In an era of increased digitisation, e-petitions have become a popular form of political engagement. However, as the parameters of truth, democracy, false news, and conspiracy are challenged, so too is the original role of parliamentary petitioning. In our article, published in Policy & Internet, my co-author and I argue that the amplification of conspiracy theories shifts the goalposts for e-petitioning in terms of function. Specifically, unlike traditional petitions, they are not primarily aimed at producing policy changes. Instead, they function as social objects that achieve various community outcomes while adhering to petition rules. Signatures on these petitions, although lacking automatic results, signal popularity. Thus, the content of petitions can serve as a platform for airing shared grievances on topics such as immigration, economics, and health—and can even experiment with new forms of communication, such as emojis.
As it is known, petitions alone rarely lead to policy changes, though they often reflect public sentiment and can significantly impact protest campaigns or social movements. E-petitions exist in various formats, with private platforms like Change.org being among the most well-known. In Australia, there are different types of e-petitioning, and it’s important to distinguish between them. The first type is private e-petitions, which serve as gathering spaces for individuals united by a common cause. The second type is parliamentary petitions, which can be initiated at either the state or federal level. Parliamentary petitioning is a process entrenched in parliamentary conventions. The petitions committee enforces rules that enable Australian residents and citizens to express concerns to Parliament and has some authority to compel action from government representatives.
While rare, there are notable examples of e-petitions that have led to meaningful change. For instance, the Senate inquiry into media diversity, initiated by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2020, started with e-petitioning. Similarly, changes to teacher education requirements, which received numerous petitions in 2021, are currently being implemented. Our recent article for Policy & Internet explored COVID-19 conspiracy theories as they relate to parliamentary petitions. It examined the blurred lines between rules-based e-petitions and cause-based online interactions. Many Australians expressed their challenges and disagreements with various aspects of government policy, and some individuals, often linked to a range of conspiracy theories, articulated their concerns through petitions. This emergence of conspiracy theories within petitions is paradoxical: why target these beliefs at the government using an official government channel?
Our research identified two interconnected issues: the misuse of the petition system and the spread of misinformation among petitioners and signatories. These concerns intersect with a preexisting third issue: the need for parliamentary petitions to maintain a space for public expression. From a research perspective, the first issue serves as a way to identify the second. The activities surrounding these petitions expose alternative group pursuits and the beliefs that motivate them. A deeper understanding of both can hopefully foster better communication across differing worldviews. The third issue remains an ongoing challenge: ultimately, allowing for public expression and maintaining open channels for communication with the government necessitates that e-petition systems navigate the tensions that arise from these new dynamics. This ongoing challenge underscores the importance of our topic and keeps the reader focused on the implications for political engagement.
Note: the above draws on the author’s work recently published in Policy & Internet.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of Policy & Internet, nor the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney
