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

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that public perceptions of the pervasive influence that lobbyists have over political decision-making have worsened in recent years;

(2) recognises that there is presently no consistent or visible way of knowing which corporate or stakeholder groups are meeting with Government Ministers;

(3) commits to the:

(a) timely publication of ministerial diaries as a vital transparency and accountability measure;

(b) maintenance and publication of a searchable register that includes the names of all lobbyists accessing this building, and that those persons be identified as a professional lobbyist, an in-house lobbyist and/or a former Government representative; and

(c) transparency of meetings held by those individuals with Members of Parliament; and

(4) agrees to extend the post-employment cooling-off period for former Ministers and senior government officials to three years, in keeping with international best practice.

As Senator John Faulkner said in 2012:

No-one ever argues that governments should have less integrity, that elected officials should not be accountable, or that public servants should behave unethically.

'Broad statements regarding the value of integrity, transparency, accountability and ethics gain agreement from all sides of politics and society.' The thing is that ensuring and enforcing government integrity demands more than just expressions of goodwill. The recent rise in this country of post-truth corrosive Trumpian politics of the far right, which is actively seeding division in our politics, demands of all of us a more muscular democracy. The Australian public has, with good cause, developed great cynicism around politicians and our motivations and actions. That cynicism is corrosive of democracy. It undermines our social licence in this place. It calls into question what we do here and why we do it. Australians need to be able to trust their elected officials. Political integrity is critical to maintaining that trust. Loss of that trust means that we lose the ability to inspire our nation, to make difficult decisions, to be brave, to be bold, to be generous, to legislate to protect the vulnerable and to combat current and intergenerational inequities.

In recent years, we've seen the effect of the loss of that trust in our ability to effectively lead reform of our tax system, to improve affordability of housing, to talk about fairness in our education, in health care, in aged-care sectors, to treat refugees humanely and to act effectively on reconciliation. We've lost the ability to tell the truth to the public and to be believed. To restore the public's faith in our parliamentary and political integrity, we have to put into place the processes, the checks and the safeguards required to demonstrate transparency and accountability to the public's satisfaction. An effective integrity framework demands regulation of lobbying.

I've lodged to this House a private member's bill which was developed with the help of several peak integrity and transparency organisations. The bill includes a provision for a new transparent online lobbyist register, which will include in-house lobbyists as well as third-party lobbyists. It will require lobbyists to lodge transparent quarterly returns. It will legislate publication of ministerial diaries so that we can note in real time who ministers deal with and why. It will impose a longer cooling-off period to ensure that ministers and senior public servants don't work as lobbyists immediately after leaving parliament. It will be enforceable with fines and bans for lobbyists who are in breach of the bill. It will replace the currently existing code of conduct, which is limited, inadequate and unenforced. It's actually worse than nothing because it hides the problem rather than addressing it.

My bill should be debated, and it should be passed by this House. The government's and the opposition's attitudes to it will reflect how they really feel about addressing integrity and transparency in this place. The bill should sit within a broader framework, which should also include action on ministerial standards, political donations, truth in political advertising and an end to pork-barrelling. The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission was a major achievement which was due, in no small part, to the tireless efforts of my crossbench colleagues. But we need more of those achievements. Public interest disclosure—whistleblowing—is still a fraught area in this country. We desperately need a comprehensive overhaul of the Public Interest Disclosure Act and we need a whistleblower protection commission which has comprehensive jurisdiction over both the public and the private sectors.

It is time to shine a light into the halls of this parliament. As politicians we are judged not only on our words but also on our actions. So I challenge the government and the opposition to support me and my colleagues—the other members of the crossbench—in pushing for better regulation of lobbying and for greater integrity and transparency from our government and in pushing for a return to a form of government in which Australians, our constituents, can believe in.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to the member for Kooyong for raising this motion. She and I represent neighbouring electorates, and I know both of our communities care very deeply about matters of integrity in politics. I know that, for many people in Jagajaga, integrity was one of the big issues that they raised with me, particularly during the course of the last term of the last government and during the last election campaign.

They did see what was unfolding in this place under the leadership of the then Prime Minister, the member for Cook. They did see the sports rorts, which affected groups in my community, where the Liberals and Nationals oversaw funding going towards projects to the detriment of other projects, in communities like mine, that were high-quality proposals. They saw the airport rort where the Morrison government reportedly paid 10 times the actual value of land for the Western Sydney airport, which cost $30 million. I could go on, but I won't. It wasn't until the election of our government that we also realised that the member for Cook had multiple secret ministries.

The member for Kooyong is right. This type of behaviour does undermine trust in the work of this place and, more broadly, trust in our democratic institutions. It's something we all have to guard against. I think that the attention that our government has brought to that, since we came into office, is a marked difference from what we saw from those in office previously.

It did take a change of government, a Labor government, to introduce a national anti-corruption commission and have that commission delivered. It is a change that, absolutely, Australians had been calling for. I also acknowledge the strong advocacy and work of the member for Indi in establishing the National Anti-Corruption Commission—a strong, independent watchdog. In the few short months since it commenced operations the commission has worked widely across the federal public sector to ensure that people are aware of its work and its areas of focus, including the corruption risks in procurement, recruitment and promotion.

The commission has also said that this year it will be focusing on efforts of conflicts of interest, ethical decision-making and electoral issues. Given the interest in the work of the NACC, it's also worth highlighting the protections that the NACC includes for whistleblowers. Anyone who makes a referral, provides information or gives evidence about a corruption issue is protected from civil, criminal or administrative liability, including defamation proceedings, except for situations where it relates to their own conduct. There are many elements to the work of the NACC, and more broadly, that are happening to strengthen integrity in this place and the federal political sphere. The introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is, in fact, one of the most significant reforms in decades and one that I know that my community is very pleased to see delivered.

Lobbying reform as an issue is one that has been raised by many civil society organisations and was raised, for me, during part of my work during the inquiry into the 2022 federal election that I led as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. While lobbying was beyond the work and the scope of that committee, I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. It is important, as I said, that this parliament works to ensure that we don't see a loss of trust in this place or, more broadly, in the democratic institutions that do make our democracy as strong and unique as it is. That is why, through our JSCEM inquiry, we have made several recommendations focused on strengthening transparency and trust in our electoral system, including real-time disclosure of donations, lowering the donation disclosure threshold, caps on donations and spending, and many more. They are important reforms and they do go to these issues of transparency, trust and how we want to see our democracy operate.

Of course, it was under the Rudd-Gillard government that the Lobbying Code of Conduct was introduced. That meant that, for the first time in this place's history lobbyists meeting with government representatives needed to register their activities and ensure compliance with strict transparency rules. The code requires government representatives to meet only with registered lobbyists, and it places requirements on lobbyists to report breaches of the code, to register and to comply with the principles outlined by the code.

I know that many Australians, including people in my community, are deeply interested in integrity in politics. It is an issue that matters. The National Anti-Corruption Commission was a big step forward and a major reform that was well overdue. There is more work to do, and I look forward to continuing to engage in the broad discussions we have about that in this place and working with others to continue to enhance integrity.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud today to stand and second the motion from the member for Kooyong because, like me, the member for Kooyong is clear. Every time she stands in this place, she is representing the people of Kooyong who elected her. And, as an Independent MP, I am confident that, every time I speak in this place, every time I vote and every time I make a decision, I know who I represent. It's not the party bosses or big businesses or unions; it's the people of Indi.

But too often in this place questions are raised over the decisions made and positions taken by those in power. Whose interests are being represented and who stands to gain? The answers to these questions—who is represented and who stands to gain—are too often found in who has access, who knows the right people or who paid for the right seat at a dinner, when instead it should be the people who elect their representatives and send them here to Parliament House to do exactly that—represent their interests.

We are, of course, talking about the practice of lobbying and the distortionary effect it can have on the decisions made here. Lobbying itself is not the problem. Advocacy is a vital part of our democracy. We need different points of view, different experiences and new ideas. We need diverse voices to be heard in order to make the best decisions and develop the best and most robust policies. The problem is that not all voices have equal access to decision-makers and to elected representatives. In fact, it's clear there's a significant imbalance in who gets access to members of this place. With easier access comes easier influence and a smoother way to make one's case more often at the critical moments.

You may ask: why is this a problem? We know alcohol industry lobbying delayed implementation of mandatory pregnancy warning labels for more than a decade in Australia. We know from the data collected under the Queensland government's lobbying registers and analysed by the Grattan Institute that highly regulated industries dominate donations, commercial lobbying contracts and meetings with senior ministers. We also know from that data that the gambling and property development sectors are overrepresented in their share of external donations, lobbying contracts and meetings with ministers compared to their economic contribution. It is the industries with the most to lose from government regulation that are knocking on the doors more often and saying, 'Don't worry about us; you don't need that law', even when the evidence says, 'Yes, we do actually need that law.'

There is too much we don't know about how lobbying works in Australia. Yes, we have a lobbying register, but it only covers third-party lobbyists who are contracted by outside companies to open doors. It doesn't cover in-house lobbyists, often labelled 'government relations officers'. Lobbyists stroll the halls of this building easily through building passes sponsored by parliamentarians, but there's no way for the public to know who these people are and which MPs have sponsored them to have this access. We don't know who meets with ministers or how often they do so. We don't know who is going through the revolving door between MPs' offices and lobbying jobs. Getting to know how big the problem is is the first step towards solving it.

This motion once again shows how important it is to have a strong crossbench in this place. It's the Independent members who are working to increase transparency and accountability and improve integrity in this place. As I've already said once today and, no doubt, will say many more times again, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We know many members of this place are confident enough to take meetings with, for example, the tobacco lobby, the alcohol lobby or the gambling lobby because they can do so without publicity. How many of these meetings would happen if ministers knew their diaries would be made public?

Addressing the imbalance created by lobbying isn't just about transparency. It's about members of this place asking: who doesn't have a voice here? We must commit to transparency, to accountability and to seeking out the voices that generally find it harder to make themselves heard—those who are disadvantaged and vulnerable, not just those who have deep pockets and know which doors to open.

Yes, this government has done good work in establishing the National Anti-Corruption Commission, a formidable and important reform to integrity in this nation. But that's not the end of the story. There's so much more to do. This government needs to step up to the plate on many measures of integrity, and this issue of lobbyists and access to power must be addressed. We must have fairness in access to decision-makers. We must make sure that those with power don't have the greatest propensity to exercise it when it comes to elected members, ministers and decisions of this parliament.

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

I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Kooyong and recognise other contributions to this debate. As someone who worked in and around government for 20 years, I recognise the member's advocacy for more transparency in government and, in principle, support much of the thrust of this motion. It's critical, though, to acknowledge that this government has already made significant changes, including the establishment of a National Anti-Corruption Commission and the introduction of overdue reforms to public-interest disclosures, with more reform on its way. We have strengthened codes of conduct that apply to ministers and their offices. It's a stark contrast to the previous government. The Albanese government is committed to upholding a high standard of integrity, transparency and accountability—a standard the former government never aspired to, let alone achieved.

Indeed, as previous speakers have noted, the original Lobbying Code of Conduct was created by the last Labor government. When the code was established, for the first time lobbyists were required to register their activity and comply with strict rules on transparency. It was one of the many integrity measures introduced by the Rudd Labor government, which also included a new code of conduct for ministerial staff and a strengthened ministerial code. When a third-party lobbyist contacts a government representative, including a minister, the code requires that they confirm they are on the register and disclose whose interests they are representing. The code is practical, making it easier to adhere to and therefore more effective. The code also imposes an obligation on government representatives: they must not knowingly be a party to lobbying by third-party lobbyists not on the register. There are penalties associated with failure to comply with the code, including a power for the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to bar a lobbyist who has committed a serious breach. The current code recognises the rights of lobbyists to lobby but places conditions on the manner of third-party lobbying through mandatory registration and disclosure obligations. I acknowledge that not everyone is happy with the scope of the lobbying code, and I acknowledge the argument that the scope of the existing register should extend to in-house lobbyists in particular. I think there's merit in considering this approach. Indeed, some might suggest it's a way of closing a loophole.

I recognise that this motion also calls for automatic access to the ministerial diaries. Such access to diaries would be unknown to the Commonwealth's freedom of information system as it currently stands, as it does not provide for the automatic publication of any category of document. Access to official documents of government is available under the Freedom of Information Act by request. Each request is subject to assessment which is governed by statutory requirements and by a series of exemptions, each of which needs to be considered. But it is critical that assessment of these requests should occur in a timely way, and I acknowledge the concerns about timeliness often.

I note also the motion's suggestion to extend the post-employment cooling-off period for ministers and senior government officials to three years. From my experience working with government prior to politics, I agree that we need to obtain the right balance between post-political careers and public responsibility. For example, Canada's Lobbying Act prohibits not only ministers but also their staff and senior public servants from undertaking a broad range of activities for five years after they've left office. This includes communicating with any public office holder or senior public servant in relation to their official duties and arranging for other people to do so. This is a much stronger approach than the current Australian approach. Some gaps still remain in our system, including a time period that can sometimes be avoided by warehousing ex-officials on other duties.

In looking around the world at the state that many great democracies are finding themselves in and contemplating the challenges for our country that are looming on the horizon and creeping ever close to us, there are few tasks more important than restoring trust in and the capacity of government. The Albanese government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability in government. Within months of coming to office we established the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the single biggest reform to the integrity framework in decades. The commission commenced operation on 1 July 2023—a major reform of the current Labor government.

This government, like the member for Kooyong, was elected to make our government and public service more transparent and accountable and to strengthen their integrity. We've already made significant progress, but we recognise that there is still more work to be done.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for next sitting.