PETITIONS

Ms BELYEA (Dunkley) (10:01): There are currently 107 petitions open for signatures on the House e-petitions website. Petitions continue to cover a range of topics, including tax reform, veterans' affairs, private health insurance, bullying in schools and food waste. These topics are an indicator of the varied interests of those who engage with the petitions process.

To the beginning of June this year, 1,157 petitions have so far been presented to the House, with a combined total of 713,852 signatures. More certifications will follow at the committee's next meeting. Petitions have long held a unique and enduring place in the Australian parliamentary tradition.

They are one of the oldest democratic tools available to citizens, stretching back to the 13th century, and they remain to this day one of the few direct ways Australians can communicate their concerns to their national parliament. At their core, petitions exist for a simple but powerful reason: to give voice to the people. They allow individuals and communities to formally raise grievances, propose change and request action from parliament.

In doing so, they reinforce the principle that our democracy is not only representative but participatory. In Australia, the right to petition parliament has existed since Federation and is recognised as a fundamental democratic right. It is quite literally the only formal process through which an individual can directly place a grievance before the parliament itself.

Over the last decade, the introduction of the House of Representatives e-petition system in 2016 has transformed participation. We have moved from fewer than 300 petitions per parliament in a paper based system to more than 1,700 petitions in a single parliament and more than 1,250 petitions already submitted in the current 48th parliament. This represents a significant shift in civic engagement—more accessible, more immediate and more visible than ever before.

Petitions now span a wide range of issues: the cost of living, housing, health care, the environment, education and national security. They often provide an early signal of emerging concerns in the community—issues that may not yet be on the legislative agenda but are clearly resonating with many Australians. But with this growth comes challenge.

A system designed for hundreds of paper petitions is now managing thousands of digital submissions. As a result, there is a growing concern that the current process is no longer fit for purpose. Another key issue emerging through the House Standing Committee on Petitions' work is the lack of clarity around what matters fall within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.

A significant number of petitions we receive are, quite simply, directed to the wrong level of government. Matters such as local planning decisions, state based services and community infrastructure issues that properly sit with state, territory or local governments are regularly submitted through the federal petitions system. In practical terms, this means that a substantial proportion of petitions each reporting period are ruled out of order at the point of certification, not because the concern is invalid but because it sits outside Commonwealth responsibility; it's not because Australians are wrong to raise an issue but because they are raising it in the wrong forum.

This has real consequences. It creates frustration for petitioners who believe they are engaging meaningfully with the parliament. It places additional administrative burden on the committee, and it reduces the overall effectiveness of the petitions process.

But, most importantly, it highlights a gap in public understanding about how our federation operates and the three levels of government and their respective roles in governing our country One of the most practical and high-impact reforms available to us is to create clarity around the jurisdiction earlier in the petitions process, and, as we undertake our inquiry, this may include embedding clear guidance, at the point of petition creation, about what falls within Commonwealth responsibility, providing simple, real-world examples of federal, state and local issues; introducing prompts or filters in the e-petition system that guide petitioners toward the appropriate level of government; and, where appropriate, directing petitioners to alternative pathways when their issue sits outside the federal jurisdiction.

I need to be clear this is not about rejecting voices. It is about helping Australians be heard in the right place at the right time, where their concerns can lead to action. If we get this right, we will reduce out-of-scope petitions, improve efficiency and ensure that petitions reaching the parliament are more likely to result in meaningful engagement and responses for petitioners.

The committee has also identified challenges around the use of language in petitions. As participation has increased, more petitions are testing the boundaries of what constitutes appropriate parliamentary language. There is a clear need to ensure petitions maintain a standard of moderate and respectful language.

However, there is currently no consistently understood definition of what 'moderate' language means in practice. Without clarity, there can be inconsistency in decision-making and confusion for petitioners. We must strike the right balance, protecting freedom of expression while ensuring petitions remain respectful, credible and suitable for the parliament.

This is not about limiting voices; it is about ensuring those voices strengthen rather than undermine our democratic process. Technology has enabled unprecedented participation, but it also introduces new risks, particularly with the emergence of artificial intelligence. Questions of authenticity, duplication and integrity must be considered as part of the process of modernising the petitions process.

In response to these challenges, the committee has undertaken an inquiry into the petitions process. We are examining the suitability of current rules, the impact of technology and how to ensure the system remains accessible, credible and sustainable. We have heard from individuals, experts and organisations.

The submissions received, as well as the evidence heard at the public hearing, have helped to provide the committee with a wealth of information to draw on. In the upcoming period, the committee will continue to examine the evidence in an effort to provide practical recommendations to support the continued accessibility, integrity and credibility of the petitions process.

I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the House petitions committee.