3.1
The Committee has been tasked with inquiring into the extent to which the e-petitions system has met the expectations of Parliamentarians and members of the public, and what future enhancements might be appropriate for e-petitioning in the House.
3.2
To assist the Committee in undertaking these inquiries, this chapter explores the development of e-petitioning in the House, and the objectives behind the chosen approach.
3.3
To determine the success of e-petitioning, this chapter examines how the system has been utilised so far, and considers the results of the surveys conducted by the Committee. The surveys are outlined in chapter one. A snapshot of results for the online user survey can be found at Appendix C. A full list of questions posed in the user survey is provided at Appendix D.
3.4
This chapter also considers the experiences of other jurisdictions, both in Australia and overseas, and identifies how the procedural features of other e‑petitions systems compare to the House system.
3.5
This inquiry has informed the Committee about possible future enhancements to the e-petitions system that would assist in meeting the needs of the Petitions Committee, Parliamentarians and members of the public.
Objectives of e-petitioning
3.6
In conceptualising the e-petitions system in 2009, the then House Petitions Committee considered two fundamentally different approaches. These approaches were reflected in the e-petitions systems implemented in two parliaments: Queensland and Scotland.
3.7
A key question to be answered by the Committee at that time, was whether the House should adopt a ‘more expansive model’ of e-petitioning to maintain levels of engagement with petitions, or whether a more moderate level of change would be sufficient to bridge the gap between the Parliament and the people.
3.8
Central to answering this question was consideration of what role the Committee should play in the management of e-petitions, and the implications of the chosen approach on resourcing and the practice and procedures of the House.
3.9
The Committee concluded that initial arrangements for electronic petitioning should ‘involve minimal changes to House practice and procedure’. The Committee found that the e-petitioning model adopted by the Queensland Parliament offered the lowest barrier to entry for introducing electronic petitioning to the House.
3.10
The approach adopted by Queensland involved introducing a website-based system for e-petitions, to be administered by the Parliament. The e-petitions would otherwise be managed in a similar way to paper petitions.
3.11
The Committee determined that implementation of a system similar to that of the Queensland Parliament represented the most effective solution for the House of Representatives. Following the Government’s response to the Committee’s report, the Department of the House of Representatives worked with the Department of Parliamentary Services to develop an original e-petitions system that was based on the principles of the Queensland model. That is, all e-petitions would be submitted, signed and published on a website to be administered by the Australian Parliament.
Utilisation of e-petitions
3.12
As outlined in chapter one, since its introduction in the 45th Parliament, there have been 256 electronic petitions certified and presented to the House. These petitions have collected a total of 136,752 signatures, with one petition obtaining 48,985 signatures. Three of these petitions have been presented by individual Members, with the remainder being presented by the Chair of the Petitions Committee.
3.13
In comparison, 263 paper petitions have been certified and presented to the House. These petitions have comprised over 264,367 signatures, with one petition obtaining 45,971 signatures. Twenty-nine of these petitions have been presented by individual Members, with the remainder being presented by the Chair of the Committee.
3.14
Despite the high number of e-petitions lodged over the 45th Parliament, the limited results of the Members’ survey indicated that some Members remain unfamiliar with the House e-petitions system, and considered that their constituents were also unfamiliar with e-petitioning.
3.15
One Member responded that it would be useful to better understand how to utilise e-petitions, so they could inform their constituents on how to use the system. Another Member considered that while e-petitioning made the process of petitioning more efficient, manual (paper) lodgement would still be necessary for some members of the community.
3.16
The results of the online survey conducted during the inquiry may shed some additional light into who uses the e-petitions system. Figure 3.1 below provides the demographics of respondents to the online survey into e‑petitions, conducted by the Committee in 2017. The survey is outlined in chapter one, and a snapshot of results is provided at Appendix C. Almost 35 per cent of 292 respondents who gave their age range were between 51-69 years of age. Just over 27 per cent of these respondents were aged between 35-50 years of age.
3.17
The survey results were commented on by Caitlin, a student of St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School in Sydney, who participated in a public hearing in Canberra:
I feel that it [the e-petitions system] would be better if more people participated. I can see from the results that you’ve collected that there weren’t a lot of people who used it, and the majority were middle aged. I feel as if it could have been advertised a bit more, and more people would have found it a little bit more accessible.
3.18
A number of respondents to the e-petitions user survey agreed that the e‑petitions system should be publicised more widely.
3.19
Some of these responses are outlined in text box 3.1 below.
Box 3.1: - e-petitions user survey responses
Question 21: Do you have any further comment about the House of Representatives e-petitioning system?
I feel APH website epetition system doesnt[sic] have wide reach and seems complicated and inconspicuous to the masses… I would imagine only a small fraction of Australian’s [sic] are aware of their right to petition and participation in policy making…
Promote it more.
While I realise you have bureaucracy to wrestle with, and that you are striving to keep pace with the 21st century by having an e-petitioning site, it needs to be far more widely advertised.
If you want people to use it, you need to publicise it. I visit the Parliament web site regularly, yet I’ve never seen it.
Needs more access/knowledge given to a broader audience
I discovered this website on Facebook, only because an NGO mentioned a petition in one of their posts. Maybe petitions should be advertised by the House?
Committee comment
3.20
E-petitioning in the House has had considerable success during its first years of operation. The volume of e-petitions that have been received and certified by the Committee in the 45th Parliament is comparable to the number of paper petitions certified over the same time period.
3.21
The Committee understands that an increasing proportion of the Australian population wants to access information and engage with public institutions online. It is clear from the evidence in this inquiry that many people would prefer to petition the House and sign petitions using the e-petitions process. It is the Committee’s role to ensure that the process for e-petitioning meets the needs of petitioners and those people wishing to sign e-petitions. This includes making sure the process is as streamlined and user-friendly as possible.
3.22
Enhancements to the website, as foreshadowed in chapter two, such as the introduction of instructional videos and other accessible information, will assist people to navigate the e-petitions process from start to finish.
3.23
The user survey results suggest that younger Australians may not be engaging with the e-petitioning process as much as might have been expected. The Committee also notes comments from Members of the House, and members of the public, that e-petitioning should be promoted more widely.
3.24
The Committee will endeavour to work with other Members of the House, to provide them with up-to-date information and increase knowledge and understanding of the e-petitioning process in the House.
3.25
Further, the Committee will work with the Department of the House of Representatives to promote e-petitioning to a wider audience and take steps necessary to engage more people in the process of petitioning the House.
3.26
The way in which e-petitioning is promoted will likely be extended to the wider petitioning process. A proposed review of the House petitions process is foreshadowed in the next section, ‘Comparisons to other jurisdictions’.
3.27
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.
Comparisons to other jurisdictions
3.28
The following Australian and international parliaments provided submissions to the Committee’s current inquiry:
House of Representatives, New Zealand
House of Commons, United Kingdom
Committee on Petitions, European Parliament
New South Wales Legislative Council
House of Assembly, Parliament of Tasmania
3.29
In addition, the Committee heard from representatives of the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Tasmanian House of Assembly (via teleconference) in public hearings held in Canberra.
3.30
Submissions from individuals and other parliaments noted some procedural differences between the House e-petitions system and other e-petitions systems in Australia and overseas.
3.31
While the differences between the House e-petitions system and other jurisdictions are numerous, the primary differences addressed by submitters related to the process and outcomes following lodgement of an e-petition.
3.32
Currently, an e-petition (or paper petition) only requires one signature (that of the principal petitioner). If a petition meets Standing Order requirements, any petition with one or more signatures can be presented to the House and referred to the Minister with a request for response. Once petitions are presented to the House and referred to a Minister for response, no further action is usually taken.
3.33
This practice differs from other domestic and international jurisdictions where further action might be taken on petitions that meet a predetermined signature threshold.
3.34
For example, in the UK House of Commons, a petition that collects 100,000 or more signatures is considered for debate in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons’ second debating chamber.
3.35
In Scotland, the Public Petitions Committee has broad powers to decide what action should be taken on admissible petitions. Such actions could include writing to relevant stakeholders for their views; undertaking a formal inquiry; holding a plenary debate; or referring the petition to another committee or a Minister for response.
3.36
Another point of distinction is that some parliaments, for example the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Tasmania House of Assembly, require that a petitioner find a Member to sponsor or present their petition, before the petition may be accepted. The House has no such requirement. This feature was not discussed in any detail during this inquiry.
Committee comment
3.37
Investigating the different features of e-petitioning in other jurisdictions has assisted the Committee to identify possible areas for improvement. The inquiry into e-petitions has highlighted what features of the House system work well, and what enhancements the Committee should consider in order to meet the expectations of the Parliament and members of the public.
3.38
Consideration of the different models and approaches to processing and actioning e-petitions raise questions for the House that move beyond the scope of this inquiry. The Committee notes that some individuals raised questions relating to the House petitions processes that, while important, go beyond the operation of the e-petitions process. These questions go to the wider role of the Petitions Committee and the management and operation of petitions in the House more broadly.
3.39
The Committee has chosen to limit discussion of petitions procedures in this report to questions that relate directly to the operation of the House e‑petitions system. Discussion of petitions procedures that relate to both e‑petitions and paper petitions, and questions about the role of the Petitions Committee and Members in the petitioning process should be deferred to a wider review, which can be conducted following the tabling of this report.
3.40
Since the Committee’s establishment in the 42nd Parliament, each Committee has reflected on the work it has undertaken, the role and operations of petitions in the House, and the Committee’s role more broadly. One such review has not yet been undertaken during the 45th Parliament.
3.41
It is therefore timely for the Committee to reflect upon its operations and the petitions procedures (for both paper and electronic petitions), to determine whether they are fit for purpose and meet the expectations of Members of the House, and members of the public.
3.42
The Committee believes there would be merit in undertaking a new inquiry into the full review the Petitions Committee as soon as practicable.
3.43
That the Committee inquire into and report on:
The role and operations of the Standing Committee on Petitions;
Petitioning the House of Representatives, including a review of Standing Orders and other relevant practice and procedures.
3.44
In conducting this inquiry, the committee will give consideration to the petitions processes and procedures of other jurisdictions.