Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to outline for the House some of the work of the Procedure Committee since it was first established—and that was on the first day of this new parliament in February 2008. On that first day the House adopted some changes to the standing orders, including a new standing order that established the Standing Committee on Petitions and gave it its mandate. The committee’s role is to:

… receive and process petitions, and to inquire into and report to the House on any matter relating to petitions and the petitions system.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the standing orders also set out some changes to the ways that petitions were to be prepared and presented and responded to. Those changes might sound innocuous, but they have had quite an impact. Since the committee first met, in March 2008, we have been working out the details of our own role and practices as we go along. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the committee has begun the practice of having roundtable meetings, or committee hearings, with petitioners and public servants, where there is an opportunity to follow up on the issues raised by petitioners.

Since September last year, the House has enabled us to begin another practice, and that is on Monday evenings I present to the House the petitions that have been approved by the committee as ‘in order’ and that will not be presented by another member as well as written responses by ministers to petitions. These announcements are followed by statements by me and my committee colleagues to inform the House about recent activities of the committee, such as the roundtable meetings on petitions that I referred to earlier, and other issues relating to petitions that can usefully be brought to the attention of the House.

The subjects and concerns reflected in the petitions that come to the House are many and varied. While some petitions address local and even individual grievances and concerns, to a large extent they mirror the major issues of the day. It is natural that people will want to raise those issues directly with the House and ask that action be taken on them.

The committee’s website has collected and published petitions under the broad portfolio areas to which they relate. Some of the broad themes that are recurring include communications, foreign affairs, the environment, education, and health. For example, petitions have been presented regarding:

• radio broadcasting, post offices and mobile phone coverage;
• war and human rights;
• global warming, water,  and renewable energy;
• funding for schools and universities, and assistance for students; and
• aged care, dental care and pharmaceutical benefits.

Alongside the terms of these petitions that are published on the website, the committee has placed the responses ministers have made. One of the real success stories about the new arrangements, and about the committee, is the sustained level of responsiveness by ministers to the committee’s referrals of petitions—and I thank those ministers.

I will repeat some things that I have said before. First, it is unlikely that every petition is going to receive a positive response from a minister, at least in the sense of agreeing to take the action that petitioners request. Second, what is likely is that a minister and his or her department will let the committee know what their views are and what action can be taken or has been taken on the issue that is raised. In turn, when the committee publishes those responses it is informing not only the petitioners about the result of their approach to the House but also anyone in the community who might be interested in the same issues.

I know my committee colleague the member for Gippsland has some views about the value of petitions and the new petitioning arrangements, and I will close with some statistics that I think the House will find interesting. Between 1992 and 2007, some 6,451 petitions were presented to the House. In that fifteen year period, 15 ministerial responses were presented. Since the new arrangements began in 2008, some 181 petitions have been presented and 89 ministerial responses received. This evening, we can add to those figures another four petitions and another four responses by ministers. I think those simple figures speak volumes.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions. I congratulate the chair on the wonderful work she is doing in the leadership role she is playing on behalf of the parliament. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, the Standing Committee on Petitions is a relatively new committee which seeks to build on an honoured tradition of parliament: the acceptance of petitions on the grievances and concerns of ordinary people. We think that petitions continue to play a very important role in the life of this democracy. The work of the committee is to ensure that continues to happen.

Since the committee was created, new conventions have been put in place on presenting petitions in parliament. Petitions to the House of Representatives come either direct to the committee or through the offices of members. As you would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the committee scrutinises petitions and approves those it considers to be in order. This means, first, the petition makes a request that the House is capable of addressing and that it is to be addressed to the House of Representatives. To be considered in order there are also other conditions to be satisfied: that the terms of the petition are less than 250 words; that an identical request appears on each page where there are signatures; that the name, address and signature of the principal petitioner appear on the first page of the petition; and that the petition employs moderate language. We on the committee seek to emphasise the benefits of maintaining these conventions.

If a petition does not meet the criteria for being considered in order or if a member seeks to present a petition outside of the Standing Committee on Petitions approval process, the status of the petition diminishes considerably. What would have been a petition for the purposes of the House becomes simply a document of the House and it loses some of its character as a petition. I believe this is a less rewarding and less happy outcome for the hardworking petitioners who collected the signatures in the first place. If on the other hand the committee finds a petition in order and members wish to speak to it in the chamber, that is the best of all outcomes. A concern from outside the parliament has got some wind under its sails and can be the focus of attention in the chamber. I believe that can be a very significant thing for petitioners.

Another aspect of the work of the Standing Committee on Petitions, which the chair referred to, is ministerial responses, which have been generally prompt and to the point. Petitioners know their efforts are not wasted and that, once they have submitted their petition to the House, it does not get lost completely and they get a decent response. People who support petitions may not always get the answers they want but know that the petition has been taken seriously. That is something that the community certainly respects. It helps to put any concerns that are raised by the general community on the public agenda.

Very recently we had many petitions distributed throughout the electorate of Gippsland in relation to the youth allowance. I understand there are several more petitions on that issue. That is something I believe is very important because it is getting a lot of young people involved in the process. A large number of signatures have been collected throughout Australia on that particular issue. It remains to be seen whether the petitions themselves get the answers desired in the time ahead. It really is an opportunity for the Australian community to have their say through the Standing Committee on Petitions. It provides them with a voice in this chamber. It is now up to us as members of that committee to make sure that voice is heard in this place. (Time expired)