2.1
It is important that the petitions system is accessible to those who wish to use it. This chapter will consider the accessibility of the petitioning process relating to the users’ experience with the e-petition system’s electronic security mechanisms, and how these features inhibit or enhance the users’ ability to sign or create a petition. Comparisons will be drawn regarding the accessibility of paper petitions.
Background
2.2
The accessibility of petitioning relating to the design of the e-petitions user interface and information presented about petitioning was examined, in some detail, by the Petitions Committee of the 45th Parliament. This report will not reconsider matters raised previously, unless directly relevant to the terms of reference.
2.3
In its 2018 report on the inquiry into the e-petitioning system of the House of Representatives, the former committee made the following recommendations relating to petitioning accessibility:
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Department of the House of Representatives, in conjunction with the Department of Parliamentary Services, work within existing resources to update the House e‑petitions system and web page design to improve user experience and accessibility for all users, giving consideration to adding the following features to the House Petitions List and website:
a unique URL for each petition, to allow petitioners to easily share and promote their e-petitions for signing;
additional navigation options to improve the ability to search for an e‑petition, such as the ability to re-order the list according to subject matter or date certified (i.e. listing the current e‑petitions open for signatures at the top of the page);
an easier signing process, if the security and robustness of the verification process can be maintained;
the use of plain English language, including simple instructions for using the e‑petitions system and wider petitions process;
the use of explanatory symbols and imagery in addition to text, to increase understanding of the petitions process;
a series of online written and video tutorials to assist users to create and sign petitions.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Department of the House of Representatives develop a campaign to promote petitioning in the House, with an emphasis on e-petitioning.
2.4
A government response to the report was tabled in the House of Representatives on 13 August 2018 which provided agreement to both recommendations.
2.5
The e-petitions system was updated in August 2019 to allow for a unique URL to be implemented for each petition. Upgrades to the system were released in March 2021 which addressed, among other technical enhancements, the remainder of accessibility issues outlined in Recommendation 1.
2.6
In February 2019, the former committee tabled another report on an inquiry into the future of petitioning in the House. The report included the following recommendation relating to petitioning accessibility:
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the process of creating a petition be streamlined so that petitioners complete one online form hosted on the Australian Parliament House website, to create either an e-petition or paper petition.
2.7
Work to implement this recommendation was also completed by DPS in March 2021.
2.8
The Committee remains committed to improvements to the petitioning system as outlined in recommendations from its 2019 report, Your voice can change our future, and awaits a government response to this report.
2.9
Following from a recommendation by the then Standing Committee on Petitions as part of its 2018 inquiry into the House’s e-petitioning system, a series of educational videos on how to petition the House is in the early stages of development. The intention of these videos is to better inform the public of the petitioning process from start to finish.
2.10
While this report is limited in its scope to focus only on aspects of petitioning accessibility as it relates to security, the Committee continues to consider ways to improve all aspects of petitioning accessibility.
Development of the e-petitions system
2.11
In developing the e-petitioning system, the project brief provided to the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) was to ensure availability of the e-petitions system to all residents or citizens of Australia and that signing or creating a petition electronically be, as much as possible, no less accessible than signing or creating a paper petition.
2.12
DPS outlined the following design considerations in their submission:
The system does not require an individual to provide proof of identity to sign a petition in either e-Petitions or the paper-based system. Providing proof of identity may impact people who cannot easily prove their identity but would otherwise be entitled to sign petitions such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who live in remote areas, people who are currently affected by a natural disaster, transgender people, people with limited access to identity documents (such as those who are experiencing or have experienced family and domestic violence, people experiencing homelessness or with an address inconsistent with their identity documents), or people who have come to Australia as refugees.
The Standing Orders only require the user to be a resident or citizen of Australia and therefore an Australian citizen residing overseas is still entitled to sign or create a petition. On this basis, the system does not use geo-blocking to prevent users in other countries from signing petitions. In addition, geo-blocking measures are easily evaded using a VPN, which malicious users of any sophistication would be likely to utilise.
The system does not prevent the use of temporary email addresses to sign petitions. The committee secretariat has articulated that temporary email addresses should be permitted to enable privacy conscious users to sign petitions without concerns about their data being misused. Preventing temporary email addresses would be difficult due to the ability for new email domains to be quickly created and used before misuse is identified and blacklisted.
2.13
It was necessary, however, to implement certain security measures not applicable to paper petitions, in order to reduce the instances of fraudulent online activity. These measures were also implemented with accessibility in mind and are discussed further below.
The standing orders
2.14
The design of the e-petitions system was also required to reflect the House of Representatives standing order requirements, which are the rules for House petitions.
2.15
The standing orders set out a number of minimum requirements for identifying a person signing or creating a petition. They are not designed to be onerous and require only basic identity information. For example:
each person creating a petition (the principal petitioner) must provide their full name and contact details;
each person creating or signing a petition must declare that they are a citizen or resident of Australia, and that they are not a Member of Parliament; and
for paper petitions, each signature must be made in the petitioner’s own handwriting (unless they require assistance) and only original signatures are accepted (not photocopies).
2.16
These requirements are significant in maintaining system security. Information collected is used to assist in confirming the identity of the principal petitioner, the validity of each signature and to enable contact regarding the petition.
2.17
In practice, these standing order requirements are upheld via manual checks by the committee secretariat. Any signatures that do not meet these security requirements are not included in the final signature count for the petition when it is presented to the House. Any petition where the details of the principal petitioner do not comply with these requirements is invalidated by resolution of the Committee.
2.18
Further discussion on the citizenship and residency requirements for petitioners, including whether there is a need for more robust verification checks using official records, is below.
Citizenship and residency requirements
Current requirements
2.19
The current requirements of the House of Representatives standing orders stipulate that each person creating or signing a petition must be a citizen or a resident of Australia and must not be a Member of Parliament.
2.20
It is extremely rare for a Member of Parliament to sign a petition (which is usually done in error) and any petitions identified as being created by a Member of Parliament would be considered invalid. Signatures to petitions from a Member of Parliament are easily identified during the secretariat’s scan of signatures prior to presentation and would not be included in the final signature count. Given this, discussion about Members of Parliament creating or signing a petition will not be considered further in this report.
Verification of current requirements
2.21
Confirmation of compliance to the standing orders relating to residency and citizenship requirements is done via self-declaration. For a paper petition, each person signing the petition, including the principal petitioner, must sign a page which has a self-declaration statement confirming that they are a either a resident or citizen of Australia. To assist petitioners, the paper petition template found on the House’s e-petitions website provides the following statement options to be included on the pages designed to collect signatures:
When signing this petition as principal petitioner, you are declaring you are either a resident or citizen of Australia.
and
When signing this petition, you are declaring you are a resident or citizen of Australia.
2.22
If the principal petitioner does not include a declaration on their petition, the petition is considered invalid, and signatures on pages that do not contain a declaration are not included in the petition’s final signature count.
2.23
For e-petitions, each person that creates or signs a petition must check a box online that declares that they are a citizen or a resident of Australia. This box, as displayed in Figure 2.1, is a required field and must be checked before the user can progress to the next step. The declaration is the same whether the user is creating or signing a petition.
2.24
The use of this self-declaration check box for e-petitions is designed to be no more onerous than the declaration required on a paper petition.
2.25
There are obvious risks for both types of petitioning in being able to accurately determine whether a person is making a truthful self-declaration.
2.26
This is supported by Associate Professor Luke Beck, from the Faculty of Law at Monash University, who stated in his submission that ‘issues relating to self-declaration of citizenship and residency arise in respect of both paper petitions and e-petitions’.
2.27
Whether or not these risks can be mitigated by using official records to more accurately confirm a petitioner’s identity will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
Other jurisdictions
Citizenship and residency requirements
2.28
Citizenship and residency requirements for signatories and principal petitioners varied across jurisdictions which put forward a submission to the Committee.
2.29
A requirement for petitioning the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is that signatories must be a resident or citizen of the ACT and declare as such.
2.30
Likewise, the e-petitioning system of the Queensland Parliamentary Service also requires users to make a self-declaration that are a resident or citizen of Queensland, or a Queensland elector in a nominated electorate.
2.31
Confirmation of jurisdictional residency, via self-declaration, is also a requirement of both Victoria’s Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly petitioning systems.
2.32
In contrast, the House of Representatives, Parliament of New Zealand and the Scottish Parliament do not have restrictions, such as age or residency, on who can petition their parliament and so self-declarations of this kind are not required.
Verification of citizenship and residency
2.33
In jurisdictions which required signatories and principle petitioners to meet certain citizenship and residency requirements a range of verification methods were employed.
2.34
The Legislative Assembly of Victoria does not have an e-petitioning system, so verification checks are done manually, with responsibility for these checks shared between members presenting petitions and the Clerk of the Victorian Legislative Assembly. In contrast, the e-petitioning system of the Victorian Legislative Council verifies addresses using data from Google Maps. The Council conceded that some individuals, such as the homeless and those living in some new suburbs that are not yet incorporated into Google Maps, may face obstacles to petitioning using their system.
2.35
It is a requirement that petitions put to the Legislative Assembly for the ACT be sponsored by a Member in order to present it to the Assembly. The onus to ensure addresses fall within the ACT’s jurisdiction lies with the presenting Member. Addresses which do not sit within the ACT are not included in the final signature count.
2.36
In their submission, the Legislative Assembly of the ACT also acknowledged that:
… the Office of the Legislative Assembly (OLA) has no way to ensure that individuals provide correct names or their addresses, which are required to be in the ACT.
Committee comment
2.37
The Committee recognises the importance of ensuring the right to petition is retained for all Australian citizens and residents. Verification of citizenship or residency could pose accessibility issues for petitioners, including those living overseas, or petitioners without permanent address or necessary identification documents. This presents the risk of negatively affecting the capacity of our most vulnerable petitioners’ to easily create or sign petitions, and reinforces the importance of maintaining an accessible petitioning system.
2.38
Self-declaration by electronic petitions and paper petitions has proven to be the least onerous way to provide for residency checks while maintaining accessibility. The Committee continues to support the current arrangements for self-declaration of residency or citizenship.
Potential age requirement
2.39
In accordance with the terms of reference set out for this inquiry, the Committee must inquire into the introduction of an age limit in order to petition the House of Representatives. Currently any person, regardless of age, can petition the House of Representatives if they are a citizen or resident of Australia, and not a Member of Parliament.
Current requirements
2.40
As there is no current age limit to be able to petition, petitioners are not required to provide their age or date of birth when signing or creating a petition. It is therefore difficult to know what age petitioners are.
2.41
However, during the former Committee’s inquiry in the 45th Parliament which examined the House’s e-petitions system, a survey of petition users was conducted which indicated that most petitioners were between the ages of 51–69, followed by the age range of 35-50 years. A number of respondents to the survey also indicated that they were less than 18 years of age.
2.42
During this previous inquiry, the former Committee heard from some school aged children who participated in a public hearing to the inquiry via video link. The children, in primary school years 5 and 6, had petitioned the House on three previous occasions and had been learning about petitions as part of classroom activities about federal parliament.
2.43
Further, during the former Committee’s report, The work of the Petitions Committee: 2013–2016, the Committee conducted a roundtable exercise and heard from high school students about their experiences with petitioning.
2.44
The former Chair of the Committee, Dr Dennis Jensen MP, made the following statement in relation to the students evidence at this roundtable, which was quoted in the report of the inquiry:
Both Olivia and Ava displayed a keen insight into the benefits of petitioning the House, and the value that the House derives from receiving petitions. Their passion for the subject of their petition demonstrated a deep concern for their future, and for the future of their country.
2.45
The report went on to state the Committee’s support for young people to continue engaging with the petitioning process:
This kind of engagement with young Australians interested and involved in traditional petitioning activity – petitioning directly to the institution/body they seek action from, is something the Committee continues to value.
Implications and enforcement of age requirements
2.46
If the House were to impose an age limit on who may create or sign a petition it would prevent students such as those mentioned previously from participating in petitioning activities. This was a concern for some participants to this inquiry, for example, the Department of the House of Representatives explained that introducing an age limit requirement for petitioning the House would ‘affect a cohort of people who currently exercise this right’.
2.47
The Hon Kevin Rudd AC, 26th Prime Minister of Australia, was mindful of the importance of young people being able to petition, because they cannot vote in elections:
Voting is an action with a direct consequence. Petitioning parliament is not. It is merely giving young people an avenue to express their opinions to the politicians who spend their tax dollars, fund their schools and write their laws. Because younger Australians are restricted from voting, their ability to petition parliament is even more precious. It should not be taken away.
2.48
Further to the impact on individual petitioners who would no longer be able to petition the House, the introduction of an age limit on petitioning poses the challenge of how this would be enforced. If an age limit were to be introduced, the following changes to the House’s petitioning process and e-petitions system would be required, in order to verify compliance with a new age limit:
changes to the standing orders to reflect an age limit requirement;
technical changes to the e-petitions system to both collect and verify age related data (this would require an extra data field for petitioners to complete which could risk decreasing accessibility);
changes to the paper petition template to provide for the collection of age related data;
changes to the online information provided to petitioners; and
additional verification checks required by the secretariat to ensure compliance.
2.49
The use of official records to verify petitioner information is discussed in detail later in this chapter. Of note, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) observed that, should the Committee impose the verification of a petitioner’s age on a petition, the Commonwealth Electoral Roll (the Roll) would not necessarily provide accurate data on all persons eligible. For example, and as discussed further below, not all eligible petitioners appear on the Roll and citizens are eligible to enrol to the Roll from 16 years of age.
Other jurisdictions: age requirements
2.50
Evidence received from other jurisdictions, including the Legislative Assembly for the ACT, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, the Scottish Parliament and the House of Representatives, Parliament of New Zealand, explained that their petitioning systems did not impose an age limit.
2.51
The Scottish Parliament drew attention to their inclusive approach to petitioning parliament, and commented that, ‘Public petitions can be submitted by anyone in the world, regardless of their age, as long as it relates to a matter of Scottish policy or practice.’
2.52
No evidence was provided that speaks to any benefit of imposing an age limit on petitioning.
Committee comment
2.53
The Committee considers petitioning to be a valuable civics education tool. Petitioning the House of Representatives is the only means by which members of the public may have a direct voice to the House. Imposing an age limit would be difficult to enforce or regulate, and poses a risk of increased fraudulent petitions.
2.54
Further, an age limit would restrict participation by some Australian citizens and residents who currently exercise this right.
2.55
Based on evidence provided to the Committee age limits are not enforced in any other jurisdictions that made a submission.
2.56
Given the lack of evidence for any benefits derived from the introduction of an age limit, and the significant burden and limitations of accurate age verification and enforcement thereof, the Committee does not support the introduction of an age limit for petitioners.
Use of official records
2.57
As discussed above, the standing orders require that the principal petitioner is a citizen or resident of Australia, and that they provide their full name and address when creating a new petition. If this is not done the petition will be invalid.
2.58
It is also a requirement of the standing orders that all signatures to a petition must be from a citizen or resident of Australia. Non-compliance to these standing orders results in the signature being invalid and not included in the final signature count for the petition, but does not invalidate the petition.
2.59
Currently, these standing order requirements are upheld by the petitioner making a self-declaration that they are a citizen or resident of Australia and through checks for obvious non-compliance by the committee secretariat in more unclear cases.
Types of official records
2.60
The Committee considered whether it would be feasible to use official government records to check compliance against both current requirements (such as the requirement for a signatory to be an Australian citizen or resident), as well as the potential requirement for a petitioning age limit.
2.61
The types of official records that may be available are presented below, along with discussion on their suitability for the purpose of validating petitioner information.
The Commonwealth Electoral Roll
2.62
The AEC is responsible for managing and maintaining access to the Commonwealth Electoral Roll. This includes managing access to the Roll as per provisions set out on the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
2.63
There are three options for access to the Roll:
1
One time only access at no cost can be provided to persons or organisations as determined by the AEC. Under this provision, only names and the place of residency of registered voters can be provided. Further, access could only be provided to a nominated person within the Department of the House of Representatives, because the Department is not considered an organisation under the definition of ‘organisation’ in the Act.
2
Access on request on a cost recovery basis to persons or organisations as determined by the AEC. As per above, only certain details can be provided and access could only be provided to a nominated person within the Department.
3
Ongoing access governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the AEC and the Department head (in this case, the Clerk of the Department of the House of Representatives). This arrangement would require an amendment to the Electoral and Referendum Regulation 2016 and could include access to electors’ name, place of residency, date of birth and gender, the latter two of which are not current requirements for petitioners.
2.64
The AEC, however, noted that ‘not all people that satisfy the requirements for signing a petition may appear on the Roll’.
2.65
Eligible petitioners that may not appear on the Roll include:
eligible citizens not enrolled to vote;
silent electors whose details would be withheld from any access request;
residents not eligible to enrol, such as long term visa holders; and
citizens under the permitted age of enrolment (16 years).
2.66
The potential exclusion of cohorts of otherwise eligible petitioners questions the suitability of using the Roll for verifying petitioner information, and goes against the Committee’s commitment to maintaining accessibility. This is discussed further below.
The Digital Identity program
2.67
The Australian Government’s Digital Identity program is administered by the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA). It ‘provides a simple, accessible and secure way for individuals to verify their identity online’ and has a primary focus of preventing identity theft and fraud.
2.68
Digital Identity is an ‘opt-in’ service used primarily by individuals to enhance interactions with 75 different services. It currently has over two million registered users.
2.69
To create a Digital Identity, users are required to:
be at least 15 years old;
have an email address or mobile phone number only used by the user;
have a smartphone or smart device;
download the myGovID app; and
provide identity documents such as a passport, driver’s licence, birth certificate or Medicare card.
2.70
Further, Digital Identity uses identity matching services such as the Document Verification Service (DVS) and Face Verification Service (FVS) to verify the applicant’s identity information.
2.71
The DVS is discussed in more detail below and legislation to support the full operation of the FVS is still currently before the Parliament. If the legislation is passed, the FVS will be used to verify a person’s identity using facial images and other biometric data.
2.72
Organisations using Digital Identity can nominate to receive only the identity information required for verification, such as the user’s age, but all information provided is based on the explicit consent given by each user.
2.73
In their submission, the DTA state that Digital Identity could support the e-petitions system with the delivery of ‘higher security and fraud control outcomes; offer common infrastructure; and make it easier for people to verify who they are in an accessible, convenient and secure way’.
2.74
However, like the Electoral Roll, Digital Identity also does not capture the information of all eligible petitioners. The service relies on users opting-in and having all of the required technology and identification, which is currently not required to petition the House of Representatives. DPS advised that Digital Identity ‘is not currently a feasible option for identity verification in the e-Petitioning system’.
Document Verification Service
2.75
The Document Verification Service (DVS) is managed by the Australian Government’s Department of Home Affairs. The DVS is a ‘secure online system which, with a person’s consent, matches their identity information against identity document records held by various Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies’.
2.76
The DVS is used by a range of Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies, such as the DTA, to verify a range of identity documents including:
visa and immigration documents;
certificates of birth, marriage and change of name; and
government issued cards such as Medicare and Centrelink concession.
2.77
The DVS, however, has its limitations. Not all citizens or residents hold or have access to the correct documentation, some documents do not contain a date of birth or a residential address and not every eligible petitioner would have documents loaded to the DVS.
2.78
The Department of Home Affairs notes that, while known data on citizenship and residency status is held by the Department, many people gain citizenship by birth or may have lost citizenship without their knowledge, information which is not necessarily held by the Department.
2.79
Further, up to date information about a person’s residency status may not be reflected in the DVS if a visa has expired, been cancelled or never used. This means that information on citizenship obtained through services such as the DVS does not provide an accurate representation of all citizens or residents of Australia.
Identity verification and accessibility
2.80
While the use of official records may have some benefits in confirming a person’s identity, some submitters had concerns about how their use could significantly reduce public accessibility for large cohorts of petitioners.
2.81
For example, unless a petitioning age limit was introduced, use of the Electoral Roll or Digital Identity for verification purposes would prevent people under the permitted voting or registration age from petitioning.
2.82
Additionally, citizens or residents of Australia who are not enrolled to vote, do not have a Digital Identity, are not eligible for a Digital Identity, or do not have the correct technology or identification required to use the Digital Identity platform would also be prevented from petitioning.
2.83
The introduction of any additional identity verification measures and the accompanying accessibility limitations were of importance to the Hon Kevin Rudd AC, 26th Prime Minister of Australia, who stated in his submission that:
I am also concerned about Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds, including Indigenous Australians, who may not have the right form of identification. Younger Australians and non-citizens may not have driver’s licences and electoral enrolment details.
2.84
The Department of the House of Representatives also issued this warning:
… using official records for verification is likely to increase the complexity and, correspondingly, reduce the accessibility of the system for would-be petitioners.
2.85
The same submissions put forward concerns about the privacy of petitioner’s information and the burdensome process that is involved in creating an official record, compared with simply signing a petition.
Mr Rudd was mindful that:
Depending on the process involved, Australians may not wish to submit themselves to an intrusive or onerous process in order to merely add their name to a petition – something which has no legal force and, for countless decades prior, they had been able to do with a few strokes of a pen.
2.86
The Department of the House of Representatives reasoned that:
Many official records would not be suitable or available to check against, for reasons such as privacy. Other sources that could be considered each have their own limitations and benefits.
Paper petitions
2.87
To ensure consistency in processes for both electronic and paper petitions, consideration has to be given to what resources would be required for verifying hand written signatures on a paper petition, which can potentially number over one million, against the use of any official records.
2.88
This consideration was also recognised by the Department of Home Affairs who acknowledged that the use of official records, such as the DVS, to verify a petitioner’s identity on an e-petition would differ significantly from the requirements for paper petitions. The Department submitted:
Home Affairs notes that this would introduce checking processes for online petitions that differ from those associated with traditional paper petitions which require only that a person include their name, signature and a self-declaration that they are a citizen or resident of Australia.
Technical alterations
2.89
The Department of the House of Representatives, who are the owners of the e-petitions system, and the co-developers, expressed concerns over the resourcing implications of integrating official records. The Department of the House of Representatives stated:
From a technical perspective, the parliamentary departments would need to work with the owner of the relevant official records, to redesign the current system. Cost implications would potentially be considerable.
2.90
The Department of the House of Representatives elaborated further:
In particular, the Committee would need to take into account:
the complexity of changed arrangements, as well as any additional time required to complete verification, and whether this might discourage would-be petitioners
any other impost on potential petitioners, including the need to provide additional details (say, a home address) for data-matching purpose
whether all citizens and residents would be captured by the data set used for cross-matching—for example, if there were a requirement to appear on the electoral roll, this would exclude those residents who do not have a right to vote and would also in effect impose a minimum age requirement, as only Australian citizens aged 16 and above can enrol to vote
any technical or legal changes required to facilitate access to other records, including any permissions required to access official records and any additional levels of security needed to allow the e-petitioning system to either access or securely hold more personal information
what other reconfiguration might be required to the current system.
Other jurisdictions
2.91
Of the other jurisdictions that provided evidence to the inquiry, most had the requirement that petitioners must be residents of that jurisdiction.
2.92
Of these, none submitted that they use official records to verify this status, although as previously mentioned, the Legislative Council of Victoria did state that they use Google Maps to verify addresses, and conceded that limitations of Google Maps result in it not being able to include all eligible petitioners.
2.93
The House of Representatives, Parliament of New Zealand also does not use official records for verification of petitioners or signatories on parliamentary petitions. The Clerk of the House of Representatives New Zealand, however, submitted that signatures are matched against the electoral role on petitions calling for citizens-initiated referendums (CIRs), but stressed that CIRs are not parliamentary petitions and do have a statutory threshold for signatures to trigger a specific outcome.
2.94
The Clerk further noted that CIRs are only in paper form and have different eligibility requirements from parliamentary petitions.
Committee comment
2.95
The Committee supports an approach to petitioning which presents the least imposition on petitioners, while still retaining the integrity of the petitioning process. The Committee believes that barriers to signing an electronic petition should be, as much as practicable, no more than those which currently exist to sign a paper petition.
2.96
The Committee respects the need to retain accessibility in both electronic and paper petitions, and recognises that additional checks, while providing greater security to the petitioning process, would likely reduce engagement from those petitioners who have the greatest need for this platform.
2.97
The use of official records to verify petitioners’ identity would serve to arrest a cohort of Australian citizens or residents who currently exercise this right. This is likely to have a negative impact on the capacity for more vulnerable individuals to petition, including those living with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, young people, residents who are not eligible to vote, and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
2.98
There is no official record verification system which does not place additional burdens on petitioners to prove their identity. Furthermore, many of these systems would work poorly without an age limit, which as previously discussed, is not an additional requirement the Committee supports.
2.99
The Committee is of the view that the current options for signature verification through official records are ill-suited to the accessibility requirements of petitioning. As such, the Committee does not recommend changes to the current signature verification process.