Chapter 2 Role and operations of the Standing Committee on Petitions
Introduction
2.1
The Petitions Committee’s primary role is to receive and process
petitions to the House of Representatives and act as a conduit to the House for
the presentation of petitions that meet Standing Order requirements. It may
also inquire into petitions matters and the petitions system.
2.2
The Committee’s role and responsibilities are defined formally by
Standing Order 220:
(a)
A Standing Committee on Petitions shall be appointed to receive and
process petitions, and to inquire into and report to the House on any matter
relating to petitions and the petitions system.
(b)
The committee shall consist of ten members: six government and four
non-government members.
The Petitions Committee
Expectations and principles
2.3
The first Petitions Committee was established on 12 February 2008, when
a number of changes were effected to the House’s Standing Orders.
2.4
The Standing Orders, in particular those relating to petitioning and
General Purpose Committee operations, provided the framework for the operation
of the first Committee. The Standing Orders bind the Committee to operate
within the formal arrangements of the House but they do not prescribe how it should
conduct its business. This left the first Committee (and indeed the current
Committee) with latitude to determine how it would fulfil its role most
effectively.
2.5
The activities of the first Committee, as reported in the Work of the
first Petitions Committee,[1] reflect this broad
framework. This was a time of bedding down the process and of observing
developing trends in the numbers of petitions received, the interest in
pre-preparation requirements and follow-up by the public on ministerial
responses to petitions tabled.
2.6
The Committee of the 43rd Parliament has had the benefit of
reflecting on the activities of the first Committee and how its approach could
be refined to suit the ever changing petitioning environment. The Committee
also benefitted from the first-hand experience of the first Committee through three
Members who were appointed to the Committee again in the 43rd
Parliament.
2.7
The fundamental role of receiving and processing petitions remains the
most significant part of the current Committee’s work, with most private
meeting time devoted to assessing petitions for compliance and deliberating
over correspondence on petitions.
2.8
The other facet of Standing Order 220, the ability to ‘inquire into and
report to the House on any matter relating to petitions and the petitions
system’ has enabled the Committee to review and report on its activities this
parliament, including through this report. The current Committee has not sought
to inquire into specific aspects of the petitioning system but the Chair’s
statement every sitting Monday provides an informal mechanism to report on
significant issues and activities.
2.9
The Committee has maintained the view that under the Commonwealth
Constitution, and House Standing Orders and practices, there are some immutable
aspects of the House’s petitioning process. This is not only important for
practical reasons[2] but also to manage the
expectations of a well-informed and highly communicative petitioning public. It
is therefore clear that the Committee cannot:
n Deal with matters
outside its jurisdiction, that is, State or Local Government matters;
n Resolve matters
raised in petitions;[3]
n Change Government
policy or administration;
n Oblige a Minister to
respond to a petition or follow-up an outstanding response for a petitioner;
n Present petitions
which do not comply with Standing Orders; or
n Limit freedom of
speech by not allowing the presentation of petitions which clearly comply with
Standing Orders and other practices of the House.
2.10
The last point is worth expanding on. The House’s respect for freedom of
speech is at the core of the Committee’s requirement to be objective in all
aspects of its operations. This respect is reflected in Standing Order 206 (b),
which gives the Committee little discretion—‘The Standing Committee on
Petitions must check that each petition lodged for presentation complies with
the standing orders, and if the petition complies it shall be approved for
presentation to the House’.[4]
2.11
The Committee has made clear that its role is not to make value judgements
on the subject matter of a petition. Nor does the Committee determine the
petitions selected to be heard at public hearings on the basis of personal
opinions or beliefs.[5]
2.12
This approach is very similar to the manner in which Members present
petitions in the House. Members do not need to support a petition they present;
similarly the Petitions Committee may or may not agree with the content of a
petition it approves for presentation. Accordingly, when the Chair of the
Committee presents petitions he may personally agree with some, and disagree
with others, but this is irrelevant in his independent role as Committee Chair.[6]
2.13
The Chair of the Committee frequently reiterates his independent role in
his presentation statements, for example:
I conclude today by reinforcing the neutrality of the
Committee in terms of petitions subject matter. The Committee’s role is to
assess petitions against standing order requirements, in conjunction with the
established practices of the House, and to provide a conduit for the tabling of
compliant petitions. Committee members must leave behind their personal views
and allegiances regarding the subject matter and requests of petitions. The
Committee determines whether a petition is compliant based only on the House’s
petitioning requirements. Naturally, this also extends to my role as the Chair
in tabling petitions in this timeslot. In presenting these compliant petitions
I am not endorsing their content or requests. I may personally agree with some
of the petitions and vehemently disagree with others, but my personal views and
those of the Committee do not inform the outcome of a petition’s status.[7]
2.14
The objectivity of the Committee’s decision-making and the independence
of the Chair’s presentations have been starkly demonstrated when the Chair presents,
in the same presentation timeslot, different petitions with diametrically
opposed views or requests.[8]
Operations of the Petitions Committee
Considering petitions and receiving Ministerial responses
2.15
Standing Orders continue to require that a petition must first be
certified by the Petitions Committee as meeting House requirements before it
can be recognised as a petition when presented in the House.
2.16
Petitions intended for presentation in the House are received and
processed by the Committee’s secretariat in preparation for the Committee’s
deliberations at its regular private meetings each sitting week.
2.17
Standing Order 206 (b) requires the Committee to ‘check that each
petition lodged complies with the standing orders…’. Standing Orders 204 and
205 cover the form and content of petitions, and rules for signatures. The
Committee must determine whether the petitions received comply with these
requirements. The more significant requirements are that:
n A petition must be
addressed to the House of Representatives only;
n It must contain a
request for action by the House only and the House must be capable of
performing the action requested;[9]
n The terms of the
petition must not contain alterations and must be no more than 250 words;
n The petition is written
in moderate language and the terms not be illegal or promote illegal acts;
n The petition either
be written in English or, if in another language, be accompanied by a certified
translation;
n The full terms of the
petition must be at the top of the first page and, as a minimum, the request of
the petition must be at the top of other pages;
n The full name,
address and handwritten original signature of a principal petitioner must
appear on the first page;
n House Members can’t
be a principal petitioner, nor sign their support for a petition; and
n The signature of each
petitioner must be in his or her own hand writing (unless the petitioner is
incapable of signing[10]) and be provided on
original hard-copy (not copied, pasted or transferred).[11]
2.18
Specific requirements of the Standing Orders are considered in more
detail in Chapter 3.
2.19
Petitions considered to meet the format and content criteria are found
to be ‘in order’. In-order petitions are subsequently presented in the House,
either by the Committee Chair, currently on Monday mornings of sitting weeks,[12]
or by other Members who have indicated—and principal petitioners who have
agreed—that they will present them.
2.20
Prior to presentation, at the same time as it considers compliance with
Standing Orders 204 and 205, the Committee resolves whether petitions will be
referred to a Minister or Ministers with relevant portfolio responsibility. Following
presentation of petitions—whether by the Committee Chair or a Member—their terms
are referred in writing by the Chair of the Committee to the appropriate
Minister or Ministers for a response.[13]
2.21
Only those petitions which meet the requirements of the Standing Orders
can be referred. Therefore, only in-order petitions can be presented in the
House, published in Hansard, and be referred to the Executive for comment. The
ability to have an issue brought directly before a Minister provides
petitioners with an added and significant incentive to ensure that the content
and format of their petition meets Standing Order requirements.
2.22
Most petitions the Committee approves for presentation are referred for
a ministerial response. The exceptions are few and occur mostly when the House
has received multiple petitions on the same subject matter or the petitions request
the same action. In these cases the matter is not repeatedly referred for a
response. Instead, the first ministerial response received on that particular type
of request for action will be sent to subsequent petitioners. The response is
published in Hansard and to the Committee’s website—clearly linking a response
to a petition matter. This transparency reduces the expectations of subsequent
prospective petitioners of receiving an individual ministerial response.
2.23
Standing Order 209 (b) provides it is ‘expected’ that Ministers will
respond to a referred petition within 90 days of a petition being presented in
the House. The response is received by the Committee which then affirms the
Chair will formally present the response to the House during the next opportunity
(sitting Monday). This provides the Committee with a full‑circle role in
the petitions process—as summarised by the Chair:
The Committee therefore acts as a conduit for both the
tabling of petitions and responses to them. It also acts as a gatekeeper. I
believe that this unique combination provides the House's petitions system with
a high level of certainty and responsiveness.[14]
2.24
The Committee regards the timely and well-considered responses to
petition matters by the Executive as one of the key successes of the House petitioning
processes introduced in 2008. The expectation by petitioners that they will
receive a response within a certain time frame provides a level of
accountability by the Government not only to the public, but also to the House.
2.25
The responsiveness by Ministers to the Committee’s referral of petitions
has been a very positive aspect of the changes to petitioning. For example, in
2007 there was only one Ministerial response and in 2008, the first year of the
Committee’s operations, the figure was 56. By 2011 a total of 136 responses
were received; with 83 responses in the 2012 year. As at 17 June 2013, after
less than six months of the 2013 year, 38 Ministerial response letters had been
received.[15]
2.26
Statistics for the 43rd Parliament show a robust number of
ministerial responses presented each year. But this only tells part of the
story. The real success has been the rate of response. The Committee Chair has
spoken on numerous occasions throughout this parliament about the positive rate
of ministerial responses. For example, in November 2012 he noted:
The highlight of these statistics, however, is the high ministerial
response rate to petitions tabled. This is indeed a success story that has been
raised on previous occasions since the inception of the Committee in 2008, but
this year’s results were exceptional. Ninety-two per cent of petitions tabled
this year received a ministerial response. This contrasts with the 2011 rate of
70 per cent, which was already a very good result considering many petitions
tabled in the spring sittings receive tabled responses in the following year; as
would be expected for quite practical reasons.[16]
2.27
In the financial year to 17 June 2013 (the last ministerial response
tabling at the time of this report), the rate of response to petitions tabled
in the same period was 74 per cent.[17] This rate is considerably
skewed downward given that 38 petitions (of the total 101 presented since 1
July 2012) have only been presented since 27 May 2013, such that they could not
reasonably expect a response to be presented before this report is presented.
This statistic reflects the expectation that a bulk of petitions would be received
near the end of the final sittings of the 43rd parliament (as
petitioners rush to submit petitions and Members to make presentations). As
such, responses to these petitions would not be anticipated before the end of
the budget sittings and expected dissolution of the House.
2.28
Most responses received express neither agreement nor disagreement with
the petitioner’s viewpoint—nor do they accept or deny a petitioner’s request.
And the Committee considers that ministerial responses were not intended to
represent a grant or denial of a request, as supported by the 90 day timeframe
for responses. Rather, responses provide petitioners and stakeholders with an (often
comprehensive) outline of the Government’s relevant policy, funding
arrangements, administrative process or legislative framework. A response may
explain why the Government takes a particular stance on a matter and whether
there are any plans for review or change.
2.29
While it would be rare for a Minister to agree to undertake the action
sought in a petition and relay this in a response, there are occasions when
petitions, which have previously received a response that did not contain an acceptance,
have later had their request fulfilled. This does not necessarily mean that one
petition request has directly led to the desired outcome. However, in some
cases the request has been unique and has related to such a narrow field of
stakeholders that a causal link could be drawn between the original petition
and the later Government action.[18] One example of this was
mentioned on 20 March 2013 during the Member for Aston’s adjournment
debate speech:
I am proud to report to the House that the Knox headspace
centre was officially opened this week. The opening of this centre has been the
culmination of a two-year campaign which I have spearheaded, along with
community members in my electorate. … I would particularly like to thank the
chief petitioners, Pauline Renzow and Prerna Diksha, for their tireless effort.[19]
2.30
After responses are presented their text is published in full, in
Hansard, and on the Committee’s website, in line with Standing Order 209(c). In
this way, not only does the principal petitioner receive the information about
the issue, but so also does any stakeholder—supporter or indeed opponent of the
petition—and any prospective petitioner. The response process provides an
avenue for Government accountability.
2.31
In general, most petitioners do not anticipate that a petition alone will
lead to the direct resolution of their concern. Most Australians participate in
petitioning with the pragmatic view that it is a respected method of raising
awareness of an issue—within the community and with Parliament—or a grievance.
The promise of a resolution may certainly be an impetus for petitioning, but
not the sole reason. This understanding was summarised by the Chair recently:
As much as it would be rewarding for petitioners to see a
nice, neat resolution to their concern outlined in the ministerial response to
their petition, in a well-functioning democracy this is a rarity. Therefore,
the executive's response to a petition which is anticipated to be received by
the committee within a few months of referral does not represent a granting or
a denial of a wish—and most petitioners would understand this.[20]
Communications by and with the Petitions Committee
2.32
A large part of the Committee’s role involves communicating advice of
petitioning outcomes and responses to petitions. The Committee does this
directly, via correspondence to principal petitioners and Members who have been
involved in presentation or delivery of petitions, and indirectly, to the public,
through Hansard and the Committee’s website.
2.33
These activities partly fulfil Standing Order requirements, and partly
the Committee’s stewardship role. The webpage constructed in response to the
Procedure Committee’s recommendation that the Department of the House of
Representatives create a petitions page on its website, visible from the home
page, and which provides contact details and guidance on preparing a petition,
remains available.[21]
2.34
The Parliament’s website now provides clear access to petitioning
information from the home page and at the petitioning launch point it clearly delineates
between petitioning the House and the Senate. General information on preparing
a petition, a petitioning checklist and contact details for the Committee’s
secretariat is available with a link to the Petitions Committee website. The
Petitions Committee’s web page is also available via the list of House General
Purpose Standing Committees.[22]
2.35
The Committee’s web page provides public access to the terms of tabled
petitions and to ministerial responses. It also lists any public meetings
conducted by the Committee and the transcripts of these. Even though petitions
and responses are already publicly available in the Hansard of the day of
presentation to the House, publication in this format enhances transparency by linking
tabled petitions and responses. This is significant for petitioners and anyone
who is interested in the issues they raise.
2.36
The other benefit of re-publishing the terms of tabled petitions on the
Committee’s website is that petitions are categorised in subject matter areas,
enabling prospective petitioners to research prior petitions on the same or
similar subject matter, and to see petition wording which has met the format
and content requirements of the House. So, the website is not only a
communication device but also has an important educational role.
2.37
Public expectations about access to information on petitioning are
increasing. The Chair has discussed this aspect:
With increasing acceptance of, and access to, communications
and information technology by people of all ages and walks of life, the
petitioning requirements are being disseminated widely through the Committee’s
website and communications via a public email address. This is in addition to
telephone and postal communications and published information made available by
the Committee for distribution at Members’ electorate offices across Australia.[23]
2.38
The Committee is supported by a small secretariat which provides
administrative, research and drafting support. One of the significant aspects
of the secretariat’s work is liaison with prospective petitioners as they
prepare their petitions for signature collection and then tabling in the House.
2.39
Improved access to information about petitioning and the Committee’s web
pages, as well as the access to advice from the secretariat, ameliorates a high
rate of out-of-order petitions received. In any case, it reduces the
disappointment and agitation of petitioners who would have prepared
out-of-order petitions due to minor oversights (for example, exceeding the word
limit), but who avoid this by using the Committee’s resources before collecting
signatures.
2.40
The absolute numbers of out-of-order petitions received in the 42nd
parliament showed a decline on ‘pre-Committee’ out-of-order petition numbers, with
39 petitions out-of-order in 2008, 20 in 2009 and 23[24]
in the 2010 year.[25] As volumes of petitions
received in the 43rd Parliament increased, so did the number of
out-of-order petitions. The absolute numbers of out-of-order petitions jumped
up in the 2011 year to 80,[26] but, given there were
271 petitions received[27] (thus 191 complied), the
out-of-order rate was only 30 per cent. The absolute numbers fell to 52 in
2012, reflecting far fewer hastily prepared ‘immediate response petitions’
which were prevalent in 2011.[28]
2.41
In the 2013 year-to-date only 12 out-of-order petitions have been
received.[29] The Committee is pleased
to see that fewer petitions are being received which don’t meet the House’s
requirements.
2.42
The Committee also notes fewer electronically produced (and thus out‑of‑order)
petitions are being received in 2013, commensurate with prospective petitioner
queries about the House’s acceptance of non‑handwritten petitions. Growing
awareness of the House’s signature rules may have contributed to a recent decline
in out-of-order numbers after the initial burst in popularity of petitions
prepared through on-line petitioning sites.[30]
Private meetings during sitting weeks
2.43
The Committee continues to meet at least weekly during sitting weeks for
a private meeting, principally to consider proposed petitions and responses.
2.44
During these meetings the Committee also considers more general
correspondence, its current and future work program and other general Committee
matters. Since it first met in October 2010, the Committee of the 43rd
parliament has held more than 45 private meetings.
Presentations and announcements by the Committee Chair
2.45
At the commencement of the 43rd Parliament the Standing Orders
were amended to change the time for the Chair of the Petitions Committee to
present petitions to the House. This was set for 10.00am to 10.10am on sitting
Mondays.[31]
2.46
Since November 2010 the Committee Chair has made 30 announcements of petitions
found to be in-order (and which petitioners have not asked other Members to
present) and of ministerial responses considered by the Committee at its
previous meeting.[32]
2.47
The Chair also makes a general statement about the Committee’s work to
the House at this time, time permitting. Standing Order 207(a) enables the
Chair’s announcement and statement and also a statement by another Member of
the Committee. From time to time during the 42nd Parliament, statements
were made by other Committee Members in the Petitions timeslot. This was usually
made by the Deputy Chair, after consultation with the Chair, so that speaking
times and topics would be appropriate. In the 43rd Parliament only
one Committee Member has used the petitions timeslot to make a short statement
following the Chair’s statement.[33]
2.48
The Chair’s statements provide the House with regular reports on the
Committee’s activities, in particular public meetings and on key aspects of the
petitioning process. The statements also enable the Chair to provide six
monthly statistical updates on petitions received. As such, the statements
serve as an important accountability measure.
Public hearing activities with petitioners and public servants
2.49
Standing Order 220, which outlines the Committee’s role, states that the
Committee may inquire into, and report to the House, on any matter relating to
petitions and the petitions system. This enables the Committee to conduct its
round table hearings with principal petitioners and/or senior officers of
relevant Government agencies.
2.50
These are intended to facilitate a public dialogue on the petition issue
raised and not to investigate the matter with a view to resolving or
following-up any individual petition concern.
2.51
The Committee held 8 public meetings with principal petitioners or
public servants over the course of the 43rd Parliament.[34]
At the first round table meeting the Committee spoke to one petitioner, as well
as with representatives of one Government department and one agency. At one
hearing the Committee spoke exclusively with senior public servants—one of the
petitions considered was later separately discussed with the principal petitioner,
in the petitioner’s home town. The other hearings were held interstate, solely
with principal petitioners or their representatives. All round table meetings
with public servants held during the 43rd Parliament have taken
place at Parliament House.
2.52
The Committee does not formally accept submissions or exhibits at these
public hearings as its role is not to investigate with the view to recommending
any action on petitions or of resolving matters. These public discussions enable
explanation and exploration of issues beyond that allowed by the petition’s 250
word limit. After round table hearings, the official transcript of
evidence is forwarded by the Committee to the relevant Minister or Ministers of
the portfolio area.
2.53
During the 43rd Parliament the Committee continued the first
Committee’s contact with young people. A number of petitions were received from
school groups during the period—and it was rewarding to see that most of these met
the Standing Order requirements. The Committee attended a hearing at a
secondary college in Perth in August 2012. Members were impressed with the
confident interaction between these students and the Committee on a complex subject
on which the principal petitioner, herself a student, was well versed.[35]
The Committee then held informal discussions with the students, teachers and
the school principal on the broader parliamentary process and the role of
Members. The Committee values this sort of engagement as an additional benefit of
the reinvigorated House petitions process.
2.54
The Committee’s approach to round table hearings has changed since the
42nd Parliament. In that parliament, as the Committee was defining
its role and was settling into a pattern of operations, it afforded more time for
round table hearings, the bulk of which were conducted in Canberra with
public servants. These hearings covered a greater number of petitions, initially
adopting a program based more on coverage of petitions presented rather than on
any particular criteria.
2.55
The Committee of the 43rd Parliament was faced with a
significant increase in the number of petitions received—with approximately 275
petitions being received and assessed in 2011 as compared to numbers of 150,
170 and 170 in 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively.[36]
This meant that, in addition to reconsidering the value in attempting to
conduct public hearings for most petitions, it also had a larger task in its
primary operations.
2.56
Petitions to be discussed at public hearings are now largely selected
because of sustained or broad interest in the issue and the likelihood that a
further, public discussion may be beneficial. Interstate hearings with
petitioners necessarily involved discussion of petitions generated from particular
geographic areas.
2.57
Every petition presented does not, therefore, become the subject of a
hearing. The Chair emphasised the Committee’s approach:
Rather than take a blanket
approach to holding public hearings on a large number of petitions received,
the committee has found value in selecting petitions which have displayed
strong local interest—or other notable characteristics—and to discuss these petitions
in greater detail. The committee cannot follow up or make recommendations to
government on individual petitions, but the hearing process enables a public
dialogue, with the potential for further action to take place, beyond the
committee's role, merely because the matter has received further parliamentary
airing.[37]
2.58
Having discussed the practical aspects of its operations, in the
following chapter the Committee considers its formal framework—House Standing
Orders; feedback that it has received from petitioners on the process; issues
that are recurring—resourcing and electronic petitioning; and an issue that is
emerging—possibilities for debate on the subject matter of petitions.