Chapter 3 Effectiveness of the Committee’s formal framework
Introduction
3.1
This chapter considers the framework of the House’s petitioning arrangements,
feedback on the revised petitioning arrangements received this parliament and issues
for future Committee consideration.
3.2
At the beginning of the 43rd Parliament a number of changes
were made to House Standing Orders. There were, however, no substantive changes
to the House’s petitioning arrangements in the 43rd Parliament. The
Standing Orders covering petitioning are essentially the same as those from 24 June 2008,
but with changes to the times petitions may be presented.[1]
As such, the Committee will not re-examine the unchanged Standing Orders applying
to petitions as documented in detail in the first Committee’s report: The
work of the first Petitions Committee: 2008—2010.[2]
3.3
The Standing Orders governing petitioning in the 43rd
Parliament have remained unchanged throughout the parliament.
3.4
The following House Standing Orders relate to petitions, in particular:
n Standing Order
34—order of business, Chair’s presentation timeslot;
n Standing Order
204—rules for the form and content of petitions;
n Standing Order
205—rules for signatures;
n Standing Order
206—lodging a petition for presentation;
n Standing Order 207—presenting
a petition;
n Standing Order
208—action by the House;
n Standing Order 209—a
petition may be referred to a Minister for response; and
n Standing Order
220—creation of the Standing Committee on Petitions.[3]
3.5
Standing Orders governing the form and content of petitions have been
unchanged since the establishment of the first Committee. This fact, coupled
with the Committee’s commitment to provide various information resources on the
petitioning requirements, may have enhanced the public’s understanding of the
requirements. The Chair commented favourably on this apparent increasing
awareness of the petitioning framework:
The increasing number of in-order petitions received this
year highlights, I believe, two aspects of the House petitioning process. One
is what appears to be an increasing engagement by the people of Australia with
the House of Representatives. The other is a greater awareness by Australians
of the way the House operates and a recognition that it follows certain rules.
In this case, there appears to be a maturing appreciation of the standing
orders governing petitioning. Since the establishment of the first Petitions
Committee in 2008, the requirements of the House petitioning process have
become more widely known and understood.[4]
Petition presentation times and machinery changes
3.6
The times that petitions may be presented changed at the beginning of
the parliament in two ways—directly, by bringing forward the time of the
Chair’s presentation timeslot on sitting Mondays and indirectly through
increased opportunities for Members to present petitions.
3.7
Firstly, Standing Order 34 was amended on 29 September 2010 to bring the
Chair’s petitions presentation timeslot forward to 10.00am—10.10am on sitting
Mondays (formerly on Monday evenings at 8.30pm—8.40pm).
3.8
Secondly, Members were indirectly given expanded opportunities to
present petitions in the House. Standing Order 207 superseded Sessional Order
207 and included changes to the opportunities available to Members to present
petitions in the House and the Main Committee.[5] These changes reflected changes to the Order of Business and included:
n Enabling presentation
of a petition during Members’ 90 second statements in the House, in accordance
with Standing Order 43. This replaced presentations during the Members’ 90
second statements in the Main Committee, in accordance with the former Standing
Order 192A. The change occurred when Members’ 90 second statements were
moved from the Main Committee back to the House and increased these opportunities
from one to three periods a week.
n Enabling presentation
of a petition during the period of Members’ 3 minute constituency
statements in the Main Committee, in accordance with revised Standing Order 193.
3.9
The moving of the Chair’s presentation from the evening timeslot to the
morning timeslot—straight after prayers—has given the presentation more
prominence.
3.10
The increased options for Members’ presentation times provides Members
with greater choice about when they may present a petition—with a diversity of
times and presentation duration. This is consistent with the Procedure
Committee’s fourth principle of enhancing the role of Members in the petitions
process.[6]
3.11
The change from one period of 90 second statements in the Main Committee
to three periods of 90 second statements in the House has given these
presentations greater visibility. This timeslot, 1.45pm—2.00pm on sitting
Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, enables a Member to expediently present a
petition at a time when the Chamber and gallery await Question Time. This may
account for some of the increase in the number of petitions presented by
Members in 90 second statements during the 43rd Parliament.[7]
3.12
Frequency of Member presentations is fairly consistent across the two
parliaments during the grievance debate and the House and Federation Chamber adjournments
debates.[8]
3.13
The only other change to the petitioning procedures was that Standing
Order 209 superseded Sessional Order 209—with no substantive change to text.[9]
Feedback from principal petitioners about the petitioning framework
3.14
From time to time during round table meetings the Committee has
taken the opportunity to ask petitioners their views on the current petitions process
for petitioning: how they collected signatures, liaison with the Committee and why
they decided to use the petitioning process to raise awareness about the matter
in their petitions. The feedback from petitioners indicated they saw value in
petitioning—due largely to the revised framework—even if they had not yet
achieved their requested outcome.
3.15
The Committee was told that the revised petitioning processes, in which
petitions are likely to receive a formal ministerial response, was a key factor
in most petitioners’ decision to petition. For example, at a public hearing in
Traralgon, Victoria, Mr Shelton, a petitioner regarding distribution under the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, advised that ‘We are encouraged that it is now
on the record and that the minister has to respond formally to the petition’.[10]
Another petitioner commented that their expectation of receiving a response was
an impetus for raising awareness in this way:
We talked to our local member and found that the petitions
system had changed and that we would definitely get an answer to that. That
encouraged us to give it a go. I must say that we are particularly pleased
because we did get an answer from the minister. But we are very pleased to have
a chance to come down and reopen the issue.[11]
3.16
Many petitioners, whilst not achieving their desired result at response
stage, felt that their expectations of the process had been met.[12]
This was summarised by a principal petitioner who spoke at a public hearing in
Traralgon, Victoria on the National Disability Insurance Scheme:
And we are deeply grateful for that. For the very first time,
in all of our petitioning years, we actually have knowledge of an outcome and a
response. It is not the response that we want entirely, but it is a response
nevertheless. We will certainly be making sure that, when this information is
made publicly available, all of our carers in our purview will know about it so
that they can all see how passionate we are, and maybe somebody who can make a
difference will also see how passionate we are and how much we need their help
and yours.[13]
3.17
Similarly, at the public hearing in Sydney in April 2013, Mr Frew, the
principal petitioner for a petition calling for biennial bowel cancer
screening, noted:
My expectation of the petition was to achieve what we have
achieved, which was to raise awareness to get some response. The response,
frankly, was not exactly what I had hoped for—on the lower end, a couple of
extra years of screening at five-year gaps; at the top end, two years, which is
what we have spent a fair bit of time discussing today.[14]
3.18
Petitioners often told the Committee of their surprise at how quickly
and how willing people were to sign their petitions. For example, Mr Forde, appearing
at a hearing in Brisbane regarding a petition calling for the recognition of
Palestine as a Non‑Member state of the United Nations, said:
I thought I would only get 500 signatures in a 48-hour
period, because it was rushed. I got nearly 1,300, and I know that if I had
gone a week I would have got a lot more.[15]
3.19
Similarly, in Perth, Mr Cormack discussed the ease with which the
principal petitioner of the petition on aircraft noise on Rockingham Beach
gathered signatures.[16] In contrast, Ms Hall,
who assisted the principal petitioner on the petition regarding asylum seeker
policy and human rights, noted that not everyone wanted to sign the petition,
but that she understood that that was understandable, that it was their
democratic right.[17]
3.20
Others saw the mechanism as an important method of raising community
awareness, engaging with their community or as a springboard for publicity or
further dialogue. For example, Mr Frew noted:
The petition was one way we could demonstrate a need for such
an important lifesaving program. We raised over 5,000 signatures in what was a
very short period of time. I led a ride to Canberra with a number of supporters
to deliver the petition to the shadow federal minister for health and ageing on
behalf of Bowel Cancer Australia.[18]
3.21
Mrs Sturrock, the principal petitioner of a petition regarding treatment
for Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria, spoke of her experiences gathering
signatures in the community and talking to people at train stations,
supermarkets and shopping malls, while her colleagues collected signatures at
churches and sports groups.[19] This was also Ms Hugo’s
experience regarding the petition on conservation of rock art at the Dampier
Archipelago.[20] Mr Valvasori saw the
process as a way of opening and continuing discussions on preventing child
sexual trafficking, rather than as a mechanism of resolution per se:
We recognise that the petition was basically a really great
mechanism to open a dialogue between the responsible ministers and ourselves
and our campaign partners, Child Wise, who are specialists in this area. That
dialogue, we hope, is ongoing, and that relationship with the ministers and
Child Wise is ongoing.[21]
3.22
Petitioners agreed that word of mouth about their concern spread through
the petitions process was very important.[22] One petitioner believed
that for every one signature she collected ten people would hear of her
concern:
With every single signature from every single person that I
went to, having approached them and spent time explaining the situation, I
thought, “That's great. If I've convinced this person I've actually convinced
10 of my fellow Australians that this is a worthy thing”.[23]
3.23
It also became apparent that many petitioners see the petitioning
process as a useful way to target their energies towards their intended outcome
whilst also pursuing other avenues to bring resolution.[24]
One petitioner also noted that the activity of petitioning boosted morale of
those affected:
The petition has given them something to talk to their
customers about and, I guess, a voice, and I suppose you might say that has
been useful to keep the morale high. Also, it has generated quite a lot of
interest because it is a large petition, I am told. … Therefore I have been
interviewed by members of the press and have been able to get the message out a
lot more widely than perhaps would have been the case otherwise.[25]
3.24
The Committee’s role and public roundtable activities were also viewed
positively. One petitioner stated: ‘You get 10 out of 10 for the fact that this
actually happens because I think it is an important part of democracy.’[26]
Future operations of the Petitions Committee
Receiving and processing petitions—electronic and paper systems
3.25
Currently, all petitions for presentation in the House must be prepared
including only handwritten original signatures. Petitions that contain copies
of signatures or signatures made by electronic devices do not meet the Standing
Order requirements.
3.26
A growing number of parliamentary jurisdictions around the world use
controlled electronic petitioning processes.[27] This corresponds with
the increasingly sophisticated use of information technology and the demand for
engagement with parliament through these means.
3.27
All but one of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry
into petitioning were implemented in the 42nd parliament.[28]
The recommendation that was not adopted in 2008 was the introduction of
electronic petitioning. In 2009 the first Petitions Committee inquired into
electronic petitioning to the House[29] and recommended that the
House establish an electronic petitions website and system (under the administration
of the House), similar to that of the Queensland Parliament.[30]
The response has not yet been received.
3.28
Like the first Petitions Committee, this Committee endorses the
introduction of an electronic petitions system, sitting in parallel with the
traditional paper system. It supports the introduction of an electronic system
administered by the House, so that petitions are received and assessed against
Standing Orders prior to being available for public access and the collection
of signatures.
3.29
The Committee’s preferred model is similar to that of the Queensland
Legislative Assembly (this model has been fully operational since 2003). This
Committee is grateful to the Clerk of the Queensland Parliament, Mr Neil
Laurie, who hosted a presentation and discussion about electronic petitioning
on 12 April 2013 following the Committee’s public hearing with petitioners from
Brisbane. The presentation by the Deputy Clerk, Mr Michael Ries and the
Executive Secretary, Ms Sandy Musch, provided an overview of the e‑petition
request and website integration.
3.30
There will always be a place for traditional paper‑based
petitioning. Not only does the traditional method cater for people of all ages
and backgrounds, it is a well-respected mechanism for active community engagement—a
face-to-face method of disseminating information, interacting with people and
challenging the views of citizens and petitioners alike. It is much more than
just a signature count.
Resourcing implications and committee activities
3.31
The Committee’s primary function is to ensure petitions comply with
House requirements. In tandem with this gatekeeper role, the Committee also
acts as a conduit for the presentation of in-order petitions and ministerial
responses to the House.
3.32
The Committee is supported by a small secretariat which receives
supplementary temporary support at times of substantial demand.
3.33
The detailed administrative nature of the process—cyclical preparation
of petitions for assessment, preparation of certified documents for
presentation, along with their associated papers—necessarily means the
Committee’s primary function absorbs most of the Committee’s and the
secretariat’s time.
3.34
In the 43rd Parliament the volume of petitions received
increased[31] 32 per cent on the total
received in the 42nd parliament.[32] Also, the total
signature count of all petitions presented increased 110 per cent on the 42nd
parliament count (from 564 058 signatures to 1 187 222).
3.35
The third largest petition tabled in the House since 1988 (when
signature counts were first recorded), with a signature count of 225 328,
was presented in 2011.[33] It is significant that
even if the signature count of this very large petition is deducted from the
total count for the 43rd parliament, there is still a considerable
increase in the total signature count—of 71 per cent.
3.36
The regular pattern of private meetings to assess petitions and receive
responses and other correspondence, followed by the Chair’s presentation on the
following sitting Monday is the Committee’s core business. Increases in the
numbers of petitions received and the signature counts of ‘in order’ petitions
are pleasing for what they imply about Australians’ regard for petitioning the
House. But they also mean that resources are focused on the gatekeeping and
stewardship roles of the Committee.
3.37
These increases—and likely commensurate increases in ministerial
responses—are likely to mean that a future Committee will be unable to increase
the number of public round table meetings. However, it will be important
to continue to hold round table meetings with principal petitioners and
public servants on selected petitions.
3.38
The impact on Committee and secretariat resources from any future
introduction of e-petitioning—and its operation in parallel with the paper
system—is unknown. The Queensland Parliament’s experience of a settling-in
phase, followed by a balancing out of resource demands, may be repeated in the
House. E‑petitioning through a Committee administered site should, over
time, reduce repeated secretariat liaison with prospective petitioners, reduce
manual signature counts and ultimately lower the number of out-of-order
petitions.
Parliamentary debate on the subject matter of petitions
3.39
The Committee is aware of examples in other parliaments where debate on
the subject matter of a petition is enabled once particular requirements, such
as a target number of signatures is reached. An example of this is in the
United Kingdom House of Commons where debates have been held in Westminster
Hall (the equivalent of the Federation Chamber) on petitions that have received
100,000 signatures. (Admittedly, these are electronic petitions and they are
addressed to the Government rather than to the House of Commons.) The process
involves the Leader of the House writing to the Backbench Business Committee to
notify it when an e‑petition to Government has received 100 000
signatures. The Backbench Business Committee then considers whether a debate
should take place.[34]
3.40
The Petitions Committee has considered these possibilities in the
context of the House and suggests that a future Petitions Committee may choose
to write regularly to the Selection Committee to advise it of the number and
topics and respective numbers of signatures of petitions that have been
presented in the last month or so. This would assist the Selection Committee
when it allocates times for private Members’ business items in its possession
(according to the current Selection Committee’s general principles relating to
the selection of private Members’ business).
3.41
It is reasonable to suppose that the kinds of current issues that
motivate petitioners to compile petitions will be very similar to those that
motivate Members to include them in private Members’ business items they
propose. This informal mechanism would be flexible and would avoid the need to
include elaborate mechanisms in the Standing Orders directly linked to
petitions—and with the potential for disappointment and manipulation if
particular numbers of signatories, for example, were set as guaranteeing some
kind of debate.
Conclusions
3.42
The Committee considered its work, with particular reference to its role
and operations and the effectiveness of the relevant Standing Orders. In so
doing it has considered the practical and historical changes in petitioning the
House and their possible implications for the future. It has also considered
the formal changes to the petitioning framework in the last two parliaments.
3.43
The current framework operates well and the Committee has no particular
recommendations for amendments. It reiterates its commitment to the House
introducing an e-petitioning system administered by the Committee, in tandem
with the traditional paper-based method.
3.44
The Committee is pleased with the way its role and operations are conducted
and it has welcomed the candid and overwhelmingly positive remarks from
principal petitioners and other interested parties about the petitioning
process. This process will no doubt continue to change incrementally as the
petitioning environment changes. However, the current arrangements continue to
be successful in strengthening accessibility, transparency and accountability.
The current process maintains the six fundamental principles of petitioning
which the Procedure Committee outlined as vital foundations of the House’s
petitions process.