Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that lobbying can result in the development of policies that favour the interests of private corporations over the interests of the Australian public;

(2) notes that there is a lack of transparency over the relationship between lobbyists and Ministerial offices;

(3) recognises that breaches of the Lobbying Code of Conduct are rarely identified by the Attorney-General's Department and that there are currently no serious penalties for breaching the Lobbying Code of Conduct; and

(4) commits to:

(a) extending the Register of Lobbyists to include registered professional lobbyists acting on behalf of third parties, services firms and lobbyists acting on behalf of businesses and industry bodies;

(b) extending the cooling-off period for former MPs and senior government officials to three years in keeping with international best practice;

(c) introducing new penalties for breaching the Lobbying Code of Conduct, such as suspending lobbyists from operating for up to two years; and

(d) ensuring the National Anti-Corruption Commission has the ability to investigate alleged breaches of the Lobbying Code of Conduct and enforce penalties.

The corridors of this House are roamed by lobbyists given free rein to talk to whichever politicians they please. Too often they are close and old friends of some of our ministers and staffers, hired because of their personal connections, and useful to corporate interests because they open doors that 99.9 per cent of Australians will never have access to. This is a broken system. The most powerful people in our country spend vastly more time speaking to employees of lobbying firms than they do to people on JobSeeker, to tradies, to students, to small-business people or to refugees. Lobbying firms and powerful corporations are experts at political persuasion. They've figured out how to turn politicians' personal relationships into profit, and the loser is the Australian people.

Public servants and elected representatives must act with integrity, transparency and honesty. In recent decades in Australia we've seen access and influence skew increasingly to the interests of businesses and powerful individuals. Lobbying aims to influence government decisions, such as policymaking, legislation, procurement and grants. Over the past 30 years commercial lobbying in Australia has grown into a lucrative multibillion-dollar-a-year industry. It's hard to think that industry and those private interests don't expect a return on their massive investment.

At a federal level, a Lobbying Code of Conduct applies only to professional or third-party lobbyists placed on a register of lobbyists operating under an administrative code of conduct. That code of conduct is inadequate. In-house lobbyists are not subject to the code of conduct and they're not included on the lobbyists registry. Almost 1,800 in-house lobbyists currently hold orange passes, which give them unrestricted access to secure areas of Parliament House. We don't know who they are. We don't know who gave them access. Only one in four of our lobbyists is actually on our Register of Lobbyists. We don't know who our government representatives are meeting with and we don't know why. Responsibility for monitoring lobbyists activities in Parliament House lies with the Attorney-General's Department, but this is a toothless system. The penalty for any breach of the code is deregistration from the register, but no fine—a punishment approximately as severe as being whacked about the face with a tissue.

Ministerial and staffer diaries are an invaluable accountability mechanism. They help the public know who has access to our ministers, and they help them to know those issues that are of interest to those who do have access to the ministers. We should know about the timing, the frequency and the nature of representations made to ministers and senior staffers by lobbyists. Ministerial and staffer salaries are paid by public funds. It is difficult to conceive of any rational basis for refusing publication of those diaries.

Another integrity concern is former politicians, senior political staff and high-ranking government officials leaving office then taking on related roles in the private sector and lobbying on behalf of their new employees—the so-called 'revolving door'. One in four former ministers takes on a role with a special interest group after leaving politics, and nearly 40 per cent of our registered federal lobbyists worked for the government in some role before they became lobbyists—how cosy.

Lobbying is a legitimate part of the democratic process, but it must be carried out ethically and transparently. Our ministerial standards and the Lobbying Code of Conduct are sketchy, limited and unenforceable. The regime imposes weak rules with no independent oversight and no real punishments for infringement. These rules do not ensure integrity or transparency. It is no wonder that the public has such little faith in the integrity of what goes on in this place and that it fears that influence can be bought in this country.

Our electoral act should be amended to legislate a lobbying regime, replacing and expanding upon the current toothless Lobbying Code of Conduct. Administrative responsibility for that code should be placed with the Attorney-General's Department, and the Anti-Corruption Commission should have the ability to investigate breaches of that code. We need more transparency over ministers' diaries. We have to enforce revolving door bans. The people of Australia deserve to have faith in the integrity of their government.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Sam Lim (Tangney, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I decided to run for parliament, to represent the people of Tangney, I was seriously concerned, because I believed that our country faced a challenge. This challenge was one that affected all areas of government. I'm talking about the lack of transparency that the Albanese Labor government is bringing to an end.

To mention a few examples: I remember a high-ranking official of the Liberal Party involved in shady deals with their former partners. I also remember car park rorts, with the announcement of $121 million later inflated to $300 million, just to benefit political friends. I remember sports rorts that handed out money to applicants that were not the ones that deserved it the most, according to the Australian National Audit Office. But this should not come to us as a surprise. How can we expect transparency from the people led by a super minister—a man that appointed himself as minister of everything?

We should consider ourselves privileged. Our constituents deposited in us their faith and their hopes. They expect us to lead this country with integrity, and we cannot betray their trust. I believe in justice, and I believe that those who act against the public interest eventually are exposed. I believe that selfishly putting your own interests above those of our nation comes at a great cost. I would not want to be in their position and have to go to bed with a heavy conscience.

But this government can be proud of being different. In the first year of this government, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was created—an independent body with the authority to investigate any case suspected of corruption. I had the honour to work on this legislation, side by side with many talented, wise colleagues. But even though we have made progress, we still know that corruption is not limited just to public officials. Many will try to take advantage of their personal relationships, their position of influence and their economic power, but we have rules in place to prevent private interests interfering with the development of public policies.

It was a Labor government that established the Lobbying Code of Conduct. This way, government representatives can always be aware of whose interests lobbyists represent. Any person who expects to lobby the government on behalf of a third party must be registered and compliant with the integrity and transparency framework set out in the code.

Our Attorney-General's Department does a good job enforcing this code, including investigating alleged or potential breaches. Under the code, a lobbyist that has committed a serious breach can be barred. Furthermore, if they fail to comply with their obligations they might be removed from the register. The court has been updated recently, with the last time being 2022. Those modifications aim to strengthen the compliance and enforcement options available to the secretary of the department, introduce continuous disclosure requirements and improve transparency where former ministers, advisers and officials are engaged in lobbying activities. Lobbying is not the main concern of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, but, where breaches to the code could consist of systematic corruption, the commission would have jurisdiction to investigate. With the work our Attorney-General's Department does and the National Anti-Corruption Commission in place, we have a solid defence against corrupt interests. That way we can guarantee that the work we do here is for the benefit of all Australians.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise in support of this important private member's motion, particularly so soon after introducing my private member's bill on restoring trust in federal elections this morning. Both this motion and my earlier bill are consistent with the role of the expanded crossbench in this parliament, pushing for better transparency, greater integrity and more accountability in politics.

The opaque role of lobbyists and the effect on policy are real concerns for a healthy democracy. When conducted in an open and transparent manner, lobbying can make a positive contribution to the development of public policy by ensuring that government understands the consequences of laws. But access is uneven. Not all voices have the money to pay for a lobbyist. Activities that are not transparent can have a negative effect on policymaking and public confidence in government. At the moment, some unregistered in-house lobbyists can wander the halls of parliament and walk unannounced into the offices of everyone, from ministers to backbenchers to crossbenchers, at any time, vastly increasing their ability to exert influence. As the Grattan Institute has observed, policymaking can be distorted if some interests are consistently heard while others are not. The Hon. Anthony Wheely KC, Chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, says it succinctly:

Lobbying has become a large unregulated industry. The revolving door sees MPs and Ministers using their connections to further private interests.

Third-party lobbying is currently governed by a code of conduct, with lobbyists listed on the lobbyist register and overseen by the Attorney-General's Department. Under the current system, only third-party lobbyists are required to register. If you're employed directly by a company to influence government and policy rather than through a third party, you're not covered by any regulation. If you can get a parliamentarian to authorise a sponsored APH access card, you can walk the halls of parliament freely. At 15 February this year, there were 1,791 people calling a current sponsored APH access card, with 891 of those passes being issued in the current parliament. Many of these are family members of parliamentarians, but this also includes an unknown number of passes issued by parliamentarians to in-house lobbyists. These in-house lobbyists are able to conduct invisible lobbying activity without any regulation or oversight. The Australian Professional Government Relations Association has its own code of conduct to support transparent, accountable and ethical practice, but not all lobbyists are members.

I strongly believe that we need greater governance over lobbyists. The UK and Canadian parliaments and the US Congress have legislated lobbying regimes rather than an administrative code of conduct. The law in those jurisdictions includes arrangements to allow scrutiny of passes granted by parliamentarians. Australia must follow this precedent, particularly in light of the fact that one anonymous parliamentarian in the 47th Parliament has already signed off on 55 sponsored access passes. We have the right to know who is accessing our ministers and our executive.

Reform should also include extending the cooling-off period for former MPs and senior government officials to three years, in keeping with international best practice, rather than the 12 or 18 months we have here in Australia. It should include a penalty for breach of lobbying rules and regulations. Lobbying misconduct should be punished by denying access to government, including for more minor breaches involving a failure to report on their lobbying activities. I urge the government to consider these reforms to ensure that policy decisions are not unduly influenced by the loud voices of the powerful minority rather than the interests of the Australian public.

David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to speak on the motion moved by the member for Kooyong. Integrity and transparency are clearly important matters for all members participating in this debate. This is not a new journey. This motion focuses on the Lobbying Code of Conduct introduced under the Rudd Labor government in 2008. Currently, the intent of the code is to ensure that contact between lobbyists and Australian government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.

The code sets out the requirements for contact between third-party lobbyists and government representatives as well as outlining the type of information that will be available to the public through the register. Lobbyists who do not comply with the code may be removed from the register. The register requires lobbyists to adhere to a number of obligations or risk being completely deregistered if they failed to conduct business with the government appropriately. Some of those principles include:

… not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims about, or otherwise misrepresent, the nature or extent of their access to Government representatives, members of political parties or to any other person … keep strictly separate from their lobbying activities any personal activity or involvement on behalf of a political party … use all reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements and information provided by them to clients whom they represent, the wider public and Government representatives …

In its current form, the lobbying code allows the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to remove a lobbyist under a wide range of criteria. The code requires government representatives, including ministers, assistant ministers and their staff, most Commonwealth public servants and all ADF personnel, to avoid knowingly and intentionally being party to lobbying activities by lobbyists who are not registered under the code.

The code was updated as recently as last year under the former government. These updates include: strengthening compliance and enforcement options available to the secretary of the department; the introduction of continuous disclosure requirements for lobbyists for any material change to their registrations; and improved transparency where former ministers, advisers and senior officials are engaged in lobbying activities. In addition to these updates, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently reviewing the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018, which also regulates lobbying activities. The Albanese government looks forward to the committee's report and will consider any recommendations it may make, including in relation to lobbying activities.

One of the last causes of this motion discusses the need to ensure that the National Anti-Corruption Commission can investigate alleged breaches of the lobbying code. Let's for one second appreciate this country now has an established commission. Unsurprisingly, this is something the party of robodebt were unable or unwilling to deliver. This completely independent Commonwealth agency has been tasked with detecting, investigating and reporting on serious or systemic corruption in the Commonwealth public sector. It also has a role to educate the Public Service and the public about corruption risks and prevention.

The commission can investigate the following: conduct of any person that adversely affects a public official's honest or impartial exercise of powers or performance of duties; conduct of a public official that involves a breach of public trust; conduct of a public official that involves abuse of office; and conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of documents or information that they have gained in their capacity as a public official. The commission was not legislated with the authority and jurisdiction to enforce any penalties under the Lobbying Code of Conduct. To maintain the integrity and mission of the commission, it's critical to avoid the assumption that we can simply assign additional functions and powers to the commission and, by doing so, we can solve an issue.

The Lobbying Code of Conduct was established by the last Labor government to ensure that government representatives who are approached by lobbyists know whose interests they represent. The government expects lobbyists and government representatives to comply with the code. To let this fall under the commission, while well intentioned, would potentially dilute the capacity of the commission and the incredibly important work it's already doing to restore integrity and enhance transparency across the Commonwealth public sector.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.