Technical forms of production are very dependent on quality control to minimise the variation in their product from the requirements. This means the customer gets a consistent product or service every time. Consequently in industrial parlance quality means minimum of variation from the requirements or specifications. We can probably start looking at Parliament as having inbuilt quality mechanisms to produce quality legislation where policy substitutes in the role of requirements.

This was provoked by Lynn Allison's comment in a speech where she spoke on the Broadcasting Bill Amendment 2007:

I think it is not unreasonable to say that the government should have sorted out these problems before we had to deal with the bill itself.

Allison is talking about the Senate in quality control terms. I have not thought of parliament in that way, but it makes sense that there be statutorial rigour and mechanisms to ensure that legislation matches the specifications closely.

Unfortunately Australia's use of the Westminster system means that there is poor separation of powers between executive and legislative, so policy and legislation come from executive cabinet.

The committee systems are a relatively new innovation in the Australian federal system and act as an important process in collecting requirements from the end-users (and those ultimately paying for it) in the public.

Committees can also act as post production reviews of the product's (the legislation and policy's) performance. This suggests that the committees are more important than the time they get in the media or the public consciousness from a quality control point of view.

One of the reasons I am in favour of permanent sortitionist body, apart from being useful in unearthing corruption, is that they will be able to empirically review policy outcomes - act as an a non-political and non-partisan quality review board. The sortitionists basically act as customer representatives (they are customers as taxpayers).

Another idea I like is adam's of spontaneous citizen auditors, who can form as an active FOI body. Auditing government for corruption, but also policy outcomes.

The current government has control of the House and Senate through elected majorities, unfortunately, because of the strength of executive discipline in bloc voting, this has led to poor quality control outcomes. Legislation, as Allison is arguing, has not gone through a proper quality control process of review in cabinet or committee before being tabled as legislation in parliament.

It would be wise to view parliament from a quality control point of view, and audit it constantly, and frequently, from that perspective.

Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • Sacha . # . 1/1
    Part of the Senate's popularity comes from the fact that it has acted as a quality control mechanism through its committees by looking carefully at whether legislation is drafted correctly (regardless of the policy purpose of the legislation).

    The massive numbers of amendments to bills introduced by the fed government since it gained control of both houses appears to indicate that it is not nearly careful enough in drafting legislation. It rushes too much. Perhaps (or perhaps not), the truncated Senate Committee hearings into various complex and controversial bills (eg the original workchoices legislation) are indicative of too much lack of care.
    • cam . # .
      Yeh, the senate is the closest thing we have to a pure legislative body. I agree with Kieran that it needs to have the executive fully exorcised from it.

      Another reason I am for a separate executive and a bicameral parliament is that there is the possibility for three elected bodies to come into tension with each other and act as a brake/overseer on each other. I would be comfortable with a constitutional sortitionist auditing body as well to add a fourth tension in there.
      'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.