Bills

Parliamentary Committees (Petitions) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (10:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

A petition is a request by a group of citizens for parliament to take action to solve a particular problem. It is the oldest and most direct way citizens can draw attention to a problem and ask parliament to act. The right to petition dates back to the reign of King Edward I in the 13^th century in Britain, where grievances were considered by the monarch in meetings of the King's Council. The origins of parliament, as we know it, can be traced back to these meetings. Many of the earliest laws were actually petitions that had been agreed to by the king.

As parliament evolved from a primarily judicial to a predominantly legislative body, with its judicial functions taken over by the courts, the character of petitions changed. By the end of the 14^th century, legislative remedy was sought by individuals and corporations who petitioned parliament or the House of Commons. At the same time, petitions from the Commons to the Crown—these being of a general nature and expressing national grievances—became frequent.

The British parliament's first legislative acts occurred with the Commons petitioning the king for certain amendments to the law. This was the precursor to legislation by bill, as later the Commons assumed the task of drafting the desired statute, which could then be accepted or rejected but not amended by the Crown. The 17^th century saw the development of what may be considered the modern form of petition: addressed to parliament, drawn up in a prescribed manner, usually dealing with public grievances.

As outsiders are not permitted to address the house directly, petitions are presented by members. Therefore, groups and individuals with petitions for the house must enlist the aid of members to have their petitions presented. Members are not bound to present petitions and cannot be compelled to do so; nevertheless, members consider it a duty to present to the house petitions brought forward by citizens. The member, who makes the presentation on behalf the petitioners, is not required to agree with the content of any petition he or she may choose to present, and no such inference should be drawn.

We are governed by the rule of law, and parliament has the power to change the law. Voters have the right to vote, which can ultimately change the parliament, but how can they exercise any influence between elections? There needs to be another mechanism.

Anne Davies, in the Guardian Australia on 12 December 2017, tells us about a survey on Australian attitudes to democracy, suggesting faith in Australia's system of government is waning in the face of short-term, knee-jerk politics and a growing scepticism about whether politicians have voters' interests at heart. The survey was undertaken by Essential in October 2017 and was based on an online panel of 1,025 respondents. It was overseen by Glenn Withers from the Australian National University and sought to replicate similar polls undertaken in 1994 and 2015.

Mark Triffitt, a Fellow with the Centre for Policy Development at the University of Melbourne, tells us in The Conversation on 10 July 2018 about the same survey, saying 73 per cent of people surveyed think politics is fixated on short-term gains, not addressing long-term challenges. Around 34 per cent surveyed thought politicians were good at making difficult decisions when representing their communities, and just 39 per cent thought that parliaments were effective in tackling the major challenges facing their communities.

The paper goes on to say that nearly every indicator of a healthy western democracy is failing globally. Public trust and voter engagement have declined over the past decade in established core democracies around the world, including in the US, across Europe and in Australia where, here, public interest and satisfaction in democracy have fallen to a record low over the past 10 years. We need to reinvigorate democracy to begin to meet the expectations of citizens as to how a 21^st century democracy should engage and perform. Democracy should happen every day, not only on election day.

In South Australia, women won the vote with a petition, while today the standing and relevance of petitions is in question. Currently, in South Australia, on presentation to the House of Assembly, a petition becomes a public document. No debate takes place at the time of the petition presentation, although a member may move a motion to note the petition or refer it to a standing committee, which would result in a debate on the subject matter of the petition during private members' business time in the house. The moving of any of these motions is rare. To my recollection, it has never happened in 22 years and it would be a very problematic course to pursue these days.

A member may also address the subject of a petition during grievance or adjournment debates. After a petition has been announced to the house, its presentation is recorded in the minutes of the house, called the Votes and Proceedings, and in the Hansard for that day. Standing orders also require that the Clerk of the House refer the petition to the minister responsible for the matters raised.

Ministers may respond to a petition in any way they see fit—for example, by writing to the petitioners or a selection of them or by ordering some administrative action to be taken. The House of Assembly Procedure Office sends a copy of the front page of petitions to the relevant minister for their attention; however, there is no requirement for a response to the petition. While petitions produce no immediate or obvious results, they are considered by some to be a method of informing all members and the government, in a public way, of the views of sections of the population. I have sought advice from the Parliament Research Library about petitions in other jurisdictions and quote from their research paper 2556:

A variety of approaches are taken interstate and elsewhere in the world and include:

petitions being referred to relevant Ministers for their response;

debates on petitions being scheduled;

formal inquiries being undertaken in relation to petitions; and

dedicated Parliamentary Committees to consider petitions.

In the ACT, time allocated for debate on petitions after their tabling is 30 minutes, with each speaker having no more than five minutes. Petitions of more than 500 signatures are referred on the same date to one of the standing committees. In New South Wales, petitions of 10,000 signatures are set down for an order of the day on a future date—4.30pm on the next sitting Thursday—for various times per speaker, amounting to 30 minutes in total, and 500-signature petitions require a response.

In Western Australia, every petition presented is referred to the Environment and Public Affairs Committee; however, no response is required. The Northern Territory requires a referral to the minister with a response needed within 12 sitting days. Tasmania refers petitions to the minister via the Premier for a response within 15 sitting days. Queensland refers to the minister with a response within 30 days, and Victoria is very similar to South Australia in almost every respect.

Federally, the role of petitions is under review. Currently, there is a standing committee on petitions that can inquire into and report on any matter relating to petitions and the petition system but does not make recommendations on or implement any actions requested in petitions. As you can all see, this means that the response to petitions throughout Australia, nationally, is very ad hoc and seems designed to slow any public action on issues of concern.

Internationally, in New Zealand a conforming petition is referred to a select committee for consideration and report. I witnessed a committee deliberation during my recent time in Wellington and was impressed by the scrutiny afforded to the topic on the day, which was affordable public housing.

In the Canadian House of Commons in the late 18^th century, petitions were routinely debated. Since 1986, their standing orders have provided that the ministry shall respond within 45 calendar days to every petition referred to it. Government responses to petitions are generally tabled in the house during routine proceedings, and any member who has presented a petition is provided with a copy of the response at the time it is tabled. In the US, the petition clause of the First Amendment to their constitution guarantees the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and petitions are commonly used in the US to qualify candidates for public office to appear on a ballot paper.

It is time for change here in South Australia. Voters in Florey have demanded action on some issues recently and questioned the value of the petition process, which has resulted in this private member's bill—democracy in action. This bill proposes modest changes and does two main things: first, in clauses 3 and 4 it expands the functions of the Legislative Review Committee so that the committee is tasked with inquiring into, considering and reporting on eligible petitions referred to it under new section 16B. The mechanism seeks consideration of community issues by referring petitions to a committee for examination.

To avoid creating a new committee, use of existing committees is the obvious solution. The Legislative Review Committee appears to have capacity, which would avoid further backlogging the Social Development Committee. In the past 20 years, only 19 petitions have reached 10,000 signatures, and none since 2015, so the burden is unlikely to be especially great. Given that petitions are often tabled in order to achieve a change in law or policy, the Legislative Review Committee provides the most appropriate medium. The new section defines what an eligible petition is—namely, one that has 10,000 or more signatures and conforms to the requirements of standing orders and/or parliamentary practices.

The second thing the bill does (in clause 5) is to amend existing section 19 of the Parliamentary Committees Act to provide a slightly different response requirement once the report of the Legislative Review Committee is referred to the minister for response under section 19 of the current act. In all other respects, a report of the Legislative Review Committee into a particular petition is treated the same way as any other matter referred to the committee under the act. The prescribed minister (or the minister with the portfolio responsibility in their house) and the Leader of the Government in the other house must address their house on the petition within six sitting days after the response is made and identify what action is to be taken or why no action is to be taken, as the case requires.

Requiring the minister to respond to the petition serves to improve transparency and allows the government to show accountability for its decisions. It also allows the minister to explain the reasons for any action they plan to take and correct any apparent deficiencies or unforeseen circumstances. This will restore the public's faith in their ability to inform and influence the policymaking process, restoring the reputation of the parliament as an institution.

The four-month timetable in the existing legislation for a response to be formulated is retained to allow for a comprehensive reply from the minister. The requirement thereafter to address parliament will facilitate debate on the substance of the petitioners' request. Defined instructions on debate on petition reports is not included, as these measures are not legislated; rather, it is a change in practice in standing orders. This means that this measure cannot be undertaken until the bill is enacted and so will need to be addressed when and if the bill is passed.

In closing, I have been convinced by electors over many years, and more recently in the past few months, that they want to participate more fully in the parliamentary and law-making process and feel that current restrictions in comparison with other jurisdictions leave them disenfranchised. They did not need much encouragement to become active because they feel—and obviously so as things stand today—that petitions have lost their relevance.

This bill will, I hope, change that perception and begin to help restore faith in our system of democracy. I acknowledge the assistance of parliamentary counsel in drafting this bill, the Parliament Research Library for its paper and my staff for their continuing dedication to our community and the importance of participation in our participatory democracy. I commend the bill to the house.

The SPEAKER: Is the member for Wright listening to some device in his chair?

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: That's better; thank you. The Deputy Premier.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: during the course of the honourable member's contribution to an important bill that she is presenting to the parliament, the member for Reynell proffered a display in the chamber. I note that the displays have now been removed. I suggest that is contrary to practice in this chamber, that those displays have now been covered and placed—still in the chamber—and I would ask that there be some indication from the member for Reynell as to whether she is going to remove those posters from the parliament, which currently, unfortunately, show considerable disrespect to the chamber and to the mover of the legislation.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. I respectfully ask the Deputy Premier to raise the point of order at the time the point of order arises, not after. I was trying to deal with this matter privately but, since it has been aired, for the benefit of all interested parties I can say that when I entered the chamber I did sight what I believe was a certain display that may have been used as a prop.

I have clearly invited the member for Reynell to speak with me and asked her not to have those items on display in this house while the house is sitting. She has abided by that request. I have also been given a dossier of information by the Clerk in relation to displays, and I think you will find that over time these decisions have gone each way. However, I have asked the member for Reynell to abide and she has abided. I hope that will be the end of this matter.

Ms Hildyard: It is okay to have them on our streets, though.

The SPEAKER: That is correct. I do not have jurisdiction over the streets, member for Reynell—but maybe give it time; we will see how we go.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.