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

Today I will revisit features of the hearings the committee held in Perth a few weeks ago.

From time to time the committee may travel to conduct a public hearing. There are occasions, particularly where a matter has been unresolved over a long period of time, is particularly unusual or complex, or has garnered notable public support, where a greater exposition of the matter would be beneficial. Public hearings provide this avenue—and these aspects of petitions were on display at the hearings that we held in Perth recently.

Hearings also enable the committee to flesh out the background of the petition and to discuss related administrative, legislative or policy matters in a practical way. While it is not the committee's role to investigate petitions beyond the discussions held at the public hearing—nor to follow-up matters with executive government—hearings provide an opportunity for members of the committee to provide direction, if known, on the manner in which petitioners may seek to resolve a matter through the appropriate channels.

At the hearing in Applecross on 30 August 2012, and the following day in Attadale, at Santa Maria College, the committee invited petitioners to comment both on the petition subject matter and on their, or the principal petitioner's, experience of petitioning. Most of the comments reinforced the fundamental value of petitioning—that is, the physical act of disseminating information about the petition within the community, to garner support, and, hopefully, to gather signatures as evidence of that support.

The testimony given by Mr Cormack, the representative of the principal petitioner on aircraft aerobatics over Rockingham Beach, exemplified the spirit of this community approach. The principal petitioner gathered signatures directly within the Rockingham community. It was when the principal petitioner was standing outside Bunnings, collecting signatures that he met Mr Cormack for the very first time—and yet it is evident that the pair have, within a short space of time, forged a friendship over their joint concern on this matter.

In other cases, petitions were developed within already formed groups of people having a common interest. This was the case for the petition on the Dampier Archipelago, through a group supporting Australian rock art; and, similarly, for the petition calling for free-bone densitometry testing for Australian women at menopause, through Australian branches of Soroptimist International.

However, even though these petitions were formulated within associations, signatures were then collected well beyond the confines of the group. For example, Ms Hugo, the representative for the 'Dampier Archipelago petition' noted that signatures had been collected from 'all over', including when the group took guided tours. She also noted that 'people who have been on the tours often ask if they can take a petition form away and get that signed by people once they have spread the word and told people about it.'

It was also thought provoking to hear Ms Hugo comment that, 'We cannot see any other way of raising awareness but by going down this path'. And, interestingly, the petitioning approach to raising awareness was re-embraced by Soroptimist International, despite a previous petition being presented and receiving a ministerial response they had not hoped for. Their decision to prepare another petition is suggestive of the confidence that Australian people place in grass-roots democracy.

One of the benefits of signature collection, particularly from the broader community, is that it offers the petitioner a deeper understanding of public opinion and different perspectives on a particular issue. For example, at Santa Maria College, the principal petitioner, Ms Small, noted that when collecting signatures on the petition on asylum-seeker legislation and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, she did not encounter a single refusal to sign. However, she recognised that the wording of the petition may have helped 'because we were not proposing a specific model.' Her petitioning assistant, Ms Hall, however, approached people who refused to sign the petition and who stated their reasons. She accepted that this may occur—she said, 'That is completely understandable; everyone has their own opinion.'

In contrast, the committee met with the principal petitioner on a number of sole signatory petitions calling for an Australian Republic, Mr Liddelow. When asked whether he felt it would have supported his petition to have gone into the community to gather additional signatures he noted that, 'I do not think it was necessary to get signatures. I think getting the issue and getting the request to the Petitions Committee was necessary.' Mr Liddelow's comment highlights the other key aspect of the petitioning process—having a petition presented to the House for consideration by the executive government. For this part of the process to occur there is no requirement for a petition to have multiple signatures. These hearings highlight the fact that, whether petitions gather one or one million signatures, providing the petition meets all the other rules of the House, it will be exposed to the same parliamentary process. It appears, however, from feedback from petitioners, at this and previous hearings, there is a real benefit in going out into the community to spread the word on the petition matter, irrespective of the overall number of signatures collected.

In conclusion, the committee found these hearings to be most rewarding and looks forward to other opportunities to meet with principal petitioners in different regions of Australia, in the future. Thank you.