Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

From time to time the House Petitions Committee conducts public hearings on petitions received. This is a practice that was established by the first Petitions Committee in 2008 and has continued in subsequent parliaments.

Standing order 220 provides for the establishment of the House Petitions Committee and its role. This standing order provides for the committee 'to inquire into and report to the House on any matter relating to petitions and the petitions system'. However, it is important to stress that the committee is not an investigatory committee and does not resolve petition matters—nor does it make recommendations to government or follow up on petition matters.

The committee can, however, conduct public hearings, similar to those of a general purpose committee. As such, the committee has held public hearings on selected petitions to discuss petition matters further. The aim of these hearings is to enable public discourse and information on the matter beyond the 250-word limit applied by standing orders to petition terms.

In the past, hearings have been held with principal petitioners—or their co-petitioners or representatives in their local regions—and the committee has also often held hearings in Canberra to hear from public servants about the relevant portfolio area of petitions. This enables a two-dimensional airing of the petition issue. The committee then reports orally to the House on the hearing.

It has been the committee's practice to travel to cities or regions where a number of petitions have been generated over a span of time. Recently, on 22 September, the committee held a public hearing in Melbourne with various petitioners who are residents in the Melbourne metro area. There were six separate petition matters discussed, with a broad range of matters: climate change action; a Hume freeway interchange at Epping North; age pension issues; access to early childhood education; the use of biofuels and a tragic event which occurred in the West Bank in Israel. All but one petition had received a ministerial response in the last 18 months.

The committee discussed the impetus of each petition with the principal petitioner and any co-organisers and considered the petition topic generally. The committee also sought feedback on the petitions process and it was interesting to see how many of the petitioners had put considerable prethought into the process. For example, Mr Clugg, the principal petitioner of a petition calling for funding for 15 hours of kindergarten a week, had considered a number of possible improvements—illustrated by his thoughtful opening statement. The specific consideration of the process was notable because Mr Clugg's petition matter was an issue which, whether by virtue of his petition or not, had received the desired outcome. Along with praising the committee for its 'outstanding efforts and positive attitude to ensure that our petition was tabled' he suggested that the policy framework could be improved.

Mr Clugg's main suggestion was to create a petitions register to advise of 'active petitions such that duplicated effort could be avoided'. He also found due to the prevalence of 'informal petitioning'—that is, electronic petitions drawn up outside House rules—that people were loath to sign his genuine petition. He believed that most of these informal petitions were being used for marketing purposes and to populate databases, for instance the change.orgs and so on of the world, and also GetUp! of course. He suggested the introduction of regulation to ensure that all informal petitions which attention House matters provide a disclaimer that the petition has no formal House status.

One of the coordinating petitioners of a petition calling for action on climate change, Ms Mary Crooks from the Victorian Women's Trust, had positive things to say about the traditional handwritten nature of petitioning. The 72,000-odd signatures to this petition were split and tabled as three separate petitions by three different members. The signatures were collected from all over Australia within an eight week time frame. In relation to modernising the traditional process, Ms Crooks said that she hoped that the process 'still retains those less visible qualities of people being able to interact with one another, people being able to come together and have a respectful dialogue'. She said, 'It would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.'

Similarly, the lead petitioner of a petition on the kidnapping of three Israeli youths in the West Bank in 2014 felt that the traditional way of gathering the signatures—sought mainly from the Jewish community—enabled people to share their feelings about the tragedy and by signing they felt they were doing something to help a very confronting situation. This is an often overlooked aspect of a walk-and-talk system.

Like many of the committee's hearings in the past this hearing proved very successful and particularly informative—especially in regard to the petitioners' thoughts on the House's current and possible future petitioning processes.

Thank you.

See this speech in context