Chapter 3 Relevant and fair rules
3.1
Petitions are often rendered ineffective by the system of rules and
regulations for petitions to the House.
3.2
In Miss Margaret Clinch’s view, clearer petitioning rules are required
to re-establish the status of petitions in our democracy. She states:
The status and processes of the petition system need to be
more properly defined, so that people know they can depend on them, politicians
treat them seriously, and the major parties respect them.[1]
3.3
This chapter considers the existing rules applying to the petitioning
process and proposes solutions to reduce the number of petitions the House
currently defines as inadmissible (‛out of order’).
In addition, the committee proposes improvements to the House of
Representatives website and the introduction of e-petitioning.
Current rules
3.4
Standing orders 204 to 206 require that a petition for presentation to
the House:
n be addressed to the
House of Representatives and its Members;
n refer to a matter the
House of Representatives is able to act on, such as a Commonwealth legislative
or administrative matter;
n include a request for
the House or Parliament to take action;
n state the facts of
the issue;
n be legibly written
and presented on paper with no further attachments, in the English language or
with a certified translation;
n be written in
respectful, courteous and moderate language;
n contain the signature
and address of at least one person;
n contain the terms of
the petition on every signed page; and
n not contain
signatures which are copied, pasted or transferred onto the petition or written
on the reverse of a petition.[2]
3.5
The underlying intention of these rules is to ensure petitions can be
authenticated. A petition’s authenticity protects both the petitioner and the
House.[3] The House must be confident
that those who sign are ‛real individuals’ who support the subject of the
petition.
Out of order petitions
3.6
Petitions that do not conform to the standing orders are considered to
be ‛out of order’. Petitions, for example, addressed to Ministers and the
Government, rather than the Speaker and Members, or which fail to contain a
request for the House to take action, are considered out of order.
3.7
While the committee is keen to address the problem of petitions being
out of order because they fail a technical test, it is noted that some
petitions should be disallowed before they are ever presented to the
House. These include petitions which are unlawful (see paragraph 3.23 below) or
otherwise offensive or inappropriate. The committee considers that the proposed
Petitions Committee should have the discretion to disallow such ‛petitions’.
3.8
In relation to petitions ruled out of order on technical grounds, an
analysis of 14 such ‛petitions’ from a sample period of sitting weeks[4]
shows that:
n five did not include
a full address (but rather indicated only the petitioner’s suburb);
n four were not
addressed to the House of Representatives;
n four had incomplete
petitioning terms or did not include the terms on each page signed by
petitioners;
n two had differing
terms on the same petition;
n two did not state any
facts;
n one sought no
particular remedy;
n one did not concern
an issue that the Australian Government could act on; and
n one included an
attachment.
Table 3.1 Comparison of petition numbers and signatures
in the 41st Parliament
|
Portfolio
|
In Order petitions
|
Out of order
petitions
|
|
|
Number of petitions
|
Number of signatories
|
Number of petitions
|
Number of signatories
|
|
Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry
|
7
|
17,750
|
0
|
0
|
|
Arts and Sport
|
4
|
2,391
|
2
|
7,881
|
|
Attorney-General
|
15
|
12,672
|
12
|
49,755
|
|
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
|
30
|
13,522
|
7
|
2,166
|
|
Community Services
|
2
|
2,283
|
3
|
2,511
|
|
Defence
|
16
|
4,998
|
7
|
20,844
|
|
Education, Science and Training
|
14
|
7,836
|
3
|
602
|
|
Employment and Workplace Relations
|
70
|
41,690
|
9
|
164,765
|
|
Environment and Heritage
|
42
|
20,634
|
4
|
1,842
|
|
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
|
30
|
42,532
|
6
|
5,160
|
|
Foreign Affairs
|
164
|
120,883
|
33
|
21,180
|
|
Health and Ageing
|
170
|
199,002
|
52
|
119,611
|
|
Human Services
|
5
|
7,366
|
0
|
0
|
|
Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
|
106
|
19,093
|
9
|
2,899
|
|
Industry, Tourism and Resources
|
4
|
690
|
0
|
0
|
|
Justice and Customs
|
1
|
15
|
0
|
0
|
|
Local Government, Territories and Roads
|
4
|
20,274
|
2
|
850
|
|
Prime Minister
|
11
|
14,148
|
3
|
310
|
|
Special Minister of State
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Trade
|
1
|
17
|
3
|
206
|
|
Transport and Regional Services
|
19
|
22,399
|
1
|
750
|
|
Treasurer
|
17
|
20,008
|
3
|
20,444
|
|
Veterans’ Affairs
|
10
|
14,830
|
2
|
5,390
|
|
Total
|
743
|
605,034
|
161
|
427,166
|
Source Chamber Research Office, 21 June 2007
3.9
Since 1988, out of order petitions have been tabled by the Leader of the
House. This was initially an interim measure to prevent disadvantage to
petitioners who had prepared their petitions before stricter rules had come
into effect.[5] This process, however,
has become institutionalised.[6] Out of order petitions
are usually tabled as documents by the Leader of the House on the last Thursday
of a block of sittings. As documents however, the terms of the ‛petition’
are not forwarded to the relevant Minister and therefore there is no possibility
of follow up action.
3.10
As evident in table 3.1, 743 petitions have been presented so far this
Parliament in accordance with the standing orders, but a further 161 have been submitted
out of order—that is, 18 per cent of all petitions submitted to the House are
out of order. Moreover, 41 per cent of signatures to petitions have been
made on out of order petitions. That so many petitioners are signing out of
order petitions which will never be referred to a Minister for further action
provides great cause for concern. Remedial action is clearly required.
Reducing the number of out of order petitions
3.11
The committee is of the view that a number of measures need to be taken
to reduce the unacceptably high number of out of order petitions. These would include:
n reviewing the current
requirements in the standing orders with the object of further simplifying
them;
n improving the House
of Representatives website on petitions to educate the public about the
requirements and processes and to include details of a contact person from the
Department of the House of Representatives responsible for providing advice on
petitioning matters (the staff of the petitions committee could have this role);
n providing a much
clearer proforma from which to model petitions;
n changing the
requirement that petitioners provide their name and full address, in line with
privacy concerns (though the full contact details of the ‛principal
petitioner’ would be necessary); and
n introducing
e-petitioning.
The House website
3.12
The House of Representatives has published an Infosheet on
petitions, available on its website and in hard copy from the Department’s
Chamber Research Office.[7] However, as GetUp notes,
it is difficult to find information on petitions quickly on the website.[8]
The organisation further notes that the ‛tone of the information once
found is not welcoming, transparent or encouraging—rather it serves to give
pause to citizens wanting to present a petition’.[9]
The Clerk of the House suggests that information on petitions could be made
more prominent on the House’s website by placing ‛a button on the first
screen of the House site.’[10]
3.13
As a means of reducing out of order petitions, the Clerk also suggests that
it would be helpful to have proposed petitions submitted to a parliamentary
officer ‛so that their technical validity could be checked.’[11]
If a petitions committee is established, this could be one of its roles,
advised by the Clerk where necessary.
3.14
The committee strongly endorses improvements to the House of
Representatives website and recommends that the Department of the House of
Representatives create a specific page on petitions.
Recommendation 5 |
|
The committee recommends that the Department of the House of
Representatives create a petitions specific webpage on its website that:
n is
visibly accessible from the home page;
n provides
details of a parliamentary officer to whom questions on the petitioning
process, including the proposed terms of a petition, may be addressed; and
n makes
available a recommended form of a petition (or a petition proforma).
|
Layout of the proforma
3.15
The House of Representatives currently produces paper and electronic
versions of a petition proforma to assist petitioners. The layout of the
proforma, however, was of some concern. The Catholic Women’s League Australia
(CWLA) suggested that the space allocated for petitioner details be expanded to
increase the amount of effective space on each sheet.[12]
3.16
The committee agrees that the proforma requires further development. The
production of a stand alone document, accessible from the new webpage, would
make it easier for petitioners to assemble petitions and would also increase
the space for signatures.
3.17
The proforma would be streamlined if only the principal petitioner were
required to provide full contact details and other signatories be required to
provide only postcode details (see ‛Privacy requirements’ below). In the
context of the proforma layout, many more signatures would then fit on each
page. The redesigned proforma should be made available in all Members
electorate offices as well as on the website.
Privacy requirements
3.18
GetUp questioned the need for the House to receive the name and address
of a petitioner, expressing the view that this requirement amounts to an
invasion of privacy and serves as a disincentive for individuals to participate
in petitioning.[13] GetUp therefore recommends
that only a name, state and postcode be required, considering these sufficient
for statistical and fraud prevention purposes.[14]
3.19
The committee accepts that privacy concerns continue to evolve. In the
past, the intention of requiring addresses (introduced in 1988) was to assure
the House that the person signing a petition was in fact a ‛real
individual’. Today, names and addresses are no longer used to verify signatures.
Indeed, the ‛existence’ of a person can be checked with a name and
postcode. In addition, privacy concerns have become more pressing with the
possibility of contact details being posted on the internet and easily ‛Googled’.
3.20
The committee therefore recommends that persons signing a petition be
required to provide only their name and postcode. The principal petitioner,
however, should still provide full contact details including a street address
on the front page of the petition.
Recommendation 6 |
|
The committee recommends that a principal petitioner be
required to provide full contact details including name, address and postcode
on the front page of a petition. Other petitioners need only provide their
name and postcode. |
Language of petitions
3.21
Miss Clinch suggested that the standing orders be amended to require
that the language of petitions be ‛modern and respectful, and no longer
demeaning.’[15]
3.22
The committee agrees that the language required for a petition should not
be obsolete and demeaning. The requirement should be simply that the language
used should be ‛moderate’.
3.23
Petitions which contravene existing Commonwealth legislation, such as
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, should not be considered in order. As
outlined in the previous chapter, a petitions committee could identify any
unlawful petitioning terms and negotiate more appropriate terms with the
principal petitioner.
Different rules for Senate and House?
3.24
Two submissions make note of the difficulty experienced in preparing
petitions given the different requirements of the House of Representatives and Senate.[16]
The GetUp submission suggests the two houses should not have different
requirements for petitions given these may cause some confusion amongst
petitioners and may act as a disincentive to initiate petitions.[17]
The GetUp submission therefore suggests that petitions be directed to the
Parliament as a whole.
3.25
While the committee understands this suggestion, there is an overriding
problem in implementing it. The Constitution establishes the two houses as
separate bodies which each have the ability to make rules about the order and
conduct of business and proceedings.[18] Importantly, these need
not be the same rules. The committee therefore does not accept this suggestion.
New media and petitions
3.26
Rapid advances in technology are having an impact on Parliament and the
political process. Most Members and Senators now have their own websites and
interact with constituents in entirely new ways, including through e-mail and
personal websites and blogs. Inevitably, these new media have had an impact on
the petitioning process.[19]
3.27
Comprehensive electronic petitioning systems have now been introduced in
the Scottish, German, Queensland and Tasmanian parliaments. The British
Government recently announced its endorsement of e-petitioning in the House of
Commons, following the model introduced in November 2006 to petition the Prime
Minister.[20]
3.28
In addition both the Australian Senate and the Northern Territory
Legislative Assembly now accept electronic petitions. In each case, the Senator
or Member is required to certify the authenticity of an electronic petition. It
is understood that electronic petitions do not constitute a high proportion of
petitions presented to the Senate, although a number have been signed by larger
numbers of signatories that traditional petitions.[21]
Established e-petitioning systems
3.29
The Queensland Parliament introduced a trial e-petitions system in 2002,
extending this more formally in 2003.[22] This initiative was part
of the Queensland Government’s wider program of e-democracy.[23]
3.30
A petitioner wishing to submit an e-petition must seek the sponsorship
of a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The endorsement of a Member is
required for e-petitions to ensure such petitions are not frivolous or contrary
to the standing orders. A sponsoring Member is permitted to request changes to
an e-petition before submitting it to the Clerk.
3.31
Once a petitioner has secured the support of a Member, the petitioner
completes an e-petition request form which outlines the:
n wording of the
petition;
n period it will be
hosted on the Queensland Parliament website (between 1 week and 6 months);
n eligibility
requirements of petitioners (including the requirement that a person may only
join an e-petition once and may not use a false name); and
n details of the
sponsoring Member and principal petitioner.[24]
3.32
On acceptance of the conditions of use, an individual receives a random
identification number which must be recorded on the petition, along with his or
her name, address (including postcode) and email address.[25]
3.33
Once the Member and principal petitioner are satisfied with the terms of
the petition, the Member submits the form to the Clerk of the Parliament, who
examines the petition to ensure it is consistent with the standing orders.
Compliant petitions are then hosted on the Queensland Parliament website for
the period indicated on the e-petition request form. The Parliament does not
promote the petition in any way; it merely facilitates the petitioning process
by hosting the petition on its website. It is the responsibility of the
principal petitioner to raise community awareness of his or her petition.
3.34
When the e-petition’s period for hosting on the Queensland Parliament
website has expired, the petition is removed and the Clerk of the Parliament
presents the petition to the Parliament in the name of the sponsoring Member at
the first available opportunity. As with paper petitions, the Government is not
obliged to respond to e-petitions tabled in Parliament.
3.35
As noted by Mr Phillip Grimshaw, the Queensland model also allows
citizens to view the status of petitions and monitor whether any response has
been provided.[26] A 2003 online survey of
the Queensland Parliament’s e-petitioning system found that 72 per cent of
respondents returned to the e-petitions website to view the ministerial
response.
3.36
The Tasmanian House of Assembly follows the same guidelines and
processes, and uses the same software as the Queensland Parliament. The only
major difference between the Queensland and Tasmanian systems is the issue of
Government responses. In Tasmania a Government response to each petition is
required to be laid before the House within 15 sitting days of its
communication to the Premier.[27]
3.37
The Scottish Parliament formally introduced an e-petition system in
February 2004. Petitions are hosted on the parliamentary website for an agreed
period of between four and six weeks. Each petition has its own online
discussion forum, enabling discussion of the petition and related issues. Petitioners
may seek support for their petition from anywhere around the world. Petitions
are not presented by Members of the Scottish Parliament but are sent to the
Public Petitions Committee (PPC) by the organisers. Detailed guidelines and
proformas are available from the PPC. Once the period for hosting the
e-petition has expired, it is processed and examined by the PPC.
3.38
The German Bundestag introduced a system similar to that used in Scotland in September 2005.[28] While the Bundestag
receives a high number of petitions, e-petitions do not yet constitute a large
proportion of petitions presented.
Internet based ‛petitions’
3.39
In addition to electronic petitions hosted on parliamentary websites,
GetUp referred to internet based ‛petitions’ which are essentially
campaigns hosted by a third party (for example, GetUp), that seek to foster
debate and issue awareness.[29] While in a procedural
sense these are not petitions to the House, GetUp argued that this kind of
petition has become:
n more accessible than
paper petitions given (particularly young) Australians’ take up of the
internet, and its availability in libraries, schools, churches and community
centres;
n cost effective to
organise, disseminate, collect and deliver; and
n more effective in reaching
many people in a short amount of time.[30]
3.40
In response to the arguments cited against internet based petitions,[31]
the organisation was keen to reassure the committee of the automated and manual
procedures it has in place to verify signatures and ensure petitions are not
altered. It suggested that these mechanisms were in fact more rigorous than
those currently in place to ensure the veracity of paper based petitions.[32]
Given that signatures and addresses are not validated on paper petitions, Getup
has a good point.
E-petitioning in the House of Representatives?
3.41
There are strong proponents of e-petitioning particularly in those
parliaments which successfully use the practice. Electronic petitions are seen
as a reflection of societal changes in modern information communication
technologies. They are also seen as a way of enhancing the democratic process.
As Mr Phillip Grimshaw noted, ‛Government needs tools to assist it
in making decisions and defining laws that better reflect community needs but
in less time.’[33] E-petitions are
therefore considered a means of reinvigorating traditional and administratively
cumbersome processes. On this, the Clerk of the House of Representatives agreed
noting ‛that making the House more open to the people is an institutional
obligation.’[34]
3.42
The ease with which members of the public can indicate support for a
particular issue was also identified as a great advantage. Miss Clinch submitted that electronic petitions should be accepted because ‛they are
usually raised on matters of major significance throughout the nation.’[35]
3.43
When the committee previously reviewed the issue of electronic
petitions, it chose not to recommend their introduction to the House of
Representatives.[36] The committee identified
two major difficulties with e‑petitions:
n verification of
signatures and ensuring a petition had not been altered after people had signed
it; and
n the lack of any face
to face soliciting of signatures, which the committee saw as a valuable means
by which to involve people in debate on an issue.[37]
3.44
Perhaps both these concerns have become outdated. Technological advances
are relevant to the first and the increasing role of the internet as a forum
for debate and communication addresses the second point.
3.45
Two related concerns have also been raised regarding the introduction of
e‑petitions:
n The role of the
House in ‛promoting’ petitions: there is some concern that an
e-petitions system transfers the responsibility for promoting a petition from
the petitioners to the Parliament. It has been noted, for example, that the
e-petitions pages on the Queensland Parliament’s website do not make an
explicit distinction between hosting and promoting e-petitions and that there
is a facility by which people may email links to other e-petitions. This would
seem to contravene the spirit of petitioning in the sense that the
responsibility for generating support on an issue should remain with members of
the public.
n The role of
Members: e-petition systems introduced in Australia have, at their heart,
the involvement of Members. This has been seen as an integral way of certifying
the authenticity of petitions. As with paper-based petitions, this has the
potential to imply a Members’ support for and sympathy with the terms of the
petition (with which he or she may disagree) rather than with the right of
individuals to petition the House.
Committee conclusions
3.46
Since the committee’s previous report on the subject, developments both
overseas and in Australia have changed the position of e-petitions to the
extent that the committee needs to reassess its position. As an example, the
Member for Chisholm remarked in a question to the Speaker, that the fact that
e-petitions may be presented in the Senate and not the House of Representatives
puts Members at a disadvantage.[38]
3.47
The committee considers that disallowing electronic petitions in the 21st
century essentially denies a growing number of petitioners the opportunity to
air their grievances. New information communication technologies, notably the
internet and email, can generate huge support on issues. The mere fact that a
person has not set up a booth outside the local supermarket should not render
that petition any less meaningful: ‛real individuals’ also use the
internet. The committee accepts the reality of modern lobbying and campaigning
and its inevitable impact on the petitioning process.
3.48
The committee is particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of
increasing transparency in the petitioning process with the introduction of e‑petitioning.
All stages of the process—opening, closing, presenting and responding—will be
publicly recorded and monitored on the website. The committee would expect this
transparency to have the follow on effect of encouraging more Ministers to
respond to the matters raised in petitions.
3.49
In relation to the specific concerns raised with e-petitioning systems,
the committee makes the following observations:
n Authentication of electronic
signatures: the committee is of the view that these problems are analogous
to those of authenticating signatures on paper-based petitions. As demonstrated
by the system implemented in the Queensland Parliament, information technology
has provided some means by which to prevent automatic multiple signings from,
for example, the telephone book.
n Sponsorship of
e-petitions by Members: the committee is recommending that petitions,
whether they be electronic or on paper, not require the sponsorship of a Member
or lodgement by a Member (see Recommendation 3, in the previous chapter). The
committee sees this recommendation as a key to enhancing the effectiveness of
petitions as a direct means of communication between the public and the House
and focussing Members’ involvement on the representation of petitioners’
grievances in the House.
n Promotion of
e-petitions by the House: the committee agrees that the House is the body from
which a petition seeks redress and is not the body to promote the issue.
However, the committee considers that by ‛hosting’ petitions on its
website, the House is merely providing an alternative vehicle through which
petitioners may reach a large number of sympathisers. An internet discussion
forum, as provided by the Queensland Parliament, would facilitate community
dialogue on the subject matter of the petition. The House should only need to
promote e-petitions in a broad sense, as another tool with which the public can
interact with the House.
3.50
The committee notes that the introduction of e-petitions is not intended
to replace paper petitions. These would continue as they do in other jurisdictions
where e‑petitions are currently allowed. They continue to comprise the
largest proportion of all petitions presented and to attract large numbers of
signatories.
Recommendation 7 |
|
The committee recommends that an electronic petitioning
system be introduced in the House of Representatives. |
Margaret May MP
Chair
August 2007