Chapter 36 Petitions Petitioning Parliament The earliest legislative acts of the English Parliament were often transacted by the Commons petitioning the King that a certain amendment be made to the law, but petitions as a source of legislation soon disappeared from the picture, apart from the field of private legislation. In New Zealand, the only vestige of the petition s former role in legislating was formerly to be found in the field of private bills, which were initiated in the House by the presentation of a petition from the promoter of the bill. However, following changes to Standing Orders in 2011, a petition is no longer required to introduce a private bill. In 1993 Parliament passed legislation permitting the presentation of petitions seeking the holding of referendums. 1 These statutory petitions are the subject of their own special rules. (See Chapter 40.) The vast majority of petitions addressed to the House relate to public policy issues and private grievances of various kinds. From its first meeting in 1854, the House, continuing an ancient right exercised in England, has admitted petitions seeking redress for an almost unlimited range of real or supposed wrongs done to petitioners, advocating amendments to the law or changes in Government policy, or seeking public inquiries into unsatisfactory situations. By petitioning the House, the citizen can express his or her opinion on a subject of concern and address it in a public way to the country s legislators. The act of petitioning may or may not have any practical consequences, but it ensures that the petitioner s concerns are heard and given some consideration by those in authority. The number of petitions presented to the House increased during the 19th century to a peak in 1906. It then declined consistently until the mid-1980s, at which point the number of petitions presented to the House rose significantly. However, there has been another substantial decline since that time; during the 50th Parliament, only 127 petitions were received. These trends in the number of petitions presented to the House mask changes in the way citizens have used the petitions procedure. In earlier days, the overwhelming majority of petitions emanated from single petitioners with their own particular grievances. While petitions from individuals seeking relief for a personal injustice are still common, they no longer predominate. Petitions now tend to relate to public issues, and are typically promoted to demonstrate the strength of public feeling on an issue in the country at large or in a local community. 1 Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993.
Petitions 601 The large increase in the number of petitions in the mid-1980s related to a trend in the category of petitions concerning general public issues. Rather than promoting a single petition with a large number of signatures appended to it to demonstrate its degree of support, those responsible for organising petitions often encouraged the submission of many separate petitions on the same subject, with only a few signatures to each one. Thus, for instance, in 1989 two campaigns objecting to legislation then before the House attracted more than 600 and 900 similarly worded petitions respectively. 2 However, this practice has lessened in recent years, resulting in a substantial reduction in the number of petitions received. Technology has also had an impact. The ease and immediacy of the electronic media has rendered hard-copy petitions outmoded and the method of collecting signatures and submitting petitions in need of change. A further reason for petitioning the House is to demonstrate before applying to an international body that the petitioner has exhausted all of his or her domestic remedies. One select committee has noted that the promoters of a petition had little interest in the parliamentary outcome of their petition other than to prove to the United Nations committee on human rights that they had sought relief domestically before applying to it. The committee expressed concern at the right to petition the House being used in this way. 3 The right of the citizen to petition the House is considered to be so important that when Parliament creates legal remedies it may make it clear in the pertinent legislation that these remedies are not intended to qualify the ability to petition the House or to restrict the jurisdiction of any committee set up to consider such a petition. 4 Conversely, a body set up outside the House to provide an avenue of redress may be expressly excluded from taking account of the citizen s right to petition the House in deciding whether to exercise its own powers in respect of the matter. So, for example, the Independent Police Conduct Authority cannot decide not to pursue a complaint on the ground that the complainant could petition the House. 5 Promotion and circulation of petition A petition is usually initiated by a concerned individual or group of individuals who, having drafted the petition, sign it themselves and circulate it among other members of the public inviting them to subscribe to it. There is no requirement for a petition to have multiple signatories; a petition of a sole individual is valid. A corporation may petition the House, as may an unincorporated association, provided the association is adequately identified as a collective entity. Petitions that do not adequately identify an entity, such as, for example, a petition from teachers at a certain school or employees from a certain workplace, are not acceptable. They would have to be submitted in the name of an individual on behalf of the other persons involved. 6 The circulation of a petition among the public for the purpose of gathering signatures to it before its presentation in the House is not a proceeding in Parliament and the absolute protection from legal liability attaching to parliamentary 2 (29 November 1989) [1987 1990] 2 JHR 2058 2072, (5 December 1989) [1987 1990] 2 JHR 2094 2107; Planning and Development Committee, report on Radiocommunications Bill and related petitions (5 December 1989) [1987 1990] AJHR I.11 at 6 26; and Social Services Committee, report on Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Amendment Bill and related petitions (29 November 1989) [1987 1990] AJHR I.13 at 6 29. 3 Justice and Law Reform Committee, report on the petition of Banks and Banks-Foster (6 September 1999) [1996 1999] AJHR I.24 at 564. 4 See, for example: Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s 9; Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, s 59. 5 Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988, s 18(1)(b)(v). See also: Privacy Act 1993, s 71(1)(g); Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, s 38(2)(e). 6 (1991) 513 NZPD 1001 Gray.
602 Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand proceedings does not apply. 7 The delivery of the petition to a member for presentation to the House, its presentation, and its subsequent publication in the ordinary course of parliamentary proceedings are so protected. 8 Publication of defamatory material in a petition, other than in the course of parliamentary proceedings (for example, by delivering it to a member for presentation to the House), is not protected by parliamentary privilege. Nevertheless, given the significance of the long-standing right to petition the House (with its numerous statutory acknowledgements), it is possible that publication to a member and to the public for the purposes of gathering signatures would be accorded qualified immunity from civil or criminal liability. If so, it would be protected from legal liability if such publication was not predominantly actuated by ill will or in bad faith. 9 No authenticated records are kept of the number of adherents to each petition, because individual signatures to a petition are not checked for authenticity and duplication. However, probably the largest petition ever presented to the House was that presented on 24 September 1985 objecting to the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. 10 Three similarly worded petitions were presented that day, the largest claiming more than half a million signatures. Other petitions that have attracted a great deal of attention include those in favour of women s suffrage presented in 1893 (this petition was close to 300 yards long), 11 a petition seeking prohibition of the sale of alcohol presented in 1918 and signed by about one-fifth of the total population at that time, 12 and a petition against the raising of the level of Lake Manapouri in 1970 that led to extensive select committee hearings. 13 It is increasingly common for signatures to be collected electronically, often through a generic petitions website or a website specifically dedicated to the petition. As signatures must be of a prescribed form and signed by the petitioner s own hand, 14 electronic signatures are not acceptable. If signatures are collected electronically, a petition (often signed by a single individual) may be lodged recording the request and asking that the House note the number of electronic signatures collected in support of the petition. Copies of the electronic signatures may be provided with the petition as evidence. The Standing Orders Committee in the 50th Parliament noted that an electronic petition system would improve the accessibility of the petitions process. It did not recommend any changes to specifically allow e-petitions, but proposed an investigation into how the process for submitting a petition could be made more accessible. 15 Form of petition A petition must conform to a number of rules designed to ensure that the document is in fact intended for presentation to the House, is authentic, and is generally in a fit state to be received by the House. 16 Petitions must be addressed to the House of Representatives (or to Parliament ). 17 This is self-evident. A written statement addressed to the world at large is not a petition to the House, nor is a document addressed to the Governor- 7 Senate (Aust) Committee of Privileges The circulation of petitions (11th report) [1988]; Legislative Council (WA) Select Committee of Privilege, report concerning petition of Brian Easton [1992]. 8 Lake v King (1667) 1 Saund 131 (KB). 9 Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, ss 18 and 20. 10 (24 September 1985) [1984 1985] JHR 797. 11 (28 July 1893) [1893] JHR (Schedule of Petitions Presented) at xvii; John E Martin The House New Zealand s House of Representatives 1854 2004 (Dunmore Press Ltd, Palmerston North, 2004) at 113. 12 (30 October 1918) [1918] JHR (Schedule of Petitions Presented) at xix. 13 (26 May 1970) [1970] JHR (Schedule of Petitions Presented) at 583. 14 SO 364. 15 Standing Orders Committee Review of Standing Orders (21 July 2014) [2011 2014] AJHR I.18 at 30. 16 A booklet describing the rules, Petitioning the House of Representatives, is available from the New Zealand Parliament website. 17 SO 361.
Petitions 603 General or to a Minister of the Crown. For a petition to be received by the House it must indicate in its heading that it is intended for the House. 18 Petitions must be in writing. A petition written partly in braille has been accepted. A person signs a petition personally on a page setting out the petition request. If the original wording of a petition is amended, the question immediately arises of whether the people signing the petition did so on the basis of its original wording or the altered wording. If the alteration is not significant, this will not be a material consideration. However, if the alteration is significant, those signing before the alteration was made will have agreed to a different proposition and cannot automatically be regarded as agreeing with the petition in its altered form. Thus the circumstances in which any alteration to the wording of a petition came to be made needs to be noted and explained by whoever is promoting the petition. Any signatories to a petition before it was altered in any material particular should be invited to re-sign the petition, otherwise their signatures must be disregarded. Request for action A petition is not a statement in the abstract. Its whole purpose is to seek some relief for wrongs suffered, some amendment to the law or some change in Government policy. In short, a petition seeks action. Thus, it is fundamental that a petition must ask the House to take some action regarding its subject matter. 19 It may be that the petition consists of no more than this request. This is sufficient. There are no rules requiring petitioners to set out at length the grounds on which relief is claimed, but they must claim relief of some description. The request is, therefore, an essential ingredient in a petition, for this is the means by which the petitioner tells the House what he or she wants it to do in response to the grievance. A petition without a request for action is irregular and will not be received. Signatures There must be one person, sometimes known as the principal or chief petitioner, who takes responsibility for attending to the formal requirements involved in petitioning the House. The name and address of the principal petitioner must be entered on the petition. Communications about the petition may be addressed to the principal petitioner. 20 The text of a petition may be so long that the petition itself cannot be confined to one sheet of paper leaving space for signatures. It may therefore run on to additional sheets. Anyone subscribing to a petition must sign personally, except in the case of incapacity. A person signing on behalf of an incapacitated person should state this fact alongside the signature. 21 Petitions from corporations are signed by a duly authorised officer of the corporation. If the corporation is incorporated outside New Zealand, an authorised attorney may sign. 22 Other than the principal petitioner, persons subscribing to a petition do not need to add their addresses, though they often do. Continuation pages of signatures sometimes give rise to problems of authentication. Signatures may be written upon the petition or pages annexed to the petition (though they may not be transferred to them). 23 Any pages annexed to the petition must at least have the request inscribed on them in full. The fact that a page containing signatures is annexed to the petition at the time of its presentation to the House does not in itself indicate that it was so annexed at the time those 18 (1907) 140 NZPD 385 Guinness. 19 SO 361. 20 SO 363. 21 SO 364. 22 SO 366. 23 SO 365.
604 Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand signatures were collected. Unless the page is itself headed with the terms of the petition, or at least the request, there is no indication that those who signed on that page were subscribing the petition at all. Continuation pages of signatures on blank sheets of paper are therefore not acceptable. On the other hand, signatures on the reverse side of a page headed with the request will be accepted. Language of petitions Petitions must be in the English language or Te Reo Māori. 24 The Speaker may order that petitions presented to the House be translated and printed in another language. 25 Although petitions must be in English or Te Reo Māori, that does not prevent promoters including a version in another language with the petition that they present. Contents of petition Petitions are required to be couched in respectful and moderate language. 26 Just as members speeches must be free of unparliamentary language, so must the words of petitioners who are seeking to play a part in the proceedings of the House. Petitions must not contain irrelevant statements. 27 The grounds on which relief is claimed need not be set out in the petition, but many petitioners set forth the grounds for relief nevertheless, at varying lengths. If these grounds are set out too fully, there comes a point at which the petitioner is in effect giving evidence on his or her own petition in the petition itself. Evidence supporting the petition should be reserved for the select committee that hears the petition; it is irrelevant to the petition itself. It is also irrelevant to refer in the petition to any matter for which relief is not being claimed in the request for action. The petition may only set out the grounds for the request. Reference to unconnected matters can invalidate the whole petition. Certain petitions not accepted Apart from the rules on the form that a petition must take, there are certain types of petition that the House will not accept. House s jurisdiction There is an infinite variety of subjects on which petitions are presented, requesting (as they must) the House to take some action to ameliorate a problem. The receipt of such petitions by the House depends upon its competence to take action on the matter of complaint. As Parliament s legislative competence within New Zealand is untrammelled, there is no problem with this requirement as far as petitions seeking action within New Zealand are concerned. Petitions with the motive of reversing Government policy can be received, for it is always open to Parliament to legislate for such a change. However, where action is requested to be taken outside New Zealand, different considerations apply. Where the action called for outside New Zealand is merely an expression of New Zealand s foreign policy, petitions may clearly be addressed to such a matter. On the other hand, a petition calling for changes to the domestic law of a foreign State would not seek relief on a matter within the competence of the New Zealand Parliament and it is doubtful whether such a petition could be received. There have been no New Zealand examples of petitions being considered on such grounds. In the United Kingdom, petitions from abroad have been received, provided 24 SO 362. 25 SO 375. 26 SO 367(1). 27 SO 367(2).
Petitions 605 that, in accordance with established constitutional conventions, the subject of complaint relates to the action of British, rather than foreign, authorities. 28 Similar considerations would apply to New Zealand s relations with foreign States and with those States with which it has a constitutional relationship (the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau). Petitions may be received from persons outside New Zealand. Indeed the Standing Orders contemplate that a petition may be received from a foreign corporation. 29 At the time of the passage of the Western Samoa (Citizenship) Bill 1982, a petition against the bill was presented on behalf of persons resident in Western Samoa 30 and the question of its receivability was considered. Most of the petitioners were, in fact, New Zealand citizens. However, regardless of whether they were New Zealand citizens, the petition, it was concluded, was receivable in any case as it related to a matter (New Zealand citizenship) manifestly within the legislative competence of the New Zealand Parliament. A petition on the same subject some 20 years later sought to reverse the legislation. 31 Provided the subject of the petition is within the legislative competence of the New Zealand Parliament, the nationality or place of residence of the petitioners is irrelevant. Petitioners with legal remedies A petition on a matter for which the petitioner has not exhausted legal remedies is not permitted. 32 This rule is directed at persons with specific statutory rights to appeal or seek a review of the particular matter that is the subject of their complaint. A refusal of a resource consent by a local authority, for example, or an assessment to tax by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue gives the aggrieved citizen a statutory route to follow in each instance to challenge the decision. This must be utilised before a petition to the House should be considered. Not until all such appeal or review rights have been exhausted can a petition be received on a subject. Most appeal or review rights have time limits within which the appeal or review must be brought. The Standing Order barring petitions applies only where such rights are still alive. A potential litigant who sleeps on these rights and allows the time limit to expire without invoking them no longer has such rights and is therefore not debarred by the Standing Orders from petitioning the House. However, he or she will undoubtedly have weakened the case for relief by acting in such a way, for the House is likely to be unsympathetic towards a petitioner who failed to use the appeal or review procedures without good reason. Almost all administrative decisions can now be challenged by an application for judicial review. This is a general procedure, not a right of review of a particular proceeding. Nor does it involve a rehearing of the matter on its merits. It is concerned with the legality, rather than the merits, of the decision for example, whether correct procedures were followed or whether improper factors were taken into account in reaching the decision. The fact that a petitioner could possibly apply to the High Court under these procedures does not preclude a petition to the House. 33 Nor does the Standing Order requiring petitioners to have exhausted their legal remedies require a petitioner or other person to embark on litigation of a speculative nature, such as a civil action for damages or other relief, before a petition may be received. Only where Parliament has prescribed a specific avenue for addressing the petitioner s complaint in legislation is the rule on remedies engaged. 28 Malcolm Jack (ed) Erskine May s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (24th ed, LexisNexis, London, 2011) at 486 487. 29 SO 366. 30 (9 September 1982) [1982] JHR 190. 31 Government Administration Committee Petition of Dr George Paterson Barton Vaitoa Sa and 100,000 others (20 May 2004) [2002 2005] AJHR I.5C. 32 SO 371(a). 33 (1989) 499 NZPD 11081 11082 Burke.
606 Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand If a legal remedy exists for the subject matter of the petition, the fact that the person possessing the right to invoke that remedy is not the petitioner is irrelevant. The petition will still not be in order. Thus a person with a legal remedy cannot have the matter raised in a petition by the expedient of someone else petitioning the House on their behalf. The opportunity to make a submission to a select committee on a bill is not a legal remedy at all (although it may be regarded as a political remedy). Consequently, it is possible to present a petition relating to a bill before the House even though the petitioner could have made a submission on the bill. 34 Finally, Parliament in creating alternative legal remedies has occasionally expressly saved the right to petition the House. 35 In such a case the statutory remedy does not preclude a petition on that matter, even though it has not been pursued by a petitioner with the statutory right to do so. Petitions on matters within the Ombudsmen s jurisdiction Petitions from persons who have not sought the Ombudsmen s assistance where the subject matter of the petition is within the competence of the Ombudsmen are not in order. 36 This prohibition was introduced in 1967, five years after the office of the Ombudsman was created. It was clear that that office would deal with many complaints similar to those coming before the House by way of petition. Indeed, the creation of an Ombudsman could be a factor in the continuing decline in the number of petitions with a sole petitioner seeking redress of a private grievance. The intention of a formal rule requiring petitioners to try the Ombudsmen first if their petitions could be dealt with by that office is not to deny in all circumstances the citizen s right to petition the House but merely to require that the statutory machinery that has been specially erected for the resolution of such problems is tried first. Conversely, the right to petition the House is not a ground on which the Ombudsmen can refuse to investigate a complaint. 37 Petitions on a matter already dealt with It is not in order to re-petition the House on a subject that has already been dealt with by an earlier petition, unless substantial and material new evidence has become available since the earlier petition was considered. 38 This rule applies only to earlier petitions presented during the term of the current Parliament. Matters dealt with in a previous Parliament can be revisited by way of petition. A petition that has been finally considered by the House cannot be reopened in the absence of compelling evidence. Furthermore, such evidence must be new; it must not be evidence that was available when the petition was first heard but which the petitioner or the petitioner s advisers decided not to use. A claim that new evidence exists must be substantiated to the Speaker s satisfaction before a similar petition is allowed to proceed. The rule preventing the presentation of a second petition on the same subject operates only where the first petition has been finally dealt with by the House. Thus, if a petition is withdrawn without a report on its merits having been made, or an earlier petition is still before a select committee and has not yet been reported to the House, a subsequent petition with the same subject matter is not prohibited. 34 (1989) 502 NZPD 13500 Burke. 35 See, for example: Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s 9 (claims to the Waitangi Tribunal). 36 SO 371(b). 37 Ombudsmen Act 1975, s 17(1)(a). 38 SO 371(c).
Petitions 607 Petitions relating to judges There are restrictions on petitions relating to judges. A petition cannot contain a reflection on the conduct of a judge. 39 Such reflections would not be permitted in the course of debate and cannot be introduced into the House in the form of a petition. Where a person has a concern about the conduct of a judge, their first resort must be to make a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. 40 Where the House does have a role in the removal of a judge (in the case of High Court judges) the appropriate method of initiating such a procedure is by giving notice of motion, not by petition; and a petition calling for the removal of a High Court judge from that office, or another office that the judge holds by reason of being a High Court judge, is not in order. 41 Presentation of petitions Members responsibilities Petitions are presented to the House by members. No member is under a legal duty to present a petition, even one from a constituent of the member. 42 Nor does the House oblige a member to present a petition. 43 Members are enjoined to take care that a petition they are asked to present complies with the Standing Orders. 44 Members cannot divest themselves of the initial responsibility of scrutinising petitions. If they feel any doubt as to the authenticity of signatures, for instance, they would be abusing the confidence reposed in them by the House were they to go ahead and present the petition. 45 Nevertheless, members are not required to check, and vouch for, the authenticity of every signature on a petition. 46 In practice, most members consult the Office of the Clerk for advice on whether the petition is in order. It was formerly a rule that petitions were presented by the member for the electorate in which the petitioner or principal petitioner resided or had his or her headquarters. 47 Given that only about half the House is composed of electorate members, this is no longer the case. Petitioners can ask any member to present a petition on their behalf. If a petition is sent directly to the Clerk, the Clerk approaches the local electorate member to present it. The fact that a member presents a petition does not signify that the member agrees with it. A member may not present a petition from himself or herself, or a petition to which he or she is a signatory. 48 The presenting member must certify that he or she is presenting it. 49 It was formerly customary that the Speaker did not present petitions, but this custom related to a time when the member presented the petition physically in the House. As this is no longer the case, the Speaker presents petitions like any other member. Scrutiny of petitions Petitions are often forwarded directly by petitioners to the Office of the Clerk, in draft, before the petitioners commence to promote them and when they have been completed. Other petitions may be given to members at various stages of their promotion. The members forward them to the Office of the Clerk. All petitions received by the Clerk are perused for compliance with the Standing Orders relating 39 (1912) 161 NZPD 401 402 Guinness. 40 Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, s 11. 41 (1957) 313 NZPD 1818 1819, 1863 1864 Oram. 42 Chaffers v Goldsmid [1894] 1 QB 186. 43 (1983) 451 NZPD 925 Harrison; (1989) 502 NZPD 13500 13501 Burke. 44 SO 368(1). 45 (1889) 66 NZPD 271 O Rorke. 46 (1983) 451 NZPD 924 925 Harrison. 47 (1991) 516 NZPD 2494 Gray. 48 SO 368(2). 49 SO 368(1).
608 Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand to the form and type of petitions that may be received. If a petition does not fully comply with these rules it may be possible for the petitioner to correct any defect, and an effort is made to find a way to do this. In the case of a petition from an individual or few persons, this may mean the petitioner creating a new petition that complies with the rules. In the case of a defective petition with a substantial number of signatures attached to it, it may not be practicable for the petitioner to contact the signatories again and get them to sign a new petition. Often, in such a case, a new petition is created referring to the fact that that number of persons had signed a defective petition on the subject. A similar approach is taken where signatures have been collected for an online petition that could not otherwise be accepted. In these ways most of the potential irregularities relating to petitions can be dealt with before their formal delivery to the Clerk for presentation to the House. Method of presentation A petition is presented by being formally delivered to the Clerk by a member. This may be done on any working day, or no later than 1 pm on a sitting day. 50 If the House is sitting under urgency no petitions may be presented until it adjourns. However, when the House rises after sitting under urgency, petitions may be presented up to 1 pm on that day if the House sits again that day, or during the remainder of the day otherwise. Acceptance of petitions Most questions relating to the acceptability of petitions are resolved during the interactive process of scrutinising petitions, which involves petitioners, members and the Office of the Clerk. Any petition the Clerk considers to be irregular is not accepted for presentation to the House and is returned to the member concerned. Ultimately, the Speaker is the judge of whether a petition is acceptable. A petition may be ruled out of order by the Speaker even after it has been formally presented to the House. Indeed the select committee that examines a petition may comment on its acceptability, 51 and invite the Speaker to reconsider whether it complies with the Standing Orders, but no select committee may itself refuse to accept a petition. Announcement of presentation A list is compiled of petitions presented since the House last sat and that appear to be in order, which is read out to the House by the Clerk at the time for the announcement of the presentation of petitions (part of the first item of business each day). 52 For this purpose petitions with the same or similar requests are consolidated, with only the names of the principal petitioner of each petition and the subject matter of the request being read out. A note confirming each petition s presentation with a précis of the request is made available on the Parliament website. Referral to a select committee A petition that is in order and has been presented stands referred to a select committee immediately. For this purpose it is allocated by the Clerk to the most appropriate select committee for consideration and report. 53 From that point, the petition is in the possession of the committee. 50 SO 369(1). 51 Justice and Electoral Committee Petition 2002/47 of Gray Eatwell (18 December 2003) [2002 2005] AJHR I.22B at 771. 52 SO 369(2). 53 SO 370.
Petitions 609 The House no longer has a specialist select committee to consider petitions. Until 1962 the House had two such committees, one dealing with petitions prepared by petitioners whose surnames began with the letters A to L, and the other for those from petitioners with surnames beginning M to Z. From 1962 to 1985 there was one Petitions Committee, although petitions could be referred to other committees too. In practice this committee had about half of the petitions referred to it. Special committees established solely to examine a petition are rare. The last occasion on which a special select committee was set up to consider a petition was for the Lake Manapouri petition in 1970. If a special select committee is to be set up to consider a petition, this must be done on motion in the House; it is beyond the powers of the Clerk. The Clerk may only refer petitions to committees that have already been established. Subject to this constraint, all select committees may have petitions referred to them unless their terms of reference specifically preclude this. The Clerk will allocate a petition to the committee whose terms of reference relate most closely to the issue raised by the petition, without regard to whether it is politically appropriate or expedient for that committee to consider it. Any related business (such as a bill) that a committee has before it is a valid consideration in deciding which committee to refer a petition to. However, it is not appropriate to anticipate or speculate on business that might be referred to a committee in the future in deciding which committee to refer a petition to. Given the common recent practice of petitions being addressed in support of or opposition to legislation before the House, it is usual to refer such a petition to the committee considering the bill, so that it can be dealt with at the same time as the committee considers the bill. The House has ordered that the Clerk must allocate any petition relating to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Security Bureau to the statutory Intelligence and Security Committee. 54 A committee cannot refuse jurisdiction on a petition that has been referred to it, but it can recommend to the House that a petition be re-referred to another committee that it considers to be more appropriate to examine the petition. 55 A petition can be transferred by a committee to another committee if the other committee agrees to accept it. A committee has refused to accept the transfer to it of a petition before another committee. 56 Consideration by select committee Once a petition has been referred to a particular select committee it is delivered into the custody of the clerk of that committee. Form of committee s consideration The committee is required to deal with the petition and report it back to the House, but the extent of the consideration to be given to it is entirely over to the committee. A committee will typically follow certain well-established steps when it commences its consideration of a petition. All Government departments that are considered to have some official interest in the subject matter of the petition would usually be sent a copy of its request and asked to make a submission on it for the benefit of the committee. A department approached in this way may decide it would be more appropriate for another department to respond to the committee. 57 54 (18 February 2015) [2014 2017] JHR 90 92. 55 Government Administration Committee Petition 2002/121 of Denise Allen Powell and 522 others (27 August 2004) [2002 2005] AJHR I.22C at 614 615. 56 Ibid, at 614. 57 Finance and Expenditure Committee, report on petition recommending removal of excise tax on diesel fuel oil (1 June 1989) [1987 1990] AJHR I.4D at 4.
610 Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand There is a presumption that the principal petitioner will be asked if he or she wishes to tender any written evidence in support of the petition or, if the petition itself already sets out the grounds fully, whether he or she wishes to add any written comments. Informal deadlines are set for the receipt of these written submissions. Committees may decide not to invite written submissions if they are dealing with a large number of petitions. 58 If the committee decides to hear evidence on the petition, a time is fixed for the hearing. The petitioner and the department may be shown copies of each other s submissions (if any) before the hearing if the committee decides to follow this course. The petitioner or principal petitioner, the member who presented the petition and the Government departments involved are formally advised of the date and time of the hearing, and each department involved is asked to nominate an officer to attend. With the majority of petitions the receipt of evidence is confined to these persons or bodies. In the normal course no attempt is made to seek submissions more widely, although committees may accept submissions from persons or organisations not directly concerned with the petition. However, on occasion committees will go further in gathering evidence on petitions. In 1970 the public was specifically invited to submit evidence to the select committee considering the petition opposing the raising of the level of Lake Manapouri. 59 A select committee that had before it several petitions against the closures of post offices combined them for the purposes of its consideration and conducted an inquiry into the effects of post office closures on rural localities, travelling to those places to hear evidence. 60 Another committee considering a petition seeking restrictions on liquor advertising received 54 written submissions on it and heard oral evidence from 10 parties. 61 A committee has engaged a specialist adviser to assist it with its consideration of a petition. 62 One committee, in addition to inviting submissions from certain individuals, also received submissions from people in a relevant community, and heard evidence in Wellington by a simultaneous video link to multiple locations inside and outside New Zealand. 63 The general rules applying to select committees, such as that forbidding a committee from inquiring into a specific allegation of crime, apply to any select committee during consideration of a petition. 64 The rural post offices inquiry was a case in which the receipt of a number of petitions on a particular subject sparked off a wider inquiry than is normal with petitions. Consideration of petitions by select committees can inform and affect the performance of committees in their other roles of carrying out inquiries and annual reviews and of considering Estimates. Committees have an express statutory power to refer a petition, or any matter to which a petition refers, to an Ombudsman for report. 65 In such a case, the Ombudsman is required to investigate the matter referred (so far as it is within the Ombudsmen s jurisdiction) and to report back to the committee. Committees have made sparing use of their powers under this provision. A committee may 58 Standing Orders Committee Report of the Standing Orders Committee (July 2014) [2011 2014] AJHR I.18A at 32. 59 (1970) 370 NZPD 4930 4931. 60 Communications and Road Safety Committee, interim report on effect of Post Office closures on rural communities (8 December 1988) [1987 1990] AJHR I.2B; and Communications and Road Safety Committee, report on effect of Post Office closures on rural communities (16 May 1989) [1987 1990] AJHR I.2C. 61 Commerce and Marketing Committee Alcohol Advertising in New Zealand (16 June 1988) [1987 1990] AJHR I.1A. 62 Commerce Committee Petition 2002/6 of John Andrew Dickson (20 June 2003) [2002 2005] AJHR I.22B at 38. 63 Government Administration Committee Petition of Dr George Paterson Barton Vaitoa Sa and 100,000 others (20 May 2004) [2002 2005] AJHR I.5C. 64 Health Committee Petition 2002/111 of Deborah Coddington and 19 others (26 May 2004) [2002 2005] AJHR I.22C at 691. 65 Ombudsmen Act 1975, s 13(4).
Petitions 611 also request the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to report to it on any petition before the committee the outcome of which may have a significant effect on the environment. 66 Procedure before the committee At the hearing before the committee, the member who presented the petition may introduce the petitioner to the committee but does not usually play any other part in the hearing. Whether a member who has signed a petition takes part in the committee s consideration of it is a matter for him or her to decide. The committee cannot exclude the member, but the member may voluntarily stand aside. 67 The committee receives oral evidence from the petitioner and if necessary from the Government departments concerned. This supplements any written evidence already supplied. After an address from the petitioner (witness), members of the committee, in turn, question the petitioner on the matter before them, like other witnesses before select committees. Any departmental witnesses who give evidence are treated similarly. A petitioner or principal petitioner may be accompanied by associates who may also comment or answer questions at the invitation of the committee. In the case of petitions relating to a bill before the committee, consideration of the petition is not differentiated from consideration of the bill. The petition is akin to evidence on the bill and is treated as such by the committee. If a petitioner wants to make a personal appearance in such a case, a hearing may be arranged in the same way as for any other witness. Following the hearing of evidence, the committee considers and deliberates on the petition. (In some cases a committee may invite a witness to remain to assist it during its consideration of the petition.) Deliberation, in which the committee determines the terms in which it will report back to the House on the petition, is the final stage in the committee s examination of the petition. Whether the committee proceeds to deliberate immediately is entirely over to the committee itself. Where the issues are complex, deliberation may be postponed. At the conclusion of the committee s deliberation, a report is adopted for presentation to the House. Report There is no prescribed form to which a report on a petition must conform. It is a matter for the committee to determine. In fact, most reports on petitions are presented in a similar form to reports on any other inquiries that the committee concerned may carry out. It has previously been common for committees to report petitions to the House with a pro forma report that does not substantively address the petition subject matter, but committees are now expected to include reasoning in their reports. 68 A committee may report on more than one petition in the same report, but only if the petitions are associated with each other for instance, because they are identical or relate to the same issue. It is the practice to make a single report on a bill and on any petitions relating to that bill that have been referred to the committee. Thus, in 1989, in respect of the Radiocommunications Bill and the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Amendment Bill, the reports on those bills also included the committees reports 66 Environment Act 1986, s 16(1)(d). 67 See: Dalziel pulls out of Ellis probe The Press (11 March 2004); Justice and Electoral Committee, report on petitions 2002/55 and 2002/70 (8 August 2005) [2002 2005] AJHR I.22D at 644. 68 Standing Orders Committee Report of the Standing Orders Committee (July 2014) [2011 2014] AJHR I.18A at 32.
612 Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand on, respectively, 604 and 956 petitions relating to the bills. 69 Petitions about the latter bill were still being received as it was reported back to the House, and the Speaker warned members that further petitions would not be in order, as the House had finally dealt with petitions on the bill in receiving the committee s report on the first 956 petitions lodged on it. 70 Committees may also deal with petitions, and report on them, along with other related business. 71 A select committee s judgement on a petition, applying political criteria to it, may be different from that of a court on the same subject, applying legal criteria to it. 72 The report is presented in the same way as any other select committee report, by delivery to the Clerk on any working day but no later than 1 pm on a day on which the House sits. 73 Its presentation is announced to the House by the Clerk at its next sitting along with any other select committee reports presented that day. 74 Reports on petitions are not set down for consideration by the House on any particular day and specific debates on them are rarely held. The Business Committee has power to direct that a report on a petition be set down for consideration as a Members order of the day. 75 Lapse of petitions There are always petitions that have been referred to select committees but, because of lack of time, are not considered and reported back to the House by the end of the parliamentary session. At the conclusion of a Parliament all business before the House or its committees lapses or dies. 76 Such business can be reinstated in the next Parliament. Where a petition lapses and is not reinstated, a second petition with the same subject matter can be presented to a subsequent Parliament. Responses to recommendations Following the presentation of a report on a petition from a select committee, the clerk of the committee advises the petitioner or the principal petitioner of the nature of the committee s report. Until 1967 no further parliamentary action was required. The committees reports were (and still are) binding on no one, and no one was required to answer for whether they were to be actioned. In 1967, however, a Standing Order was adopted requiring the Government to report to the House on what action, if any, it had taken to implement recommendations made to it on petitions. This requirement for a Government response has now been absorbed into the general rule that the Government must, not more than 60 working days after a select committee report, report to the House responding to recommendations in the report directed to it. 77 This also applies to reports on petitions. Whenever a select committee presents a report on a petition that includes 69 (29 November 1989) [1987 1990] 2 JHR 2058 2072, (5 December 1989) [1987 1990] 2 JHR 2094 2107; Planning and Development Committee, report on Radiocommunications Bill and related petitions (5 December 1989) [1987 1990] AJHR I.11 at 6 26; and Social Services Committee, report on Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Amendment Bill and related petitions (29 November 1989) [1987 1990] AJHR I.13 at 629. 70 (1989) 503 NZPD 13870 13871 Burke. 71 Justice and Electoral Committee, report on 2002/03 financial review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and related petition (5 March 2004) [2002 2005] AJHR I.21B at 11. 72 Contrast, for example, Transport Committee, report on the petition of Federated Farmers of New Zealand (17 December 1992) [1991 1993] AJHR I.26A, with Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Inc) v New Zealand Post Ltd HC Wellington CP661/92, 1 December 1992. 73 SO 249(1). 74 SO 249(3). 75 SO 250(2). 76 Constitution Act 1986, s 20(1)(b). 77 SO 252(1).
Petitions 613 recommendations addressed to the Government, the Office of the Clerk sends a copy of the report to the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office then co-ordinates a consideration of the committee s report within the Government. This involves the appropriate Minister preparing a response to the recommendations for endorsement by the appropriate Cabinet committee and then by Cabinet. Once a response has been agreed upon, the Minister in question communicates it directly to the petitioner and presents it to the House. 78 Such responses are published as parliamentary papers in the Appendices to the Journals of the House. While only the Government is obliged to respond to recommendations in a committee s report on a petition, in one instance a local authority that took action following a report on a petition invited the committee to review the actions it had taken. The committee accepted the invitation and used its power to initiate an inquiry to do so. 79 In exceptional cases, a favourable recommendation from a committee on a petition can be the catalyst for the Government to agree to law changes or the paying of compensation to the petitioner. 80 Records of petitions Petitions are held in the custody of the Clerk once they have been reported back to the House by the select committee to which they were referred. As House records they are subject to the same custody regime as any other records. (See p 86.) However, petitions often include the names and addresses of individuals. Therefore, general access to such personal information attached to a petition is not accorded even after a petition has been reported to the House. 81 78 Cabinet Office Cabinet Manual 2008 at [7.108] [7.111]. 79 Local Government and Environment Committee, report on inquiry into response of Manukau City Council (9 August 2001) [1999 2002] AJHR I.22B at 1106 1121. 80 See, for example: Former soldier to get compensation The Dominion (22 February 1997) ($20,000 compensation paid following a committee s recommendation). 81 Office of the Clerk Access to petitions (policy approved by the Speaker, 15 June 1988).