lives of Australian citizens. And it has to do with quorums and readings of new Bills.

A 'reading' of a Bill is anything but. Not even the full title is read, only the short title (normally specified in the Bill in Section 1) of the Bill is enunciated.

My proposal is that each reading of a Bill, in either house of Parliament, should consist of a full reading of its entire text, including any Schedules. Further, this should only take place in the presence of a super-quorum consisting of, oh, not less than three quarters of the chamber.

Why?

• The least that should be asked of any politician is that he or she has been subjected to hearing the full content of what he or she is proposing to impose upon the rest of us. Yet politicians almost never read the Bills. I'd be confident that precious few would even read the Explanatory Memoranda that accompany them. They are generally happy to rely solely on directions from the party Whip as to what they should vote for, and (if at all interested) briefings from staff as to the contents of the legislation.
• Far more importantly, a full reading would eat up Parliamentary time, reducing the volume of legislation that could be passed. A reduction in the number of items of legislation from several hundred per year to several dozen would, all by itself, be a huge pro-liberty measure.
• It would not interfere with repeal measures since these can usually be implemented in few words. Any reformist government would have to choose between reform (a rewrite that involves hugely detailed and lengthy legislation) and repeal.

These requirements should also be met for all delegated legislation that has been passed. Regulations and the like are currently in the hands of the Executive. My proposal would prompt the legislature to move the burden of detailed legislation into a subsidiary form, so all these should be read after passage (currently they have to be presented to the Senate and subjected to possible disallowance, but of course only the short titles are read).