Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The current petitioning process in the House of Representatives encompasses the following points. Petitions, like other documents, may only be presented to the House by a member. In 95 per cent of cases, the terms are read out to the House by the Clerk. Members have certain administrative duties regarding the petitions they lodge—for example, counting the number of signatories—but they cannot personally sponsor a petition or petition the House in their own right. There was some concern in submissions that members may be generating their own petitions.

There are a number of rules set out in the standing orders and the Clerk or Deputy Clerk checks petitions for compliance before they are presented to the House. Those which do not comply with the rules are deemed out of order and they are not registered in the official records of the House. These rules were revised and simplified in 2001, but during the 41st Parliament 161 petitions have so far been found to be out of order, containing some 430,000 signatures. This means that about 40 per cent of the signatures to all petitions to the House are on out-of-order petitions.

Once petitions are presented to the House, the terms of the petitions are recorded in Hansard. It is possible for petitions to be referred to a particular committee, although this is not done in practice. The Clerk then refers a copy of the petition to the minister responsible for the administration of the matter raised in the petition. It is rare that any further action is taken, though ministers may respond by lodging a written response to the Clerk. Three out of 2,589 petitions since 1999 have received a ministerial response.

The committee did not think this was good enough and has made a series of recommendations to improve the situation. The major recommendation of the committee is the establishment of a petitions committee. This would be another of the House’s domestic committees, established under chapter 16 of the standing orders. Like other such committees, it would consist of members from both sides of the House, would be chaired by a government member and would be supported by senior parliamentary staff.

The committee would manage all aspects of the processing of petitions, including maintaining a petitions website that would be accessible from a button on the House of Representatives home page; publishing and disseminating a redesigned petitions proforma and ensuring that all members had hard copies in their offices to facilitate public access to petitioning; receiving all petitions and acknowledging receipt to the principal petitioner; ensuring petitions are consistent with the standing orders and negotiating with the principal petitioner, where necessary, to address any problems; exercising discretion to disallow petitions which are unlawful or otherwise offensive or inappropriate and notifying the principal petitioner in such cases; liaising with the principal petitioner regarding all stages of his or her petition; arranging administrative processing, including counting the signatories and arranging for presentation of petitions to the House, and putting terms of petitions on the website; and monitoring the standing orders relating to petitions and advising the House where improvements can be made.

The committee is aware of concerns that parliamentary committees are currently under-resourced and that members are often asked to sit on too many committees. This in turn has an effect on the ability of members to contribute as well as they would like to each of the committees they serve on. It could therefore be argued that increasing the number of committees would simply stretch members further.

The committee accepts that the establishment of a petitions committee would require additional resources or the reallocation of resources within the House department. It remains of the view that the benefit of a dedicated petitions committee is worthy of the support of the House. The committee discussed some of the objections to this view which might arise. For example, it might be considered that a compromise could be proposed in the form of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure to be responsible for petitions.

The committee strongly cautions against any proposal to merge the existing Procedure Committee with the proposed petitions committee, for two reasons. Establishing a dedicated petitions committee should represent a conscious decision by the House and the government to give petitioning a much more prominent role and acknowledge that petitions can in fact make a difference to our democracy. To merge the proposed petitions committee with the existing Procedure Committee would reduce the effectiveness of both committees and their capacity to thoroughly investigate their quite separate subjects: House procedure, on the one hand, and individual petitions, on the other. Moreover, in no parliament reviewed in this report has a petitions committee been a subcommittee of the procedure committee.

A second concern is that a petitions committee might raise petitioners’ expectations that each petition would be actioned by the committee in the petitioners’ favour. Following analysis of the terms of petitions presented to the House so far this year, it is clear that in a number of cases the petitions committee would only be able to acknowledge the petition and refer its terms to the relevant minister, as is currently the case. At the very least, the principal petitioner would get an acknowledgement from the committee advising him or her that the petition had been presented to the House, considered by the committee and referred to the relevant minister for information and possible response.

While any response issued by a petitions committee is a far better outcome than the current system provides, it is likely that the petitions committee would present two types of reports: regular reports recommending the referral of petitions to either a minister or the relevant subject committee, and reports of its own inquiries into a small number of petitions. In relation to the first type of report, the petitions committee would still be able to monitor the progress of its recommended referrals, as the Scottish PPC does, and present this on the committee’s website.

On the basis that a petitions committee would provide a demonstrable sign that petitions continue to be a respected form of democratic participation and ought to be taken seriously by a modern House, and that a petitions committee would be able to distinguish between petitions that can be actioned by the House and those that would require further government action, the committee recommends that a petitions committee be established in the House of Representatives. (Time expired)

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for McPherson wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.