Modest progress on lobbyists register

Special Minister of State Senator John Faulkner has released a draft code of conduct on lobbying that incorporates a public register of names and the interests they represent.

While the proposed scheme is a step forward, it's classic 'light touch' regulation and won't go far in assisting the public to know what goes on as influence peddlers go about their business.

The scheme, summarised in the Canberra Times today, only requires registration by those acting on behalf of a client, and will tell us nothing about those employed 'in house' whose job is to seek to influence government policy or decisions, or about industry organisations, charities and NGOs who are also heavily involved in these activities. It is based on the Western Australian model (gasp!). The Australian Financial Review says lobbyists registered there describe the scheme as well intended but not onerous.

Something more robust would involve disclosure of the names of all those paid to lobby, and regular information about who they contact and why; a prohibition on political donations by them; and some strong independent enforcement mechanisms. Canada leads on this issue and on others associated with integrity in public life, for example political donations. There, former ministers are banned from lobbying on matters dealt with while in office for five years - Faulkner's proposal is 18 months, and a year for senior public servants.

Regulation of lobbyists will always be difficult, and probably full of loopholes for those paid to know a loophole when they see one. The draft proposals are a modest start to a complex but important public policy issue.

Way off the money on timeliness of disclosure of political donations

Lots of interest about contributions to political parties as a result of a report released by the Australian Electoral Commission. However a system that discloses information, in some cases up to 19 months after the donation, is not one to be proud of. In addition, according to The Age what has been released is information up to June 2007. It doesn't cover donations in the lead up to the Federal election which won't be published until May - 7 months after the election.

The anonymity provided for donations up to $10,300 and the technicality that allows the NSW Labor Party to report many contributions as "other" do not provide the information we should expect about who is seeking to oil the wheels of the political system. Only 264 donations qualified for disclosure of the source - 1000 less than those disclosed before Howard government legislative changes last year.

I mentioned here 2 years ago, how difficult it is to get into the details published on the web. It doesn't look any easier now.

The Federal Labor Party has plans to go back to $1500 for the disclosure threshold, and to remove tax deductions for political donations. There is also some speculation about banning overseas donations.

The Government should also be moving towards disclosure within weeks of political donations and making this information available without a year or longer passing before we are to know who opened the wallet. The NSW Electoral Commission will this week put up on the web its report on contributions for the 2007 election - almost 1 year after the event.

In the US campaign contribution reports are required quarterly (with some reform ideas swirling around). Here is the latest on US Presidential contenders to December 2007.

The NSW Government in 2005 was interested in a ban on donations by developers if a national approach was taken to this issue. John Howard said "not practicable". Times have changed. With Labor governments everywhere, just the right circumstances to do something if integrity in government is a high order issue.

We can all draw our own conclusions about what donors expect. As the head of the Australian Hotels Association, John Thorpe said a few years ago "Democracy isn't cheap".

WA dirt on full display

If ever a case study is needed to support the argument for transparency in the public sector, the ABC 4 Corners program "The Dark Arts" screened on Monday, fits the bill. The ABC website includes a great collection of resources and links that live up to the dark arts title.

It's the background story to the revelations about the lobbying activities of former Western Australian Premier Brian Burke and former Minister Julian Grill that have so far led to the resignation of three ministers, three ministerial chiefs of staff and one Federal Minister, and caused a bit of pain for Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd along the way. Hidden funding for local council candidates, confidential off-the-record chats and long lunches with ministers and public servants, and lots of special influence, all under a heavy shroud of secrecy.

The WA Crime and Conduct Commission is still to report its findings, so this isn't the last word.

It's also pause for thought that while most states now have an anti corruption complaints body, we still don't have a conduct commission in Canberra to keep an eye on what happens there. And that in all jurisdictions except WA and Victoria, none of our governments show the slightest interest in seeking to regulate the activities of lobbyists.

Regulating lobbyists "too hard" in NSW

No surprise that the NSW Premier, according to this article in today's Sydney Morning Herald, sees no need for a register of lobbyists. (See our post "WA register of lobbyists a step in the right direction" 16 April).

The reason?

"A spokesman for the Premier, Morris Iemma, said he did not believe in a register because it was hard to ensure legislation covered all organisations or individuals".

This is remarkably similar to the reason for opposing such a register given by Bruce Hawker, the Managing Director of Hawker Britton, the lobbying firm that apparently has the game tied up in NSW.

"Mr Hawker said yesterday that the West Australian system was flawed because it did not define certain people as lobbyists. The general secretary of the Labor Party or a union secretary would not have to declare their lobbying interests, and neither would "in-house lobbyists" for companies, he said".

A government committed to transparency in the conduct of public functions would therefore seek to do better than the WA system. There are plenty of precedents from Canada and elsewhere that show the way.

A government not interested might simply say its all too hard. And apparently it's not too hard for the Premier's ALP Federal colleague Kevin Rudd who was reported in The Age in January as saying that Labor plans to crackdown on lobbyists if elected later this year. He made it sound as if a register was just a start!

By the way, as mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald article NSW Parliament requires lobbyists to register before they can be given a pass to roam the corridors. The register is here - Hawker Britton apparently has no need for such things.

And finally, the "Guidelines for Managing Lobbyists" referred to by the Premier as being "sufficient" are in this Memorandum (M2006-01) issued last year. They only apply to contact with lobbyists prior to the making of a decision under an act of Parliament or regulation. They don't address issues concerning other contacts with lobbyists about aspects of government policy or decision making. Among the suggestions is that ministers, ministerial staff and public officials who are lobbied should "consider keeping records of meetings and, if necessary, having another person attend the meeting as a witness or to take notes" (emphasis added). This is weaker even than guidance provided by State Records NSW about the obligation to keep full and accurate records including those concerning meetings in the course of the conduct of government business.

"Sufficient" as far as the Premier is concerned?

WA Lobbyists Register a step in the right direction

It's hardly earth shattering as a transparency initiative but it is an Australian first. Western Australia now has its official Register of Lobbyists up and on line. The Register currently contains 31 entries. Lobbyists must disclose their clients, update client information quarterly and comply with a code of practice. The code prohibits a minister or public servant from contact with a lobbyist unless registered.

A far cry from a truly transparent system that would ensure public knowledge of what goes on in the corridors of power, but at least one small step - for West Australians at least.

According to today's Australian Financial Review (no link available), the famous or infamous Messrs Burke and Grills whose names do not appear, will not be allowed to register.

Victoria is in the process of establishing a register. No sign of action in Canberra, or the other states.

Major parties in NSW election quiet about the problem of influence peddlers

Courtesy of Sunshine Week 2006

Another transparency related topic that neither of the major political parties has mentioned in the NSW election campaign to date, is the issue of lobbyists and access to information about who they are, who they talk to, and what they talk about.

The Burke affair in Western Australia, and the tentacles that have reached to Canberra have put the issue on the agenda there. Both the Western Australian and Victorian Governments are in the process of considering a lobby registration scheme, in the latter case with pressure from The Greens and others.

The major parties in NSW don't appear to be interested, although not surprisingly it is a topic that The Greens, Australian Democrats and independent candidates are concerned about.

The Premier, in January last year issued "Guidelines for ministers, ministerial staff and public officials in dealing with lobbyists". However the guidelines only relate to lobbying in respect to a decision "proposed to be made under statute where the decision maker is required to adhere to the principles of administrative law", and are weak in many respects. For example, as pointed out in this editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald ("Shining a light on the lobbyists") ministers are only required to "consider" keeping records of meetings with lobbyists.

Statutory decisions are of course important, and should be made honestly, without bias, and on the basis of proper considerations. But what about lobbying of ministers, ministerial staff and public servants on other issues such as the expenditure of large amounts of public money, and even bigger decisions they make concerning economic, social and environmental matters where individual or sectoral interests stand to gain? Shouldn't we have clear rules about attempts to exercise influence over these decisions, and don't we have a right to know who speaks to who about what?

Radio National's "The National Interest" last Sunday discussed issues about reform and regulation of the lobbying industry. One of the guests, Duff Conacher of Canada's Democracy Watch, spoke about the Canadian Federal system which not only requires registration of lobbyists and continuous disclosure (on the web) of contacts with politicians and public servants, but bans ministers and senior public servants from any involvement in lobbying for 5 years after they leave office. The Federal Opposition has said it will introduce a register, but the Government has dismissed this as unnecessary.

It looks like both our major NSW political parties prefer to leave a blank space rather than a commitment to reform of lobbying activity as the starting point for their time in office come 24 March.

We are all entitled to expect more.