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

Today I rise to describe the current business of the Petitions Committee. Members are aware that this parliament has seen quite a bit of change on petitions. Petitions are an important component to the business of the House, because many who would otherwise feel entirely disengaged from the House feel able to deal with it directly through this long-established mechanism. Although petitions are a form established long ago, there is today a dynamic situation. The committee, new to this parliament, is often challenged by the intricacies they bring, and the deliberations of the committee frequently touch upon important philosophical aspects of the workings of parliament.

While petitions are ‘ancient’, they are also capable of being transformed so that they may maintain usefulness for contemporary times. I am sure members are aware that the committee is currently conducting an inquiry into electronic petitions, or ‘e-petitions’. I am not alone in regarding this aspect of the committee’s work as exciting. We are in regular communication with other parliaments as to their current practice in this area, and it is extremely interesting to see how this ties in with broader questions about the relevancy of parliaments and their ability to engage their constituency. There are certainly concerns that parliaments are not managing to engage their constituencies. There are a number of avenues through which they might do this, including the educational and other work actively pursued by parliamentary officers.

However, as you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, the beauty of petitions, and e-petitions in particular, is that they provide a uniquely direct relationship with parliament. This is one avenue where the person with a concern need not have a mediator in order to express a view in parliament. Moreover, in what we in the committee regard as a very important part of the process, petitions receive a response as we have seen today from a minister of the government. We in the committee do commend ministers and their departments for the timely and thorough way they are responding to petitions in this parliament.

There is an openness about this that is important. My colleagues on the committee believe this signifies much about the accessibility of parliament. In doing so, it works against some of the less positive perceptions of parliament that we encounter from time to time in our daily rounds. That is another reason we as a committee are so interested in e-petitioning. Here the advent of new ways to communicate online is a gift to parliament, if it is prepared to employ them.

We note that e-petitioning facilities at the Scottish parliament attract high levels of engagement from the Scottish people, both in terms of visits to the site and signatures against petitions. In England, parliament does not yet accept e-petitions, but the No. 10 Downing Street website, administered by the Prime Minister’s Office, does accept them and receives millions of hits and, indeed, on occasion millions of signatures. These are very active sites. They signal important possibilities for parliaments across the world, particularly in terms of contemporary thinking on the best way to maintain perceptions of relevance.

Of course, opening up a national parliament to electronic petitioning also involves some questions regarding procedure and how such a facility is to be designed and administered. The committee is considering these questions with the seriousness they deserve and anticipates reporting to the House by the end of the year.