Chapter 1 Introduction
Petitioning the House of Representatives
History of petitioning the House
1.1
The right of citizens to petition the Parliament stems from traditions
across many different civilisations. In the Westminster system it can be traced
back to the 13th century when petitioning the Crown was relied on for
redress of grievances. Later, petitioning was the principal manner in which legislation
was developed.[1] By the 17th
century—when in 1669 the rights of petitioners and the power of the House of Commons
to address petitions were affirmed by two resolutions—the form and purpose of
petitions had evolved to the style that we see reflected in current petitioning.[2]
1.2
When the Commonwealth of Australia was created in 1901, petitioning
traditions passed from the Australian colonies to both the houses of the Federal
Parliament, enabling the citizens of Australia to make direct representations
to either the lower or the upper house.[3]
1.3
Since Federation, petitions to the House of Representatives have
generally either sought to change, amend or introduce legislation (or other
administrative practices), take action for a certain purpose, or to redress a
local or personal grievance. Over time, petitions calling for redress of
personal concerns have lessened, mainly because the Commonwealth government
provides other mechanisms, in the first instance, for citizens to seek to
resolve these sorts of issues.[4]
1.4
Between 1901 and the end of the 41st parliament in 2007, 50 045
petitions were presented in the House.[5] The popularity of
petitioning appears to have waxed and waned over that period. Its pinnacle, in
terms of volume of petitions, was in the 1970s and 1980s. The lowest annual
number of petitions presented in the House between 1975 and 1989 was 1 340,
with an average of 2 357 petition presentations per annum over that 15 year
period.[6] But, by the 1990s
petitioning the House appeared to have comparatively fallen out of public
favour, with the highest number of presentations in the period 1990 to 2007
reaching 843, the lowest 232.[7]
Reinvigoration of the House’s petitioning processes
1.5
In 2007 the House of Representatives Procedure Committee inquired into
the House’s petitioning processes.[8] It concluded that the
long-standing petitioning practices of the House no longer best served the way
citizens engaged with parliament, and as a consequence the status of
petitioning had declined. The Procedure Committee asserted that petitioning the
House of Representatives should be based on the following six fundamental principles:
That petitions belong to the public
1.6
Underpinning this is the belief that petitions are the most direct form
of communication between the public and the House.
Petitions sent to the House should be addressed by the House
1.7
The Procedure Committee considered the establishment of a Committee to
facilitate the tabling of petitions complying with House requirements and to communicate
with petitioners about the status of their petitions was an effective way for
the House to address petitions it received.
Governments should respond
1.8
The Committee considered that strengthening the process of responses to
petitions by Ministers would ensure petitions were seen as a worthwhile
democratic tool.
Members’ involvement should be enhanced and streamlined
1.9
The Committee recognised the important role Members play in liaising
with citizens, raising petition issues in the House, and tabling petitions. It
wanted better support for Members to contribute to this process.
Rules should be relevant and fair; and
1.10
Preparing a petition should not be excessively difficult and the rules
governing petitions should not prove unnecessarily onerous.
Information technologies should be used more effectively.
1.11
The Committee decided it was important to embrace new information
technologies to provide people with different means of obtaining information
about the petitioning process and providing an alternative to paper-based
petitioning. The Committee recommended the introduction of electronic
petitioning.
1.12
The Committee also noted that, importantly, outside the parliamentary
domain, the act of petitioning serves to air and strengthen community views on
an issue.[9]
1.13
The Committee made seven recommendations, primarily relating to the
accountability and certainty of the House’s practices with respect to
petitioning, and communicating with petitioners about action on their petition.
1.14
Its primary recommendation was for the House to establish a Petitions
Committee to provide independent oversight of the House’s standing order
requirements and to act as a conduit between petitioners and the House. The
Committee also recommended it be able to inquire into petitioning matters and
report on any possible action.
1.15
The Procedure Committee also recommended:
n A limit of 250 words
be imposed on the terms of the petition;
n Ministers be expected
to respond to petitions referred to them by the Petitions Committee within 90
days of presentation of the petition;
n Certain additional
times be available for Members to present petitions;
n The prohibition on
petitions indicating sponsorship or distribution by Members be removed;
n The Department of the
House of Representatives create a webpage that is visible from the Parliament’s
home page, and provides access to guidance on preparing a petition;
n Only the ‘principal
petitioner’ be required to provide full contact details; and
n An electronic
petitioning system be introduced in the House of Representatives.[10]
The establishment of the first House Standing Committee on Petitions
1.16
In January 2008, the incoming Government anticipated the establishment
of a House Petitions Committee. The Leader of the House noted that this
initiative was ‘an important reform which strengthens the democratic rights of
citizens and ensures that parliament is listening and responding
appropriately’.[11]
1.17
Accordingly, at the beginning of the 42nd parliament, on 12
February 2008, new and revised Standing and Sessional Orders were introduced to
support the reformed petitions process and to establish the first Petitions Committee.[12]
The new framework also provided:
n A requirement for the
Petitions Committee to assess compliance of each petition submitted for
presentation (whether received directly from a petitioner or via a Member) with
House Standing Orders. If the petition complied it would then be approved by
the Committee for presentation in the House.
n The Committee had
discretion to decide whether to refer a petition to the relevant portfolio
Minister or Ministers of the subject matter issue of the petition.
n The introduction of a
250 word limit for the terms of the petition (that is, the address to the
House, the reason for petitioning the House and the request for the House to
take action).
n A requirement that
the main organiser of the petition, the nominated principal petitioner must be
clearly identified on the front or first page of the petition, along with their
full name, contact details and their handwritten original signature.
n Petitions could
either be presented by the Speaker of the House (with the Clerk announcing
details)[13] or by an individual
Member.
n Opportunities to
present petitions were increased. Members could present petitions during
Members’ 90 second statements in the House and 3 minute statements in the Main
Committee,[14] in the adjournment
debate in both the House and the Main Committee and during the grievance
debate.
n Ministers were
expected to respond to the Committee about petitions referred to them by the Committee
within 90 days of presentation, by lodging a written response with the
Committee. The Ministerial responses were then to be presented in the House,[15]
published in Hansard and published on the House of Representatives website.
1.18
That first Petitions Committee, the Committee of the 42nd
Parliament, recorded its history, procedural framework, and operations in the
report, The Work of the First Petitions Committee: 2008-2010.[16]
The Petitions Committee of the 43rd Parliament
1.19
The Standing Committee on Petitions of the 43rd Parliament
was established on 25 October 2010, and the full complement of members were
appointed to the Committee the same day.[17] The Committee held its
first meeting two days later, on 27 October 2010.
1.20
The Committee has operated under a single set of petitioning Standing Orders
since its establishment in 2010.[18] The Committee will have
conducted 52 meetings, including public hearings, since its first meeting and
the presentation of this report.
The inquiry
1.21
On 13 February 2013 the Petitions Committee resolved to conduct an
inquiry into its work throughout the 43rd Parliament.
1.22
Terms of Reference for the inquiry were: to inquire into and report on
the work of the Standing Committee on Petitions, with particular reference to:
a) the role and operations of the
Standing Committee on Petitions; and
b) the effectiveness of the Standing
Orders as they relate to petitions.
1.23
The Committee’s primary objective for the inquiry was to provide an
overview of its operations during the 43rd Parliament, to evaluate how
these might have evolved, and to consider what further refinements might be
necessary.
1.24
The Committee’s work is quite public: decisions it makes are largely
embodied in announcements made by the Chair each sitting week, current
activities are canvassed in the Chair’s statements to the House, and
transcripts of roundtable meetings are available on its website. The Committee
did not investigate any particular facet of petitioning, nor did it call for
submissions—so much of the information about its operations is on the public
record. It did, however, ask for feedback from witnesses/principal petitioners
at its roundtable meetings into selected petitions, to determine their views on
the process that began in 2008.
The report
1.25
This report addresses each of the terms of reference in the following
two chapters. Chapter 2 considers the work of the Committee of the 43rd
Parliament—its role and operations—and identifies some of the incremental
changes that have been made over the last three years.
1.26
In Chapter 3 the Committee considers the current Standing Orders
relating to its work and outlines its conclusions for the future role and
operations of the Committee. In doing so it considers the potential impact of
electronic petitioning, the response of petitioners to the current system, and
possibilities for the House to debate the subject matter of petitions.
1.27
Appendices to the report include current Standing Orders and former
Standing and Sessional Orders (Appendix A), non-inquiry public round table
meetings held (Appendix B) and petitioning statistics (Appendix C).
1.28
The Committee considers that the underlying principles of petitioning,
as enunciated by the Procedure Committee, remain relevant and important in the
conduct of its work and the value of that work to the House and to Australian
citizens who seek to engage with the House.