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

I rise this evening also to speak about the work of the Standing Committee on Petitions. In my previous statements I have talked about various aspects of the committee’s work, including, among other things, issues raised in petitions received by the committee, the number of petitions that go through the system, our public hearings and core principles for petitions. This evening I want to talk about how the new arrangements work to increase transparency and the kinds of changes that have occurred over the life of the committee. In saying this, I am thinking in particular about ministerial responses to petitions.

Prior to the introduction of the new system, there were few ministerial responses to petitions. In the period from 2000 to 2007 there were more than three million signatures for petitions presented in the House, but there were only three ministerial responses. By contrast, in the years 2008 and 2009 to date, after the introduction of the new system, petitions with 300,000 signatures have been presented. These received 113 ministerial responses. This is a dramatic change in the rate of response. This is reflected on the committee’s webpage, where petitions that have been presented are published along with ministerial responses. The webpage is worth a closer look; it bears out what I have said about ministerial responses. At present, for the 158 petitions current displayed on the committee’s website, 117 responses have been presented. Seven more responses have been presented this evening. For another seven petitions, responses have already been given to other very similar expressions of concern. Twelve petitions are still within the 90-day period allocated for a response. This means that, in this 42nd parliament, more than 91 per cent of petitions have received ministerial responses within the 90-day time frame. This is an outstanding result and, again, it shows just how much has changed since the new arrangements were put in place. The beauty of it is that anyone can visit the site and see the state of play on a petition for themselves: its terms, when it was presented and ministerial responses. That is in itself an important part of transparency.

However, accountability does not stop there. It also comes into play in another part of the committee’s work: public hearings. Here, government departments come and give a further response in addition to the ministerial responses we receive. This gives us a chance to see how matters have progressed. The issues considered in these hearings stretch from local and immediate concerns to wider matters, including international affairs and arrangements for the future. In our most recent hearings in May, the committee discussed a number of matters raised in petitions with government departments. These included, at the local level, community radio stations, a local post office and mobile phone coverage. Roads—important to rural communities—also featured in this public hearing. Regarding petitions which voiced concerns about matters at a national level, we discussed funding for public broadcasting and concerns over sexual advertising and access to internet pornography. International concerns touched on matters of gravity, including human rights in Sri Lanka, the current situation in Gaza and the plight of Iraqi Christians. This says a lot about Australians, their interests and their heritage. While they have day-to-day concerns, they also care about the world and justice.

I see it as a great strength that all of this can come before the House, receive a ministerial response and be the subject of public hearings. Not every concern in the community will get the attention of a separate parliamentary inquiry. But petitioners can have some of parliament’s and the government’s time and attention because of the way the petitions process is now structured. The response mechanism and the committee’s website together are a powerful means to enhance transparency and accessibility. This is underscored by the committee’s impartiality with respect to petitions.

As you would be aware, the committee’s role is framed by the standing orders of the House. If a petition complies with the standing orders in terms of its form, content and language, then the committee believes it is required to approve it for the purpose of presentation in the House. In much the same way as a member who lodges a petition may or may not agree with its content, the Petitions Committee may or may not agree with the content of a petition it approves for presentation. This is a reflection of the historic nature of petitions and the House’s respect for freedom of speech. The committee holds this heritage in high esteem and aims to preserve and extend it so that it continues to be a viable pathway between parliament and the Australian public.