2.1
When conceptualising the House e-petitions system in 2009, Chair of the Committee, Ms Julie Irwin MP, noted, ‘the potential to engage a greater number of Australians in the working of their Parliament has been behind every consideration made by the Committee’.
2.2
In this inquiry, the Committee has sought to assess how easily members of the public have been able to voice their concerns via the House e-petitions process, since it commenced operating. The Committee sought feedback from individuals about their experience of e-petitions, including any changes they thought would improve the accessibility of the system.
2.3
The Committee received a range of comments from people who had engaged with the e-petitions system, both in submissions to the inquiry, and through responses to the Committee’s online survey. As one petitioner told the Committee, ‘the petition process is important and should be supported’ as the ‘people need a voice’.
2.4
Evidence received focussed on the accessibility of the e-petitions system when compared with other systems, and the ability to share and promote petitions across different social media platforms.
2.5
This chapter considers how easy the e-petitions system is to use, having regard to issues such as the functionality, design and layout of the system; the signing process for e-petitions; and the ability to share and promote petitions. This chapter also discusses accessibility of e-petitions for individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
2.6
Some evidence about the accessibility of e-petitions related to procedural matters. This chapter discusses one such issue, being the length of time that e-petitions are available to collect signatures.
2.7
Other matters that arose in evidence extend to the procedures that govern the lodgement of both paper and e-petitions more broadly. These matters are outside the scope of this inquiry, as discussed in more detail in chapter three in comparison with other jurisdictions.
Ease of use
2.8
The Committee sought to hear directly from users about their experiences with the e-petitions system. Specifically, the Committee was interested in how easily users were able to view, create, search, sign and share e-petitions.
2.9
The Committee received mixed responses about the user experience of e‑petitions, through its online user survey.
2.10
Survey data informed the Committee about how individuals were accessing e-petitions online, and whether the process was meeting users’ expectations.
2.11
Almost 46 per cent of users indicated that they accessed e-petitions via a Windows computer or tablet. Petitioners using an iPhone or iPad accounted for about 37 per cent of respondents; while 28 per cent of respondents relied on an Android phone or tablet.
2.12
When asked to rate the accessibility of the e-petitions system on their chosen device, 42 per cent of respondents using a PC or laptop indicated that the system was ‘very good’. A graph of the range of responses (from 286 people) according to device type is displayed at Figure 2.1.
2.13
The Committee sought additional comments from survey respondents, regarding the accessibility of the system. A selection of these survey responses is outlined at Box 2.1.
Box 2.1: - e-petitions user survey responses
Question 9: Do you have any comments about accessing the e-petitions system on the device(s) you have identified?
It’s easy.
Very easy to follow
The system works well, is responsive and intuitive
I personally didn’t have any problems signing, but many people signing our petition did
It’s a hidden service. I could not find much information about it, how it works etc Its like you dont want people to find it.
Make it easier
Little hard
Took a short while to find the petitions list
It’s slow to load. The formatting of the test is also not very clear.
2.14
While undertaking the inquiry, the Committee received four petitions that were prepared on behalf of a group of Year 5/6 students at St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School in Sydney. The school group lodged three paper petitions and one e-petition. The Committee asked the students for feedback on the e-petitions process during a public hearing held via videoconference from Canberra, on 6 December 2017.
2.15
Advising the Committee on how to make the e-petitions process easier, one of the students, Aden, suggested that the Committee provide a tutorial to assist people in creating an e-petition. Aden stated:
I think that you should add a small tutorial for people who don't know how to make an e-petition... It's a bit tricky for some people.
2.16
Another student, Lillian, told the Committee, ‘Maybe make it easier and simpler? That might help a bit’.
2.17
Sienna, also a student, thought the e-petitions website was quite slow to load. She suggested that ‘maybe it would make it a bit easier if you make it faster’.
2.18
Other evidence received from the general public on the accessibility of the e‑petitions system, focussed on three key areas:
the general design and layout of the page;
the ability to share and promote an e-petition; and
the signing process for e-petitions.
2.19
These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Design and layout
2.20
The design and layout of the e-petitions system was the source of much comment in submissions.
Web page design
2.21
Mr John McLean submitted that the current system was ‘clumsy, incomplete and unhelpful’. Mr McLean considered that the design of the e-petitions page could be improved with the following adjustments:
A short title needs to be included for easy identification. For humans to identify things names are much better than numbers (for example, domain names in internet addresses) so the unique number needs to be retained for computer processing but a name, not necessarily unique, is needed for humans.
The reasons for the petition are essential components and they need to be stated as clearly as possible. Formatting is an important part of clear written expression and therefore the format in which the instigator stated those reasons must be retained.
Optional supplementary information should be allowed (up to some practical word limit) so that the instigator has the opportunity to present a more thorough case. I suggest [Microsoft] Word or PDF format would be most appropriate, although checking for computer viruses would be required. This would be included in the pre-approval process where presumably there are already checks for distasteful material.
2.22
Another submitter told the Committee that most of the problems with the e‑petitions system related to ‘bad web page design’.
2.23
Mr Daniel Griffin suggested that the design of the e-petitions website should focus on accessibility:
It is paramount that the focus in designing a digital petition platform is the accessibility to create petitions. Petitions should be able to be created with minimal setup and as little ‘sign up’ steps as possible. A cumbersome system only limits those who are less skilled in computers to create petitions and have their voice heard.
Searching for a petition
2.24
Another design issue raised in evidence related to the ability to search for a petition on the Petitions List. The Petitions List, located on the Committee’s website, includes e-petitions available for signing, as well as all petitions (electronic and paper) that have been presented to the House; and/or been referred to and/or received a Ministerial Response. Petitions are not listed in any particular order, except that e-petitions appear before paper petitions.
2.25
Mr Griffin provided a suggestion on how petitions could be made more visible:
Popular petitions should also be easily seen from the main e-petitions webpage and petitions should be able to be sorted by location that they were created and topic they address.
2.26
Mr Griffin put forward two examples of e-petitions systems in other jurisdictions that he considered had a greater search capability. For example, Mr Griffin considered that the United States Government e‑petitions system, called ‘We the People’, had an effective way of finding a petition of interest:
Petitions are assigned ‘tags’ so that petitions may be grouped and searched by area of interest allowing citizens who have similar concerns to find already existing petitions thus unifying their voice with others.
2.27
The second example raised by Mr Griffin noted the approach taken by the United Kingdom e-petitions system:
What is unique about the UK’s petition system is the ability to search petitions by postcode allowing citizens to find petitions created by others in their local area, again creating a level of unity in the petition signing process similar to the US tagging system.
Promoting and sharing e-petitions
2.28
The ability to promote and share e-petitions online through methods such as email and social media platforms enables petitioners to reach a wider audience, and gather community support for the concerns raised in their petition, in the form of signatures.
2.29
Currently, e-petitions are available for signing for four weeks from the date the Committee has certified the petition, via the Petitions List, mentioned earlier in this chapter. If an individual wants to sign a particular petition, they must search the list using the number allocated to the particular petition, or manually scroll through the list of petitions available for signing. The list of petitions available to sign at any one time may be numerous. Once the user has found the petition, they click on the hyperlink provided to take them to the signing page.
2.30
A screenshot of the Petitions List and hyperlink available to sign a petition is found at Figure 2.2.
2.31
Some individuals suggested that the House e-petitions system could improve the ability to share and promote an e-petition, by creating a unique URL for each e-petition.
2.32
Mr Griffin commented that the ability to share e-petitions was a key element of the e-petitions process and a unique URL would enhance accessibility:
Digital petitions have excellent potential to connect concerned citizens no matter where they are geographically, however a digital petition needs to be easily accessible and discoverable. This can be achieved by allocating petitions clear and easy to follow URLs.
2.33
Mr Griffin again referred to the United States Government e-petitions site as an example of good practice in this area. According to Mr Griffin:
All petitions created receive their own dedicated webpage on the platform with a unique URL and built in share buttons for Twitter, Facebook and email making accessing and sharing a petition simple and accessible.
2.34
An example of a petition available for signing on the White House ‘We the People’ site is provided at Figure 2.3.
2.35
Mr McLean also called for each e-petition to have a dedicated webpage containing the following information:
Possible flag to indicate House of Representatives or Senate petitions;
Class associated with status (presented, referred etc);
The reasons presented as formatted by the instigator; and
If supplementary information is available then a means to display it.
2.36
It should be noted that the absence of a unique URL does not prevent a person from successfully sharing their e-petition online.
2.37
The recent experience of a petitioner in successfully sharing and promoting an e-petition via social media platforms provided useful feedback to the Committee. In this instance, the petitioner promoted their e-petition extensively, by posting a direct link to the petition signing page to their followers on Facebook. The link was also shared on another Facebook page.
2.38
As a result of the petitioner’s promotion, the e-petition was signed by 48,985 people. As at 26 March 2018, this was the highest number of signatures received for an e-petition, and the highest number of signatures in a petition lodged during the 45th Parliament.
Signing an e-petition
2.39
Much of the feedback provided on the House e-petitions system related to the signing process associated with e-petitions.
2.40
Feedback on the signing process spanned the following issues:
the steps involved in signing a petition (i.e. the design of the signing process);
the timeframe for signing a petition; and
the process that follows an e-petition, depending on how many signatures were obtained.
2.41
The process following the signing of an e-petition is discussed in more detail in chapter three.
Signing and email verification process
2.42
To sign an e-petition, users must first:
locate the correct e-petition on the petitioning webpage;
enter their name and email address;
agree to the terms and conditions of use for e-petitions;
pass a simple challenge response test (reCAPTCHA) to determine whether or not the user is a human; and
confirm their email address within 24 hours, by clicking on a link sent to their nominated email account. If the time period lapses, the link to signing the petition becomes invalid.
2.43
This process has been designed to ensure the integrity of e-petitioning, by seeking to prevent illegitimate or fraudulent ‘signatures’.
2.44
However, some users expressed dissatisfaction at the signing process, due to the number of steps required before signing was confirmed.
2.45
One user considered that the system ‘seems designed to keep people from signing petitions’. The user explained:
Once you check sign, the page refreshes such that the captcha box is at the bottom of the page. You must scroll down to notice this second step. Many people, especially the elderly will be unaware that they have not finished signing the petition.
2.46
Ms Jenny Gibbs told the Committee that people attempting to sign her petition had reported some issues in doing so. She detailed the three most significant of these issues:
When getting towards the end of an e-petition we are told that there is ‘just one more step’ but it isn’t clear enough that the step requires going through your emails to get and submit a confirmation message.
When going through the various steps of signing, the lower edges of pages (general info on dark background) come up needing pages to be scrolled up to be able to complete each section.
Many folk who have told me they have signed my petition have done no more than hit the ‘sign’ tab aligned to the petition. That is they haven’t gone through the process such that they do the confirmation email.
2.47
Some of the students at St Anthony’s Catholic Primary School also found the signing process for e-petitions challenging. One of these students, Sienna, stated:
We've also found that signing [an e-petition] is a bit difficult. It's hard to find how to do it.
Email verification
2.48
Some users opposed the rule that restricted more than one person from using the same email address. This rule was considered to be problematic for couples and others who shared one email address.
2.49
Mr Philip Clark saw the requirement for one verifiable email address to be discriminatory:
There is a perceived need to include rather than exclude the many citizens such as couples, older families and people living in aged accommodation who share an email address when individuals and groups with multiple email addresses can provide multiple signatures.
2.50
Mr McLean agreed that the requirement to register one email address to sign a petition posed issues for couples who shared an email address. He also considered that someone who owned multiple email addresses could potentially sign a petition multiple times. Overall, Mr McLean considered that the signing process was a ‘gaping flaw’ in the design process.
2.51
The requirement to have a valid email address for signing an e-petition is not unique to the House’s e-petitions system. The UK Parliament also requires e-petition creators and signatories to have a valid email address. This jurisdiction does however allow an email address to be used twice to sign the same petition, to accommodate people who share an email address.
2.52
A person seeking to sign an e-petition in the House must verify their email address within 24 hours of registering the address, by clicking on a link sent in an email to the registered address. Jurisdictions such as the UK Parliament also have requirements to verify an email address, as part of their e-petitions process.
2.53
Some people who attempted to sign a petition found that this verification step did not meet their expectations.
2.54
Mr McLean considered that the system was clumsy in requiring access to a web page, then to an email, and then back to a web page again.
2.55
In comparison to the House system, the ACT Legislative Assembly required that an individual accept conditions of use for signing an e-petition, including that they must only join an e-petition once, and that they must provide their correct name, address and email address.
2.56
Mr Max Kiermaier, Deputy Clerk and Serjeant-at-Arms of the ACT Legislative Assembly considered that an onerous authentication process might prevent people from signing an e-petition. Mr Kiermaier noted that you could not verify a person’s signature in paper petitions:
Are you going to authenticate the names and addresses of people who sign a paper petition? So maybe the fact that somebody has to go through this authentication process may deter somebody from signing up to a petition.
2.57
The Committee sought feedback on the email verification process through its online user survey. The survey received close to three hundred responses in total. A snapshot of the survey published during the inquiry can be found at Appendix C. A full list of questions from the user survey is provided at Appendix D. Responses regarding the email verification process were mixed, with examples of these provided at Box 2.2 below.
Box 2.2: - e-petitions user survey responses
Question 9: Do you have any comments about accessing the e-petitions system on the device(s) you have identified?
An option to have a verification sent to my mobile instead of to my email would be fitting seeing it's the 21st century too please.
Worked well, no problems.
Almost missed the anti-spam verification down at the bottom cause (sic) I had to scroll down. The final confirmation e-mail has the 'click here' to confirm in very small font.
Question 17: Do you have any comments about the email verification process?
24 hours is not enough time. Especially when it was not made clear on the petition page that a confirmation email would be sent.
Just a bit frustrating to have to have a (sic) added steps to verify, but I guess it prevents fraud.
I do not access the email account on the device used to complete the e‑petition.
Should be given more time to access and confirm signature via email
I didn't know an email had been sent
Committee comment
2.58
The Committee received mixed reviews about the general usability and accessibility of the e-petitions system.
2.59
While some users indicated that they found the e-petitions website to be easy to use and follow, other users complained about the design and layout of the system, and proposed changes to make e-petitions easier to create, sign and share.
2.60
While some petitioners have been successful in promoting and sharing their e-petitions using social media platforms such as Facebook, other users have found it difficult to share the link to their petition for signing, and did not find the Petitions List to be intuitive or easy to navigate.
2.61
The Committee notes that while a direct link to an e-petition can be shared online, this is not a user-friendly process. The Committee therefore sees value in refining and improving the e-petitions layout and design, to simplify the process for creating, promoting and signing a petition.
2.62
The Committee is also concerned that some users have identified difficulties in signing e-petitions, and these difficulties are largely attributed to the email verification process.
2.63
The Committee must balance user concerns with its responsibility to provide a robust and legitimate e-petitions system that upholds the integrity of the petitioning process in the House. It is for this reason that certain security measures were adopted as part of the e-petitions process.
2.64
These security measures include both email and anti-spam verifications and the requirement to enter one valid email address. These steps minimise the chance of the system inadvertently accepting fraudulent signatures.
2.65
Such measures are not applicable for paper petitions because obvious invalid signatures on paper petitions can be identified and discounted from the final signature count. It is far more difficult for petitioners to collect fraudulent signatures on a large scale, when each page and signature of a paper petition can be assessed for its validity by petitions staff.
2.66
While the email verification process has some flaws and inconveniences, the Committee is of the view that these issues cannot outweigh the need to maintain a robust and legitimate e-petitions process. Nevertheless, the Committee is supportive of minor system updates and enhancements being made, in line with user suggestions, to ensure that users can create and sign a petition with relative ease.
2.67
The Committee envisages that updates to the e-petitions system and petitions website could include providing information in plain English on creating, submitting and signing an e-petition (and information on petitions more broadly). Updates could also include providing visual aids such as flowcharts and other graphics to convey key information, and clear instructions or visual cues during the two-step signing process to minimise the number of people failing to verify their email address. The Committee is of the view that these updates would improve accessibility for all users, including users from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, as discussed later in this chapter.
2.68
Further, there may be reasonable enhancements that can be made to assist people in sharing and promoting their petitions for signing.
2.69
The Committee recognises that website enhancement is subject to the resources of the Department of the House of Representatives, in conjunction with the Department of Parliamentary Services, which has responsibility for the Parliament of Australia website as a whole. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Department of the House of Representatives work with the Department of Parliamentary Services, within existing resources, to improve user experience and overall accessibility to the e-petitions process.
2.70
The Committee recommends that the Department of the House of Representatives, in conjunction with the Department of Parliamentary Services, work within existing resources to update the House e‑petitions system and web page design to improve user experience and accessibility for all users, giving consideration to adding the following features to the House Petitions List and website:
A unique URL for each petition, to allow petitioners to easily share and promote their e-petitions for signing;
Additional navigation options to improve the ability to search for an e‑petition, such as the ability to re-order the list according to subject matter or date certified (i.e. listing the current e‑petitions open for signatures at the top of the page);
An easier signing process, if the security and robustness of the verification process can be maintained;
The use of plain English language, including simple instructions for using the e‑petitions system and wider petitions process;
The use of explanatory symbols and imagery in addition to text, to increase understanding of the petitions process;
A series of online written and video tutorials to assist users to create and sign petitions.
Timeframe for signing a petition
2.71
E-petitions are available to collect signatures online for four weeks from the date they are certified by the Committee as meeting the Standing Order requirements. Each e-petition automatically closes for signatures at 11:59 pm on the last day of the four week period, after which time additional signatures cannot be added.
2.72
During the development of the e-petitions system, this timeframe was determined having regard to a number of important factors. Special attention was given to the sequence of procedural events that e-petitions must follow in accordance with Standing Orders and their requisite timeframes.
2.73
In summary, the Committee must first meet to consider whether an e‑petition is ‘in order’—that is, that the petition meets Standing Order requirements— prior to it being made available on the Petitions List for signing. Committee meetings are scheduled to occur during each week that the House of Representatives sits.
2.74
Once the Committee has certified (i.e. accepted) an e-petition, and the four week period for signing the petition has lapsed, each e-petition is presented to the House. This task is usually undertaken by the Committee Chair during the allocated time each week for petitions. Alternatively, another Member may present a petition at another time. Following presentation, the Committee usually refers each e-petition to a Minister for response. The response is expected to be provided within 90 days of receipt of the referral.
2.75
Figure 2.4 below demonstrates the procedural process that an e-petition must follow if it is considered in order by the Committee and presented by the Committee Chair:
2.76
Given these requirements, the minimum timeframe for an e-petition to be submitted, considered by the Committee, open for signatures, presented and referred is approximately five weeks. The maximum is approximately 12 weeks but can extend well beyond during an election year where breaks in the sitting pattern are longer.
2.77
In addition, a response from the Minister can take 90 days or longer to be received. Ministerial responses are provided to the Committee at their next available meeting during a sitting week, before being presented to the House by the Chair as part of the petitions report, in the next available sitting week. This process is therefore bound by the House of Representatives sitting pattern and can lengthen the time taken to complete the full cycle of an e‑petition.
2.78
The decision to implement a four week signature collection period was made to ensure that petitioners have adequate time to collect signatures, while not unduly delaying the petitions process, which could actually reduce a petition’s potential impact.
Is four weeks long enough?
2.79
As mentioned above, even the shortest possible timeframe for signing can be too long for e-petitions that address contemporary issues. For example, if an e-petition addresses legislation before the House, the legislation could be passed (or not) and the issue resolved before the signing period is complete.
2.80
Conversely, the timeframe may not be long enough. Petitioners may feel that they have not had adequate opportunity to promote their e-petition and gain the support of their community, as would be possible with a paper petition. Mr Wayne Hodges addressed this concern in his submission to the Committee:
There needs to be more time available to e-petitions to make it fairer for those collecting e-petitions rather than paper petitions. At present there is an indefinite period has (sic) available when collecting signatures for a paper petition… Yet current e-petitions are for four weeks. This means that if one were to choose to collect signatures via an e-petition one would have added conveniences and advantages, but would be gravely disadvantaged in time compared if one were to collect in paper.
2.81
These circumstances are not unique to House of Representatives e-petitions. Other jurisdictions, such as the ACT Legislative Assembly, have noted that some petitioners prefer shorter signature periods, and others longer. Mr Kiermaier, Deputy Clerk and Serjeant-at-Arms of the Assembly stated:
Sometimes there are contemporary issues in the community, which members of the community want aired as soon as possible. We have had instances of a petition being there for only a few weeks, for instance, and the member who sponsored it and the members of the community want to air that issue in the next sittings of the assembly…Some members of the community want it aired as soon as possible; others are quite content to gather signatures and have it dealt with in the fullness of time.
2.82
Mr Shane Donnelly, Clerk of the House of Assembly, Parliament of Tasmania, also outlined why a quick turnaround is sometimes preferred:
…anecdotally I would say the average [signature collection time] would be three or four months. Often there will be a much quicker turnover if an e‑petition is generated as a quick device associated with legislation being introduced, so if a bill is introduced and it is likely to be brought on within the next month or so you will have a e-petition generated in response to this legislation and then that is tabled or attempted to be tabled in similar timing to the second reading debate to inform the debate.
2.83
The ACT Legislative Assembly has a minimum of one week and a maximum of six months posting (signature collection) period for e-petitions, that is stipulated by the principal petitioner and sponsoring MLA. The Parliament of Tasmania allows the same time period for its e-petitions, and also requires sponsorship by a Member.
2.84
These periods allow for some flexibility, yet both jurisdictions have noted that the average posting period falls somewhere in between these poles. The Parliament of Tasmania, for example, submitted that the average posting period for e-petitions in the House of Assembly was 86 days and the ACT Legislative Assembly provided that posting periods for their e-petitions can be ‘three or four months’.
2.85
Both examples show allowable posting periods significantly longer than the House’s four week period.
2.86
This doesn’t mean, however, that the House’s timeframe is necessarily an impediment to community engagement. Since the implementation of the e‑petitions system, the House of Representatives has presented numerous e‑petitions with a significant total of signatures collected during this timeframe. For example, during the 45th Parliament, e-petition EN0395, on the ‘Safe Schools’ program, was presented with 48,985 signatures; e‑petition EN0155, relating to the religious status of Islam, was presented with 11,169 signatures and e-petition EN0096, on entitlements for past Members of Parliament, was presented with 8,356 signatures.
Committee comment
2.87
The Committee notes that the four week period for signature collection was determined in consideration of two main competing interests. The first consideration was to allow enough additional time for the procedural steps of petitioning the House to take place. The second consideration was to have regard to the expectations of petitioners seeking to collect signatures and petition the House on contemporary and evolving issues of public interest, or matters of importance to them personally, where such issues require a timely response.
2.88
Throughout this inquiry the Committee heard that, for some petitioners, four weeks is not long enough to garner support for their petition. The Committee was informed that some petitioners could benefit from a shorter posting period to address contemporary concerns in a timely manner.
2.89
The Committee recognises that in some domestic jurisdictions, petitioners nominate a preferred signature collection period, in collaboration with the sponsoring Member. The Committee was told that the average timeframe for signature collection in these jurisdictions was around three to four months—a significant increase on the timeframe allowed in the House.
2.90
Notwithstanding the experience in other jurisdictions, the Committee considers that a four-week signing period is an appropriate timeframe for House e-petitions. In the Committee’s view, this timeframe strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of petitioners, in promoting and sharing a petition; and the need to ensure that a petition is responded to in a timely way. This timeframe also minimises additional delays due to necessary bureaucratic and parliamentary procedures, including the parliamentary sitting pattern.
2.91
Accordingly, the Committee does not propose to change the timeframe for signing an e-petition at this time.
Access for non-English speaking Australians
2.92
Standing Order 204(d) states that an ‘e-petition must be in English’. This requirement differs from the language requirements for a paper petition which ‘must be in English or be accompanied by a translation certified to be correct’.
2.93
The instructions for submitting and signing an e-petition are also published in English on the petitions website, and petitions information is not currently available in other languages.
2.94
The Committee heard that the current petitions requirements, and lack of instructions in languages other than English, were significant barriers for people of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, who wish to create or support a petition.
2.95
The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA) submitted that the e-petitions website, and the wider Australian Parliament House website was largely inaccessible to the communities they represented:
Unfortunately, the website of the Australian Parliament House where the e‑petitions portal exists is particularly inaccessible for CALD Australians. There is no provision of translated material online and no ability to access the information provided online in a Language Other than English (LOTE) via other means such as a LOTE specific telephone line. The webpages are text dense and do not utilise symbols or images to facilitate effective and swift communications. For users with low English language proficiency (reading) text dense webpages are difficult to interface with.
2.96
Dr Emma Campbell, Director of FECCA, considered that promoting the e‑petitions process was an important starting point to increasing access to people of CALD backgrounds:
The majority of Australians, never mind those for whom English is not a first language, are not even aware of the petitions process. If they are aware of it, finding it on the APH website or knowing how to navigate it is very difficult in English.
2.97
Dr Campbell submitted that information about the e-petitions process needed to be provided in plain English. Where appropriate, Dr Campbell considered that information should be provided in other languages, or at least the facility provided for people to obtain support in other languages, for example through the translation and interpreting system.
2.98
To achieve greater accessibility for CALD communities, FECCA made a series of recommendations drawn from their Digital Access and Equity for Multicultural Communities report. Specifically, FECCA submitted:
FECCA recommends that all the webpages related to the House of Representatives e-petitions system recognise the diversity of users and the ensuing gaps in capacity and access, and, utilise person-centric design for those who do not speak English as their first language and/or have limited digital literacy or access. This can be achieved through implementing some of the following measures:
Ensure that information is available in community languages and plain English;
Identify the availability of interpreters or translators and translated materials with an easily recognisable and consistent symbol;
Enable interactive technologies for people with low written proficiency in both English and their preferred language, for example, the ability to hover over text and access an audio translation;
Provide multiple pathways for members of the CALD community to interact with the e-petitions system if they have any queries, for example, online, over the phone, through a translator;
Communicate with ethnic communities in order to improve awareness of the e-petitions systems; and
Clearly convey information about privacy and security to users in plain English and community languages.
2.99
FECCA provided some examples of other parliaments that supported e‑petitioning in languages other than English. The organisation noted that the parliaments of Victoria and Queensland both allowed e-petitions in languages other than English to be presented, if accompanied by a certified translation.
2.100
Further, FECCA noted that the House of Commons in the United Kingdom also allowed for e-petitions in languages other than English, when accompanied by a translation certified by a Member.
Committee comment
2.101
Accessibility must be at the heart of the e-petitions system, in keeping with the overarching purpose of petitioning, to provide a direct link between members of the public and the Parliament.
2.102
The Committee notes the evidence provided by the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA) suggesting that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may find it difficult to access and engage with the e-petitions system, because of the density of information provided on the petitions website, and/or because of a lack of information being provided in languages other than English.
2.103
Petitions in languages other than English can be submitted as paper petitions, where they are accompanied by a certified English translation. In such cases, the Committee would assess the petition terms using the certified English translation. Once approved by the Committee and presented to the House, the English terms of the petition would be published on the Petitions List online, recorded in the House Hansard, and forwarded to the relevant Government Minister for response. This places the onus on the petitioner to ensure that the English translation accurately reflects the terms of the original signed petition.
2.104
The Committee is of the view that where possible, the rules and requirements for e-petitions should mirror the rules pertaining to paper petitions. However, the Standing Orders currently provide that e-petitions may only be submitted in English. This variance in petition requirements was established for a number of reasons, including that English is the official language used in the Parliament, and as such, the Committee as a whole can only be asked to assess the terms of a petition in English.
2.105
Hypothetically, if the process for e-petitions was to mirror that of paper petitions, the terms of an e-petition would have to be published online in the language other than English, so that people could read and sign the petition in that language. However, this process would place the onus and risk on the Committee to ensure that the petition terms published on the website accurately reflected the English translation that the Committee assessed as meeting the Standing Order requirements. In circumstances where the Committee has ultimate responsibility for the content that appears on the petitions website, this process would pose an unacceptable risk to the reputation and integrity of the e-petitions system, the Petitions Committee and the wider Parliament. Noting that people may still lodge a paper petition in a language other than English, the Committee does not propose any changes in relation to the English language requirement of e-petitions at this time.
2.106
Some of the language accessibility issues raised by FECCA relate to the APH website more broadly, and cannot be dealt with in isolation in the context of the e-petitions website. These issues are therefore outside of the scope of inquiry. Such issues include providing general information in LOTE, and other design features of the e-petitioning site that are carried across the APH website.
2.107
To ensure that Australians from all backgrounds, including culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, are able to access and engage with the e‑petitions system, the Committee supports the exploration of a series of updates to the Committee’s website, as outlined in Recommendation 1.