Chapter 1 Introduction
Petitions
1.1
In 2007 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure
issued a report, Making a difference, on petitioning the House. It noted
that petitioning Parliament (rather than Government) was a practice dating back
to the 13th century in Britain, and the present form of petitioning under
the Westminster system dated from the 17th century. However, the status
of petitions within the House of Representatives had declined.[1]
1.2
In response to this decline the report made a number
of recommendations to reform and strengthen the petitions process in the House
of Representatives. One recommendation led to the creation of the Standing
Committee on Petitions, and other changes to the management of the petitions to
the House which the Petitions Committee administers.[2]
Electronic petitions
1.3
A further recommendation was that the House undertake such changes as
would allow it to accept electronic petitions, in addition to paper petitions.
The present report considers whether this objective should be pursued and, if
so, the ways this might be achieved based on the models and proposals presented
to the Petitions Committee over the course of the inquiry.
1.4
Electronic petitions to parliaments can be created by:
n sending petitions to
potential petitioners by email for signature, which are then aggregated;
n exposing petitions
for signature on third party sites, such as that maintained by GetUP,[3]
resulting in petitions ‘created elsewhere’ that can be submitted to a chamber,
such as the Australian Senate; or
n posting petitions for
signature on a dedicated parliamentary electronic petitions website, as in the
Queensland and Scottish parliaments.
1.5
As is discussed in the body of the report, a major argument in favour of
electronic petitioning to the House is that it will help arrest a decline in
political engagement noted by a number of contributors to the inquiry.
1.6
Models of electronic petitioning were described to the Committee which
emphasised this objective to different degrees. This raised the question of the
extent to which an electronic petitioning system for the House of
Representatives would be designed simply to ensure that the House kept pace
with contemporary methods of communication. Alternatively, there could be a
more ambitious intention to use electronic petitioning as a means to expand the
public’s engagement with the House.
1.7
While contributors informed the Committee of models and research which
shed light on this question, the inquiry has also raised issues beyond the scope
of this report. For this reason, and others that will become apparent, the
Committee has in its recommendations outlined a model in which the House adopts
an initial system with low barriers to entry, but keeps options open for
expansion, which could bring a greater emphasis on questions of public
engagement.
The inquiry
1.8
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions was created
with the change of Standing Orders announced in the House on 12 February 2008,
and Members were appointed to the Committee on 19 February.[4]
1.9
On 4 June 2008 the Standing Committee on Petitions resolved to conduct
an inquiry into an electronic petitioning system for the House of
Representatives.
1.10
Terms of Reference for the inquiry were to examine and report on the
introduction of an electronic petitioning system for the House of
Representatives, with particular reference to:
a) the different models of
electronic petitioning that could be introduced, and their effectiveness in
facilitating electronic petitioning of the House of Representatives;
b) changes required to the
practices and procedures of the House in implementation of an e-petitions
system;
c) the role of Members in
e-petitioning;
d) privacy and security concerns;
e) the financial and resource
implications of an e-petitions system; and
f) the experience of other
relevant jurisdictions, both in Australia and overseas.
1.11
The Committee received 15 submissions and one supplementary submission
to the inquiry. Five public hearings were held in Canberra: on 12 November
2008; two on 26 November 2008; on 24 June 2009; and a final hearing on 12
August 2009.
1.12
During the inquiry, the Committee considered a number of existing models
of electronic petitioning, including those presently operating in the
Australian Senate; Queensland Parliament; and the Scottish Parliament. The
Committee also considered proposals made by the Department of the House of Representatives,
and from GetUP, a third-party organisation with an interest in enhancing public
engagement with the political process.
1.13
This report addresses each of the Terms of Reference in separate
chapters, with the exception of the third (Term (c)), on the role of Members,
which is considered with other aspects of changes to the House’s practices and
procedures (Term (b)) in Chapter 3.
Current arrangements
House of Representatives
1.14
There is currently no mechanism through which the House of
Representatives may accept electronic petitions. Its present petitioning system
centres on hard-copy petitions received and processed by the Standing Committee
on Petitions. These petitions, subject to being found in order, are then
presented in the House, and referred to Ministers responsible for relevant
portfolio areas.
1.15
The Committee meets to determine whether petitions it has received are
in order, with reference to Standing Orders. These require that:
n petitions must be
addressed to the House;
n the House must be
capable of performing the action requested;
n the text of the
petition be no more than 250 words;
n the petition employs
moderate language;
n the petition either
be written in English, or if in another language a certified translation must
be provided;
n the petition text, or
at minimum the request, must appear at top of each page carrying signatures, in
identical wording to that employed on the first page of the petition;
n the name and address
of the principal petitioner must appear on the first page;
n the principal petitioner
must not be a Member of Parliament;
n Members cannot sign
petitions; and
n the name and
signature of each petitioner be provided on original hard-copy (not a
photocopy, facsimile or similar).[5]
1.16
Petitions considered to meet these criteria (that is, to be ‘in order’)
are presented in the House, either by the Chair of the Committee, currently on
Monday evenings of sitting weeks, or by other Members who have forwarded petitions
to the Committee and have indicated that they wish to present them.
1.17
Subsequent to the deliberations of the Committee, and following
presentation of the petition in Parliament, petitions are referred to Ministers
in the area of portfolio responsibility. It is expected that Ministerial
responses to such referrals are completed within 90 days of a petition being
presented in Parliament.[6]
1.18
This is considered by the Committee an important element in the
petitions process, in that it contributes to higher levels of accountability by
government, both to Parliament and to the public at large.
The Senate
1.19
The Senate currently accepts electronic petitions. The Clerk of the
House of Representatives, Mr Ian Harris AO, advised that Senate Standing Orders
‘make no special reference to electronic or online petitions, but they are
taken to apply to all petitions whether written on paper or in cyberspace’.[7]
1.20
Within these arrangements Senators have a key role in attesting to the
validity of petitions and presenting them to the Senate: ‘petitions that are
posted and signed electronically are accepted if the Senator certifies that
they have been duly posted with the text available to the signatories’.[8]
1.21
Electronic petitions are integrated into the business of the Senate by
being printed and submitted as hard-copy documents: ‘in presenting an
electronic petition, the Senator lodges a paper document containing the text of
the petition and a list of the signatures submitted’.[9]
1.22
This form of electronic petitioning conforms to what the Clerk termed a
‘minimal model’, in which electronic petitions are accepted, but there is no
specific web-presence provided to host and manage electronic petitions.
Printing of electronic petitions prior to presentation allows the same
procedures to be followed as for paper petitions.[10]
Electronic petitions and cultural change
1.23
A majority of contributors told the Committee that broader changes to
communications practice had made it necessary for parliaments to accept electronic
petitions.
1.24
The Clerk of the Queensland Parliament, Mr Neil Laurie, took this view,
telling the Committee that if Parliament ‘wants to maintain its relevance, it
has to adapt its procedures’ to these new conditions. Accepting electronic petitions
was simply a recognition of contemporary ‘realities’: a way in which parliaments
could adapt to ‘modern society’.[11]
1.25
GetUP also asserted a larger cultural change ‘regarding the relative
worth of letters, emails, paper petitions and e-petitions’. This had resulted
in ‘cultural change in all of our perceptions about the way that people
communicate’.[12]
1.26
The consequence of these changes was that ‘the current arrangements for
petitioning to the House—which
exclude online petitions—are
out of step with community expectations and behaviour’.[13]
Only by ‘allowing electronic petitioning’ would the House be able to bring
‘itself into line with contemporary community behaviour and expectations’.[14]
1.27
Another view was put by the Hon Wilson Tuckey MP, who argued against the
House accepting electronic petitions on the grounds that doubts over validation
of signatures would damage the credibility of petitions to the House.[15]
Validation of signatures in electronic petitions is considered in Chapters 3
and 4 of this report.
Key distinctions
1.28
Over the course of the inquiry key distinctions emerged between the
models considered by the Committee. These raised questions as to:
n whether the House would
adopt a ‘minimal model’ in which the House accepted electronic petitions ‘created
elsewhere’ (as in current Senate practice) or would create a specific web
presence for electronic petitions under the administration of the House of
Representatives; and
n whether the House of
Representatives would accept electronic petitions as a necessary reform of
parliamentary practice to keep in step with contemporary communications, or adopt
a more expansive approach in which electronic petitions were employed as part
of an effort to significantly increase public engagement with Parliament.
‘Minimal’ or ‘web presence’ model
1.29
The Clerk of the House of Representatives advised the Committee of
distinctions between ‘minimal’ and ‘web presence’ models.
1.30
In the first, parliaments accept ‘hard copies of petitions created
elsewhere’, along with hard-copy petitions, consistent with Senate practice.[16]
In the second, parliaments provide for ‘the creation and submission of
electronic petitions by developing and hosting a web-based system for this
purpose’.[17]
1.31
The Clerk stated that the approach employed in the Australian Senate,
which corresponded to the ‘minimal model’, had resulted in ‘a limited number of
electronic petitions’ being presented to the Senate ‘despite its acceptance of
electronic petitions … for several years’.[18]
1.32
Consequently, of the two options, the use of a web-based system seemed ‘more likely to facilitate electronic
petitioning’. Moreover,
a parliamentary website would be readily accessible to
potential petitioners and the host Parliament could be seen to be giving
priority to and promoting electronic petitioning.[19]
1.33
A survey of the experience of various parliaments supported this view:
The Queensland and Scottish parliaments have implemented
electronic petitioning based on the first model. There has been a clear take up
of electronic petitioning in these jurisdictions and the volume of electronic
petitions has been manageable.[20]
1.34
Consequently, the Clerk told the Committee, the second of these models
was likely to offer best value to the House of Representatives. While a ‘minimal
model’ was ‘a low risk and low cost approach [which could be] readily
implemented’, the alternative approach was ‘more likely to facilitate
electronic petitioning’.
1.35
The Clerk noted that if this option were adopted there would be ‘costs …
and risks which would need to be carefully managed’. [21]
The financial and resource implications of electronic petitioning are further considered
in chapter 6 of this report.
1.36
The Clerk also noted a ‘dual option’ (the House hosting an electronic petitions
website and accepting electronic petitions created elsewhere), which ‘would
allow existing sources of electronic petitions to continue using their own
sites to host petitions’. This ‘would be similar in complexity to implementing
the parliamentary web-site model’.[22] Further consideration is
given to this option in Chapter 3 of the report.[23]
Necessary reform or expansion of engagement
1.37
As observed, a number of contributors to the inquiry took the view that
changes in contemporary communications made it necessary for the House of
Representatives to accept electronic petitions. Without this the House would be
out-of-step with the modes of communication employed in the wider community.
1.38
Another point of view was that electronic petitions represented an
opportunity for a desirable and significantly greater level of change. This view
identifies:
n a tendency for
disengagement from the democratic and political process; and
n a role for electronic
petitions in reversing this trend, engaging the wider community in the
political process.
1.39
These elements are discussed below.
Disengagement
1.40
Dr Paul Williams informed the Committee that the ‘technological and
cultural changes’ which had changed patterns of communication had also ‘witnessed
increases in civil disengagement’. As a result, citizens often reported that
they felt ‘separated from the democratic process’.[24]
1.41
There was a perception that ‘Australians do not get “value for money”
from their Parliament’. In consequence, ‘Australian democracy, for a growing
section of the community’ was ‘seen to exist to serve others, but not them’.[25]
1.42
This trend was evidenced in ‘a measurable decline in voter participation
that, ultimately, has become a form of voter self-disenfranchisement’. Dr
Williams termed this ‘the universal nemesis of democratic participation’, and
stated that:
At Northern Territory elections for the Legislative Assembly,
for example, voter turnouts - despite compulsory enrolment and voting - are
regularly as low as 80 per cent. Similarly, the 13 October 2007 Brisbane
Central by-election, forced by the retirement of Queensland Premier Peter
Beattie, saw an even lower turnout - despite enormous pre-election media
coverage - of below 68 per cent.[26]
1.43
Surveys of voters, Dr Williams advised the Committee, provided greater
insight into this phenomenon, and even greater cause for concern:
Alarmingly, an Australian Electoral Commission survey in 2004
found more than half of all youth voters would not vote if enrolment were not
compulsory, with two-thirds of respondents describing voting - and, by
extension, other forms of political participation - as “boring”.[27]
1.44
Similar assessments of the state of political engagement in the
community were given by members of the Scottish Public Petitions Committee, GetUP,
and Oxfam.[28]
Electronic petitioning and engagement
1.45
An important, more optimistic, aspect of this view is that contemporary
forms of communication are capable of addressing these problems. A contribution
to a House of Commons inquiry into electronic petitioning expressed such a
view:
An e-petitions system could provide more than transparency;
it would create an opportunity for interaction. It could enable petitioners and
signatories to receive emailed responses to their petitions. These might simply
be information about the progress of the petition or other associated
parliamentary proceedings. They might also include messages from the
petitioner’s constituency Member of Parliament. We were reminded that the
internet is “a conversation medium; it is not a broadcast medium or a post
office. The opportunity to start a meaningful dialogue with people is very powerful.”
[29]
1.46
Other contributors to the House of Commons inquiry also expressed strong
views in favour of a wider emphasis on engagement in arrangements to accept electronic
petitions.[30]
1.47
A number of contributors to the present inquiry expressed similar views
on the potential of electronic communications to increase the level of
engagement between Parliament and the wider constituency. These are considered
below, particularly in those sections which deal with the model of electronic petitions
employed by the Scottish Parliament, and GetUP’s proposal for electronic
petitioning in the House of Representatives.
Committee comment
1.48
In the Committee’s view, these two distinctions provide a useful way to
compare the different approaches considered in this report.
1.49
In theory, should the House of Representatives decide to adopt
electronic petitioning, options are either a ‘minimal model’ (consistent with
Senate practice) or one in which it develops and hosts ‘a web-based system for
the creation and submission of electronic petitions’.
1.50
In practice no contributors to the inquiry argued in favour of the
minimal model: while this approach would involve the smallest degree of change,
it may not deliver some of the benefits claimed for the ‘web presence’ model.
1.51
In view of this, the second distinction—regarding the emphasis on
engagement—is a more significant distinction in the context of the inquiry. All
of the proposals considered can be described in terms of the emphasis they
accord to either maintaining the continuity and integrity of the parliamentary
process or expanding public engagement with the House of Representatives by
means of electronic petitions.
1.52
In each case those who argue in favour of these models value both of
these imperatives, but make different decisions, judgements and trade-offs in formulating
their proposal. These arguments provided the Committee with an opportunity to
consider a range of models under which the House of Representatives could, in
the future, accept electronic petitions.
1.53
A key underlying question concerns the degree of change entailed if the
House of Representatives moves to accept electronic petitions. The Committee
considers that the more significant choice, then, is between adoption of a
web-based system which entails comparatively smaller changes to parliamentary
practices and procedures, or one that seeks significantly to address wider
questions of political engagement, and therefore contemplates greater change to
the business of the House.