Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee’s report entitled Making a difference: petitioning the House of Representatives, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s report entitled Making a difference: petitioning the House of Representatives. Petitions have a fascinating and important history. In 1818, John Hatsell, an early commentator on procedures of the House of Commons, said:

To receive, and hear, and consider the petitions of their fellow subjects, when presented decently, and containing no matter intentionally offensive to the House, is a duty incumbent upon [Members of the House], antecedent to all rules and orders that may have been instituted for their own convenience. Justice and the laws of our country demand it of them.

I quote this because it captures so much of the essence of petitioning. The House of Representatives is a chamber in the Westminster tradition, and the history of petitioning the House of Commons is thus part of our history of petitioning. Hatsell outlined three principles of petitioning as applied in the House of Commons of the 19th century. First, subjects had a right to ask the House to take certain actions. Second, petitioners themselves had certain obligations—that is, to present requests decently and not to include matter that was intentionally offensive. Third, the House had a duty to pay attention to such requests. Petitioners could expect a response, and it was therefore better to refuse to receive a petition which had no chance of success rather than to receive it and raise false expectations.

An interesting point about these principles is that they rest upon the fundamental assumption that petitioning could make a difference. In considering the practice of petitioning the House of Representatives today, the Procedure Committee had to address this issue of ‘making a difference’. If petitioners cannot rely on their petitions to effect change, is there anything the House can or should do about this?

The committee considers that the full potential for petitions to make a difference is not currently realised. We recognise that citizens and other residents now have other avenues. The redress of grievances of an administrative nature, for example, might be sought through the Ombudsman. Australians seeking to change legislation might now form a lobby group and try to influence outcomes through the media. The committee’s view is that these alternative routes should not be allowed to deny Australians the fundamental right to communicate directly with the people’s House. If petitioning is no longer considered effective, the reasons for this should be identified and addressed.

This report records how we think this can be done and outlines the committee’s own six principles of petitioning. First, petitions belong to the public. Petitions are the most direct form of communication between the public and the House. Petitions serve as a community-building process underpinned by the key objective of having the public voice heard. This process is important to our democratic system. Second, petitions sent to the House should be addressed by the House. Given that the standing orders require petitions to be addressed to the House of Representatives and to seek action by that House, the role of the House in facilitating a response should be strengthened. The House should have the capacity to respond to petitioners and advise them on the progress or outcomes of their petition. The committee considers the most effective way for the House to act in relation to petitions is to establish a dedicated petitions committee.

Third, governments should respond to petitions. Petitioners expect and deserve a response to the matters raised in their petition. The rules should be changed to encourage greater efforts by ministers and their departments to consider the terms of petitions which are referred to them by the House and to respond to them in a timely fashion. Fourth, members’ involvement should be enhanced and streamlined. To improve the effectiveness of petitions their status must be enhanced. Members have an important role to play in raising and debating the issues and grievances contained in petitions and in facilitating a response. Fifth, petition rules should be relevant and fair. Preparing a petition should not be excessively difficult and the rules governing petitions should not prove unnecessarily onerous. The House must provide clear and accessible information and advice on the petitioning process.

And last, but not least, information technologies should be used more effectively. Historically, the essence of the petitioning process was the ancient right of people, irrespective of their numbers, to express serious concerns to the King. This ancient tradition can and should be modernised to reflect advances in information communication technologies. In particular, the committee accepts that in the 21st century the House can no longer ignore electronic petitions. The House of Representatives website itself also requires redesigning to make it more accessible.

Having said that and having put on the record today how the committee feels, I would also like to put on the record my thanks to the deputy chair—the member for Banks, who is in the House today—and also other members of the Standing Committee on Procedure. A number of members travelled overseas to look at petitioning processes and we had wonderful support from the secretariat. In particular, I would like to thank Judy Middlebrook. Judy has been with the secretariat for many years and she accompanied the Procedure Committee overseas. Judy is particularly supportive of establishing a committee of petitions within the House. I would like to pay particular thanks to Judy for all the support she gave the committee. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context