John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have noted in the past, and reiterated at the beginning of this year, the House Petitions Committee's primary role is as a certifier and conduit for the tabling of in-order petitions and their ministerial responses. It also plays an important role in communicating tabling milestones to principal petitioners and in educating the Australian public about the petitioning process.

The committee's role is a neutral one. It does not certify petitions on the basis of subject matter bias. Similarly, it does not investigate or promote individual petitions, nor does it have the power to pursue ministerial responses. What it can do, however, is facilitate further discussions on selected petitioning matters through the committee's roundtable public meetings.

Periodically, the Petitions Committee holds roundtable hearings with principal petitioners to enable discourse and examination of selected petitions that have been presented to this House. The committee may also discuss some petitions and the responses to them via hearings it holds with relevant public servants. Neither style of hearing is an investigation or scrutiny exercise.

In this regard, the committee will be meeting with officials from the Department of Health and Ageing and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities this Wednesday to discuss a range of petitions falling under the respective portfolio areas.

As much as it would be rewarding for petitioners to see a nice, neat resolution to their concern outlined in the ministerial response to their petition, in a well-functioning democracy this a rarity. Therefore, the executive's response to a petition which is anticipated to be received by the committee within a few months of referral does not represent a granting or a denial of a wish—and most petitioners would understand this.

The formulation of new government policy and administrative processes may take many months of research, consideration and testing before being implemented or, indeed, rejected. And legislative changes, which must also progress through our robust parliamentary process, may take longer. This means that a ministerial response, in an entirely practical sense, cannot be expected to convey a solution to the vast majority of petition matters. Rather, it will outline, at a particular point in time, why a circumstance may exist, and why the government acts, or does not act, in a particular way. Moreover, a ministerial response represents the formal acknowledgment that the petition matter has been considered by the minister.

Given this, there is benefit in the committee conducting public meetings with petitioners or public servants on some petitions to draw out more about the background of the matter, the petitioner's suggested resolution and to discuss the ministerial response. This is particularly worthwhile when ministerial responses point to continuing inquiry work, pending legislation or reviews underway on the matter raised.

The 'snapshot in time' nature of ministerial responses means that some petitions may receive a response just prior to change, which, if prepared only six or 12 months later, may have resulted in quite a different response. As the committee does not re-refer petitions to the ministry for updates, the roundtable hearings held with departmental officials provides a one-off opportunity for an up-to-date briefing.

The committee last conducted public hearings in the Perth region in August 2012. These hearings were with principal petitioners of selected petitions generated from that region. The hearings provided the advocates of petitions with an opportunity to discuss the petition matter with the committee members and elaborate on the background to their petition. Discussions covered the genesis of the matter, the impacts and the action the petitioners wished the government to take. It afforded the committee the opportunity to learn more about the issue raised and for the principal petitioners to see their issue with fresh eyes—something petitioners are often confronted with when gathering signatures. The transcripts of these meetings are published in Hansard and are available on the committee's website for everybody to see. This enables many people to access the dialogue about the petitioners' concern and the government's standpoint—and that is a good thing.

Petitioners participating in roundtable hearings with the expectation that the committee will resolve their issue, advocate on the matter or report to the House with recommendations to government will be disappointed. This type of activity is beyond the scope of the committee's role.

Past hearings have also provided the added opportunity for the committee to learn of the reasons why petitioners utilised the House's petitioning process to air their concerns rather than other mechanisms and what they thought of the process.

Finally, the committee will be undertaking further roundtable hearings with principal petitioners in mid-April. I will update the House on these hearings in May.