Chapter 7 Conclusion and recommendations
Introduction
7.1
The Committee has considered models and the other facets of electronic
petitions specified in the inquiry’s Terms of Reference. The Committee’s
recommendations for electronic petitions in the House of Representatives are
presented below, under headings drawn from the Terms of Reference of the inquiry.
7.2
Recommendations are presented in two groups. Those under headings drawn
from Terms (a) to (d) focus on implementing changes in the near-term to
institute the practice of electronic petitioning in the House of
Representatives. While there are no recommendations which correspond to Terms (e)
and (f), the final two sections of this chapter raise matters which are relevant
to these terms.
7.3
On the basis of the evidence brought before it, the Committee considers
that the House of Representatives should begin to accept electronic petitions,
by means of an electronic petitioning system and website under the
administration of the House.
7.4
The Petitions Committee should manage this system and website on behalf
of the House, set policies for use and management, and provide authority for
petitions to be displayed on the site. As it does now, the Committee would provide
authority for petitions to be presented to the House and for referral of
petitions to Ministers.
7.5
The Committee takes this opportunity to record its view on a matter that
is complementary to electronic petitioning, and central to the Committee’s role
in general. Standing orders 207, relating to presentation of submissions, and
209, relating to referral to a Minister for a response, are in operation until
the end of the 42nd Parliament. The sessional orders were
originally put in place in June 2008 on a trial basis.
7.6
Standing order 207 currently allows, among other things, for the
presentation of petitions by the Chair of the Committee and for a statement by
the Chair, or another Committee member, in accordance with standing order 34.
The order also sets out the times during which a Member may present a petition.
Standing order 209 enables the Committee, following presentation, to refer a
petition to the Minister responsible for response within 90 days of
presentation, and for the Chair to announce any such ministerial responses.
7.7
In the Committee’s view, standing orders 207 and 209 have been operating
successfully and should be made permanent. Nothing contained in the
recommendations that follow should affect their continued application.
A model of electronic petitioning for the
House
7.8
Implementation of a system similar to that of the Queensland Parliament
represents the most effective solution, at present, for the House of
Representatives.
Recommendation 1 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the House:
(a) establish an
electronic petitions website and system under the administration of the
House; and
(b) make necessary
arrangements with the Queensland Parliament to enable the use of software
supporting that Parliament’s electronic petitions system.
|
7.9
Discussion forums for petitions, as are available on the Scottish
Parliament’s electronic petitioning website, represent an additional cost, in
terms of software development and system management, that is not warranted at
present.
Recommendation 2 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that, at present, no discussion
forum be provided but that in the 43rd Parliament the Committee
review this recommendation and report to the House.
|
Changes required to the practices and
procedures of the House
7.10
Models considered by the Committee, if applied to the House of
Representatives, would have different procedural and practice implications. The
Committee intends that initial arrangements for electronic petitions will involve
minimal changes to House practice and procedure.
7.11
The Committee has considered proposals that third parties be accredited
to post and accept signatures for electronic petitions which could be forwarded
to the House. It considers that this should not be adopted by the House, due to
the absence of precedent for such an arrangement; to concerns over the validity
of petitions; and potential implications for the standing of the House. The
Committee also notes that the involvement of third parties would go against the
tradition of petitions, which has seen individuals bring their concerns
directly to Parliament.
Recommendation 3 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the Standing Orders of the
House be amended to make specific provision to accept electronic petitions. Accordingly,
standing orders:
|
(a) 204 (b), (e) and (f),
relating to the form of petitions;
(b) 205 (a) and (b), relating
to signatures; and
(c) 206 (a),
relating to lodging a petition for presentation;
be amended to take account of
the electronic format.[1]
Recommendation 4 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that duplicate electronic petitions
be treated as instances of the same petition, as is the case for paper
petitions, such that duplicates are not displayed on the House of
Representatives electronic petitions website.
|
Recommendation 5 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that signatories to petitions be
required to provide an address and postcode in addition to name and signature
and that, as for paper petitions, neither addresses nor postcodes of
signatories, or the principal petitioner, be published by the Committee.
|
Recommendation 6 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that electronic petitions be
printed prior to presentation so that a hard copy is presented to the House.
|
The role of Members in electronic petitioning
7.12
Under current arrangements paper-based petitions to the House either
come directly to the Committee or are forwarded by Members to the Committee.
7.13
The Committee considers that the practice of ‘front-ending’ electronic
petitions under which, as in Queensland Parliament, petitions are reviewed
before being posted on the electronic petitions website, is sound.[2]
However the Committee believes that, in keeping with the recommendation of the House
Committee on Procedure’s report on petitions, that petitions to the House not be
required to be lodged, or otherwise supported, by Members.[3]
This matter is considered in Chapter 3 under the subheading ‘The role of
Members’.
7.14
Members may however forward the text of draft electronic petitions to
the Committee for guidance, as is current practice for paper petitions.
Recommendation 7 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that electronic petitions be forwarded
to the Committee for review and certification before being posted on the Committee’s
electronic petitions website.
|
Privacy and security
7.15
The Committee considers that evidence presented to the inquiry suggests
a strong relationship between the privacy and good management of petitioners’
personal details, and willingness of the public to participate in petitions to
the House.
7.16
A similar relationship applies between the verification of signatures,
petitioners’ willingness to participate, and the way in which petitions are
regarded in the House. The Committee considers that maintaining good management
of all of these elements is an essential component in creating conditions for
public engagement with Parliament.
Recommendation 8 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the personal particulars of
petitioners included on original petitions be available for inspection in the
Table Office, as printouts only, as is currently the case for paper petitions.
|
Recommendation 9 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that:
(a) electronic copies or
lists of petitioners’ personal details derived from electronic petitions be
deleted six months after the close of the petition; and
(b) petitions be posted on the
Committee’s website for the life of the Parliament and then removed.
|
Recommendation 10 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the electronic petitions
system use verification methods currently employed in the Queensland
Parliament’s electronic petitions system, and that improved methods of
verification be adopted as they become available.
|
Financial and resource implications
7.17
In the Committee’s view, it is difficult to quantify this resource cost
at present because some business currently created by paper petitions would
move into the electronic domain if electronic petitioning were introduced in
the House. If electronic petitions are to be accepted by the House of
Representatives, resource implications should be monitored to ensure adequate
support can be maintained.
The state of engagement
7.18
At present, there appears to be some agreement that the state of engagement
between parliaments and their public is problematic. The Committee has
considered whether the House should adopt an electronic petitioning system
which emphasises continuity with previous practice, or whether a primary focus
should be placed on improving the state of engagement. This question has
implications for policy on electronic petitions, particularly as to whether
discussion forums and other facilities are necessary in order to advance the
relationship between the House and the public.
7.19
The Committee finds that there is insufficient information available to
answer this question in any conclusive sense. It also considers that this is an
important question, about which the House should be better informed if it is to
make sound decisions on its interface with the public, and this includes petitions.
Julia Irwin MP
Chair