Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context