John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to today to speak in a little more detail about matters relating to petitioning. Over the last few months at this time on a Monday I’ve discussed the role of the House Petitions Committee in processing petitions and facilitating responses by Ministers. I have also discussed the formal aspects of petitions that are required under the rules of the House and the role of technology in petitioning.

Today I will refer briefly to the petition and to the Ministerial response to a previous petition that I have just presented. I will do this to demonstrate something that those who are interested in engaging with the House and with government will find heartening.

The petition refers to inadequate road infrastructure in the Sorrell municipality in Tasmania and asks for the House to facilitate funding for a diversion under Commonwealth schemes. It is signed by 590 people. Now that the petition has been presented, I will be writing to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and asking the Minister to respond to us regarding the matters raised in the petition.

I don’t know what the Minister’s response to this petition will be. However, I do know that the Minister will make a response, that it will be presented to the House, passed on to the principal petitioner, and published on the Committee’s website. Of course the Committee would hope that a Minister will be able to respond positively in some way to the various requests made in petitions but, realistically we know that is not very likely.

I will now refer to the Ministerial response that I presented this morning. It is from the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and it refers to a petition that was presented last year. That petition called for the prevention of mining and export of asbestos and for promotion of the teaching of business ethics.

I am not sure what the principal petitioner will think of this response. But I am sure that the response sets out what, in the Minister’s views, are the relevant activities of government on these matters and the constraints on those activities by government. The Minister also notes that he is passing on his letter to a number of other Ministers who may have an interest in the issues raised.

Of course, the petition and the response I presented are each unique, addressing different matters, and presenting different information. What they demonstrate is that the House and the Australian people are committed to the historic principles of petitioning and that we have also moved ahead in terms of engaging with people who bring their concerns and interests directly to the House.

When we think of the history of petitions, Mr Speaker, we need to go back to the traditions of the United Kingdom parliament and our inheritance from there of the right to petition the parliament. That traditional right, as far as Westminster is concerned, can be traced back to the 13th century when people had the right to petition the King and later the House of Commons to seek redress of their grievances.

So far as this House is concerned, those rights were inherited by us in 1901. I think they took on a new lease on life in 2007 when the House Procedure Committee presented its report on petitioning and began a process that resulted in new arrangements for petitioning and the creation of the Petitions Committee. The Procedure Committee considered that it was bound by six principles of petitioning and it is worth reminding ourselves of them.

The principles that Committee took on board were that:

1. Petitions belong to the public. Underlying this is the belief that the capacity of members of the public to communicate directly with the House is important to our Australian democracy. The Committee knew that petitions can increase a sense of unity and purpose within a community and that is demonstrated in a very public way when the petition is presented to the House.

2. Petitions sent to the House should be addressed by the House. The Procedure Committee considered that the establishment of a Committee devoted to petitions was the most effective way for the House to operate in relation to petitions. By this the Committee did not mean that petitions would be debated and considered by the House. Rather, those views would be aired through the gathering of petitions, and perhaps strengthened. And the House and government would be informed of them.

3. Governments should respond. The Procedure Committee wanted to encourage government Ministers and their departments to respond to the issues that are raised in petitions and to do that in a timely way. I don’t think for a minute that the Committee expected that Ministers would frequently agree to what petitioners sought. But what it was aiming for, I believe, was to increase the effectiveness and democratic potential of petitions, by enabling issues to be aired, brought directly to the House, and responded to directly by government. I can say that the Petitions Committee now refers most petitions to Ministers –unless they are covering matters that have already been responded to. I can also say that Ministers have been very diligent in terms of responding to the Petitions Committee’s requests for responses to petitions.

4. The Procedure Committee’s fourth principle was that involvement by Members should be enhanced and streamlined. The Committee recognised the role of Members in raising and debating the issues the petitions address. In the last Parliament the standing orders were changed to make it easier for all Members to present petitions to the House.

5. The Procedure Committee wanted the rules relating to petitions to be relevant and fair, to encourage a process that still emphasised the significance of petitions but that was easier for petitioners. Again, the standing orders were changed in the last parliament to streamline the petitions process and, from the feedback we have received, I’d say those changes have been quite successful although we are always monitoring the system and seeing where improvements might be made.

6. Finally, the Procedure Committee wanted more effective use of information technologies. It wanted the process to be brought up to date with modern technologies.

Mr Speaker, I’d be interested to know what those Procedure Committee members think of the progress made in the last 3 years or so. I hope they would agree that many of the principles they adopted have been embedded in the new arrangements for petitioning. I think that is demonstrated particularly in the responsiveness of Ministers, and in the establishment and ongoing operations of the Petitions Committee. Thank you.

Petitions received.

I am very pleased this morning to have the opportunity to speak in a little more detail about matters relating to petitioning. Over the last few months at this time on a Monday I have discussed the role of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions in processing petitions and facilitating responses by ministers. I have also discussed the formal aspects of petitions that are required under the rules of the House and the role of technology in petitioning.

Today I will refer briefly to the petition and to the ministerial response to a previous petition that I have just presented. I will do this to demonstrate something that those who are interested in engaging with the House and with the government will find heartening. The petition refers to inadequate road infrastructure in the Sorell municipality in Tasmania and asks for the House to facilitate funding for a diversion under Commonwealth schemes. It is signed by 590 people. Now that petition has been presented I will be writing to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport on behalf of the Petitions Committee and asking the minister to respond to us regarding the matters raised in this petition. I do not know what the minister’s response to this petition will be. However, I do know that the minister will make a response, that it will be presented to the House, passed on to the principal petitioner and published on the committee’s website. Of course, the committee would hope that a minister will be able to respond positively in some way to the various requests made in petitions but, realistically, we know that is not very likely.

I now refer to the ministerial response that I presented this morning. It is from the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. It refers to a petition that was presented last year. That petition called for the prevention of mining and export of asbestos and for the promotion of the teaching of business ethics. I am not sure what the principal petitioner will think of this response, but I am sure that the response sets out what in the minister’s views are the relevant activities of government on these matters and the constraints on those activities by government. The minister also notes that he is passing on his letter to a number of other ministers who may have an interest in the issues raised.

Of course the petition and the response I presented are unique, addressing different matters and presenting different information. What they demonstrate is that the House and the Australian people are committed to the historic principles of petitioning and that we have also moved ahead in terms of engaging with people who bring their concerns and interests directly to this House.

When we think of the history of petitions we need to go back to the traditions of the United Kingdom parliament and our inheritance from there of the right to petition the parliament. That traditional right, as far as Westminster is concerned, can be traced back to the 13th century when people had the right to petition the King and later the House of Commons to seek redress of their grievances. So far as this House is concerned those rights were inherited by us in 1901. I think they took on a new lease of life in 2007 when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure presented its report on petitioning and began a process that resulted in new arrangements for petitioning and the creation of the Petitions Committee. The Procedure Committee considered that it was bound by six principles of petitioning and it is worth reminding ourselves of them.

The principles the committee took on board were that, firstly, petitions belong to the public. Underlying this is the belief that the capacity of members of the public to communicate directly with the House is important to our Australian democracy. The committee knew that petitions can increase a sense of unity and purpose within the community and that is demonstrated in a very public way when the petition is presented to this House.

Secondly, petitions sent to the House should be addressed by the House. The Procedure Committee considered that the establishment of a committee devoted to petitions was the most effective way for the House to operate in relation to petitions. By this the committee did not mean that petitions would be debated and considered by the House. Rather, those views would be aired through the gathering of petitions, and perhaps strengthened, and the House and government would be informed of them.

Thirdly, governments should respond. The Procedure Committee wanted to encourage government ministers and their departments to respond to the issues that are raised in petitions and to do that in a timely way. I do not think for a minute that the committee expected that members would frequently agree to what petitioners sought. But what it was aiming for, I believe, was to increase the effectiveness and democratic potential of petitions by enabling issues to be aired, brought directly to the House and responded to directly by government. I can say that the Petitions Committee now refers most petitions to ministers unless they are covering matters that have already been responded to. I can also say that ministers have been very diligent in responding to the Petitions Committee’s requests for responses to petitions.

The Procedure Committee’s fourth principle was that involvement by members should be enhanced and streamlined. The committee recognised the role of members in raising and debating the issues the petitions addressed. In the last parliament the standing orders were changed, as you know, to make it easier for all members to present petitions to the House.

Fifthly, the Procedure Committee wanted the rules relating to petitions to be relevant and fair, to encourage a process that still emphasised the significance of petitions but that was easier for petitioners. Again, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the standing orders were changed in the last parliament to streamline the petitions process. From the feedback we have received, I would say that those changes have been quite successful—although we are always monitoring the system and seeing where the improvements might be made.

Sixthly and finally, the Procedure Committee wanted more effective use of information technologies. It wanted the process to be brought up to date with modern technologies. I would be very interested to know what the Procedure Committee members think of the progress that we have made in the last three years or so. I hope that the members of the Procedure Committee would agree that many of the principles they adopted have been embedded in the new arrangements for petitioning. I think that is demonstrated, in particular, by the responsiveness of ministers and the establishment and ongoing operations of the Petitions Committee.