Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the petitions presented today has raised concerns around e-petitions and the signature collection process. Petition number EN5444 is published on the House e-petitions website and requests that the House prevent wind turbines being built off the Illawarra coastline. The petition received 11,291 signatures. From the outset, I'd like to say that the vast majority of these petitioners signed the petition in good faith. Unfortunately, the committee is aware that a small number of these signatures on the petition may have been collected through unethical means. We consider this to be a serious risk to the integrity of the petitions system.

Let me explain. It was brought to the committee's attention that a recent Illawarra Mercury newspaper article reported that an individual on social media was offering beautician service giveaways for signing the petition. Screenshots were supplied to the committee. As a consequence, the committee requested analysis of the petition's signatures be done by the secretariat. That showed duplication of nearly 200 names, up to 1.7 per cent of signatories, meaning they appear to have signed the petition more than once using the same name but different email accounts. It is not possible to verify if people signed the petition using different names as well as different email accounts. The committee also wrote to the principal petitioner, who has told us that he was unaware of the inducements being offered until he read our letter, that he had not seen the media coverage in the newspaper, and that the offer of prizes or gifts if people signed the petition had been quickly removed.

The committee would like to place on the record that offering any kind of incentive for signing a petition to the House of Representatives undermines the democratic process of petitioning, and the committee condemns such behaviour in the strongest terms. In order to spell out clearly the requirement that people sign petitions only once, the committee made changes to the signatory process. All signatories will now be required to check a box confirming that they have only signed the petition once. While it has been implied that a person may only sign a petition once, it is now explicitly spelt out. Signing a petition multiple times compromises the integrity of the petitions system by both increasing the number of signatories and misrepresenting the level of public support for a petition.

The committee accepts that principal petitioners cannot be responsible for the actions of every person in connection with their petition over the signature-collection period. However, we encourage principal petitioners, as campaign organisers and leaders, to play an active role in promoting ethical behaviour in relation to their petition to the parliament, particularly for larger and more politically charged petitions.

The current e-petitions system is designed to be secure while also being open and accessible. When signing a petition, a person provides their name and email address. An email is then sent to that email address, and the person must click on the link provided in the email to confirm their signature. The petition will only accept one signature from each unique email address. However, the system does not prevent a person from signing more than once using different email accounts. We believe that the multiple signing of petitions is rare. However, the committee will be monitoring this matter closely.

The committee has approached the issues I raise today as an opportunity to improve the House e-petitions system, introduced in 2016. We believe that the majority of people who engage with the House petitions process do so in good faith and in accordance with the rules.

I thank the House.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the Petitions Committee report and the contribution that has just been made by the committee chair. I would like to associate myself with the comments that the chair has just made and for her leadership in dealing with the matter which she has summarised.

Petitioning has been described as the oldest of all parliamentary forms, and is the only direct means by which an individual or group can ask the parliament to take action. I, like many in this place, am of the view that the House of Representatives should provide an open and accessible petitioning process that allows people to readily exercise their right to petition. As a member of the Petitions Committee, charged with overseeing this process, as a parliamentarian and as a member of the Illawarra community, I was shocked when I read in the Illawarra Mercury that individuals were seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the petitions process in this place and the genuine concerns and questions from my community. As the chair has outlined, the committee is aware that a small number of signatures on petition EN5444 may have been collected through unethical means—namely, by seeking to offer prizes and inducements to petition this parliament against the proposed Illawarra offshore wind zone, which the government currently has out for community consultation.

There are many parts of this situation which I find concerning, including the serious risk to the integrity of the petition system that this action poses. What I find most concerning is that this approach was not made in error or from a lack of knowledge about the petitions process, but done with the full intention to distort the scale of this particular petition. The Illawarra Mercury article by Connor Pearce on 10 October states:

Her post acknowledged the unethical nature of the competition. "I realise this is blackmail I don't care at this stage," she said.

When contacted by the Mercury, the woman said the inducements were "not really blackmail" but were driven by her response to the offshore wind farm proposal. "I offered discounted services for people to vote," she said.

As the chair has pointed out, and as the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said publicly, there is evidence and further allegations of people sending multiple responses under fake email addresses or aliases to subvert the legitimacy both of this petition and the community consultation process, which the minister is undertaking on the proposed offshore wind zone. One such allegation has been provided to me in the form of a statutory declaration from a constituent, Martin Cubby. Mr Cubby put to me that at a community meeting on 28 September this year, members of the Coalition against Offshore Wind, 'Encouraged community members to submit multiple submissions to the REZ through the federal government website using alternative or fake email addresses.' I would put to this chamber that the actions we saw taken on petition EN5444 are not an isolated incident but a coordinated effort to undermine and inflate representations of community options to this parliament and to the government. I would like to thank the secretariat for their work in investigating this matter and note that the committee has agreed to look further into the security of petitions.

The proposed offshore wind zone in the Illawarra has raised a lot of questions and concerns, and these are justified. There is a lot to learn and consider with renewable energy generation for Australia. I have been listening to my community's questions and concerns, relaying them to the minister and seeking to provide the community with accurate and reliable information. However, just like the secretariat, my office has been waylaid in having to sort through the countless fake emails, fake profiles and pseudonyms. This is a coordinated action by a select few whose clear intention is to hinder and hamper my ability to engage and answer questions from genuine members of the community. I do acknowledge that a great majority of people who engage with the House petitions process do so in good faith and in accordance with the rules.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The time for this matter has concluded.