Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last Wednesday evening the Standing Committee on Petitions had the great pleasure of meeting with its counterpart from the Scottish parliament, the Public Petitions Committee, by videoconference. Scotland is a world leader in the use of technology to improve contact between the public and its elected representatives. It was on a visit to Scotland that the former Procedure Committee was enthused to reform the way in which we handle petitions. Having now had a system in place for a number of years, the Public Petitions Committee is reviewing its system and was interested in sharing ideas with us on a range of issues around petitioning, including electronic petitioning, which as I have advised the House on previous occasions is the subject of an inquiry by our own Petitions Committee at present.

The Scottish review is looking at ways to improve awareness of, and access to, the public petitions process and identifying ways in which ICT can assist in processing petitions. It will also investigate existing ways in which petitions are scrutinised and ways in which that scrutiny can be improved. The committee expects to report in May 2009.

I would like to place on record our appreciation that the convenor of the committee, Mr Frank McAveety, committee member Mr Robin Harper and the committee secretary, Mr Fergus Cochrane, braved a very chilly Edinburgh morning to participate in the video conference. I would also like to thank the members of the Petitions Committee here for attending and making a sitting day later than it should have been. My thanks also to petitions secretariat staff Joanne Towner and Julia Morris, two outstanding women whom we are happy to have assisting us with our inquiry, especially every Wednesday when parliament is sitting and we get together. I would also like to thank the wonderful staff in Broadcasting and Hansard for assisting us in holding the video conference—it went without a hitch and was a great experience.

We were particularly interested in hearing about electronic petitioning in the Scottish parliament, now a well-established feature of their petitioning system. Their site has become incredibly popular, and in fact so popular that it has caused problems in terms of maintaining the system and ensuring it does not become overloaded. They are now looking, as part of their current inquiry, at other ways of involving the public, moving beyond electronic petitioning to other forms of social networking, using technology to try and reach those groups that are disengaged from the political process.

We were also pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with the Public Petitions Committee representatives the way in which they deal with petitions and the sort of action they take—up to and including conducting inquiries on particular petitions and then having them debated in the chamber. They are more advanced in the various mechanisms they use to respond to petitions, but it gave us all an insight into the potential role our committee might play in future.

I hope that contact with the Scottish committee will become a regular occurrence and that we can continue to share ideas about how to make petitioning a vital part of our democracy.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity tonight to talk about one of the petitions just presented in the House, that dealing with retaining the prayer that is said at the start of each sitting day in this place. Tonight the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions, the member for Fowler, presented a petition from 140 citizens calling for the prayer to be retained in its current form. I know from the contact that has been made with the committee secretariat that we are likely to receive further petitions on the subject, both in support of the retention of the prayer and also putting a contrary view. It is not my intention tonight to advocate a particular point of view. I suspect that a range of opinions exist among members of this House about the prayer and what it symbolises. I would, however, like to comment on the process for public input on this subject and the role of the Petitions Committee.

I think it is interesting to reflect that the first petition ever presented in this parliament was one from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales in support of a proposal to open sittings of the House with a prayer. That was on 21 May 1901. This was followed by a motion in the House on 7 June 1901 that the standing orders provide for Mr Speaker to take the chair and read a prayer. The motion was agreed, and following a report by the then Standing Orders Committee on 13 June 1901 a new standing order setting out the text of the prayer was agreed and the standing orders amended. Prayers were first said on 14 June 1901.

The form of the prayer has remained largely unchanged since that time, except for some additional words introduced in 1918 for the duration of the war. It is in two parts, the first seeking blessings on the parliament as it deliberates on matters ‘for the welfare of the people of Australia’. The second component is the Lord’s Prayer.

At the end of October this year the subject of prayers received significant coverage in Sunday newspapers. The Speaker issued a clarification which read:

I have not suggested ‘scrapping’ the Lord’s Prayer as per the headline in some of today’s newspapers. This issue is not under consideration by the House. My comments were made in the context of being interviewed about parliamentary procedure and relate to the fact I have received a wide range of opinions about the opening prayer; from the appropriateness of the use of the 1901 Church of England version of the Lord’s Prayer and whether it should be updated, to the relevance of the prayer in modern Australia.

Commentary in the press continued, however, and there were a number of articles and letters to the editor on the subject. I would be surprised if any member of the House had not received emails, letters or calls in support of the prayer and also in support of change. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have indicated they do not support a change to current arrangements.

The arguments both for and against have been very interesting. Those supporting retention of the prayer point to it as a longstanding tradition of the Australian Parliament; that Australia has a Christian majority and the prayer is a time for a reaffirmation of the purpose of the parliament—to govern for the welfare of the people of Australia. Those supporting change argue that the practice is antiquated, discriminatory and in conflict with the idea of separation of church and state. Many Australians either are not Christian or do not have any particular religious beliefs. Proposals for change have ranged from a minute’s silent reflection through to a non-denominational statement of commitment to the people of Australia.

I believe the petition presented this evening demonstrates a number of things. We, as representatives of the Australian people, want the public to be involved and able to express, directly to the parliament, their views on public issues. Petitioning allows people to do this as part of a suite of ways in which they communicate with their representatives.

The committee will continue to present petitions on a range of topics, provided they are in accordance with the standing orders, as is its role. This may mean that the committee will at times be presenting petitions on the same subject that take directly contrary views. I do not think it is well understood by the general public that presentation of a petition by a member or the committee does not necessarily equate with endorsement of the views of the petition. Presenting a petition is part of a member’s role to represent their constituents, regardless of their personal views. Indeed, I know that the chair has received some correspondence in the past critical of her presenting a particular petition from those who do not support the views expressed via a petition.

My advice to people is to get involved, and, if they feel strongly about an issue, start communicating with the parliament, whether it be via a petition or by contacting their local member. We as members of the Petitions Committee take the revised arrangements for petitioning the House very seriously—(Time expired)