STANDING COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS
October 20, 2008
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (8.34 pm) — I am pleased to have the opportunity as a new member of the Standing Committee on Petitions to say a few words about the work of the committee. May I say at the outset that the bipartisan nature of the committee and the manner in which members from both sides of the House have conducted themselves in the several meetings that I have been a part of has been a feature of my early days in this place. I would like to commend the committee chair, the member for Fowler, and the deputy chair, the member for McMillan, for the very warm welcome I have had to the committee, along with the committee staff, who are doing a great job in support of our work.
One question that sometimes arises is whether petitions still have a place in our modern society, particularly given that there are so many other avenues for communication between citizens and members of parliament. I am a very strong supporter of giving people as many opportunities as possible to become directly engaged in decision making and the public policy-making process. We have a great democracy in Australia, and providing opportunities for Australians to have their say at the ballot box is obviously one of the most critical components of that democracy. But expressing a view through methods such as petitions is an important avenue, I believe, for allowing the wider community to bring attention to a particular issue or concern, perhaps between electoral cycles.
Judging from the petitions that the committee has received in recent times, people still see petitioning as having a role in bringing an issue to the attention of the parliament, although it is certainly not the only means for residents to make their concerns known. One of the most important aspects of petitioning is what actually happens to the petition once it has been received in this place. If the petition merely ends up in the basement and is ignored, or is recorded in Hansard and nothing else happens, there would be little point in encouraging or even continuing the practice. However, that is certainly not happening under the current arrangements with the petitions committee and the changes that were introduced at the start of this year. There has been a real attempt to give the petitions process some extra meaning and impact and for there to be a firm response to petitioners and some serious consideration of the issues raised for the attention of parliament.
Anyone who has been studying petitions recently may be amazed at the range of topics that are of concern to individuals and groups in our community. Some are quite general. We have had petitions on environmental issues including water management, education funding, pension rates—which is quite topical—roads, telecommunications issues, and medical and dental services, to name just a few. Petitions can also be quite local and very specific to individuals. We have had petitions relating to personal grievances, either of a legal nature or on immigration matters, and funding for local infrastructure such as road crossings or intersections, sporting facilities and Australia Post outlets.
It is interesting to note that with regard to postal services this has been going on for a
particularly long time. Two petitions received by the House in the very first parliament over 100 years ago called for the retention of ‘postal conveniences’ at locations in Erskineville and Woolloongabba. If you will excuse my slight parochialism for the moment: the more things change, the more they stay the same. From the electorate of Gippsland, during the by-election, a petition by some 3,821 people was tabled in the House on 25 June this year calling for the Franklin Street post office in Traralgon to be retained.
The committee sent the petition to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, who provided advice that Australia Post had not yet made any decision on the relocation of services from that site but was undertaking a review assessing the postal services to the entire city of Traralgon.
The petitions committee subsequently had representatives of Australia Post attend a public hearing in September, and we were advised at that time that the Franklin Street location would be retained and there would be extensive community consultation on other proposed changes. It may seem like a minor issue to some but, certainly for the people of Traralgon who bothered to sign the petition, to have that follow-up from the minister’s office and then have Australia Post appear before the petitions committee was a very good process.
The outcome has been very warmly received throughout the Traralgon community. Having a mechanism like the petitions committee to pursue this matter directly with the minister and then provide that feedback to the people of Gippsland has been a very satisfying process for the people concerned.
I have received advice of many similar results from other members. The member for Riverina has advised me of efforts to retain a museum in Wagga Wagga which attracted about 2,700 signatures on a petition. I think that many on both sides of the House would agree that there is no finer advocate for that region, in terms of the passion she shows in this place, than the member for Riverina. She presented that petition to the House on behalf of her constituents. Again, I do not wish to overstate the role the petition has played, but the original decision has been changed and I understand that the petitioners’ request has been granted.
I am sure the member for Riverina will speak more fulsomely on that in the future. Regardless of the actual subject matter, all petitions are considered by the committee in the same way and the principal petitioners are assured of receiving a response.
(Time expired)