David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for bringing this motion and for raising again in this chamber the need for effective rules around lobbyists. Lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes, and to the extent the government said there's a place for lobbyists in a democracy, of course, the government is right. We've had lobbyists from environment groups, human rights groups, faith based organisations and corporate Australia. There's a place for lobbyists in the parliament, but we need to have rules around them, first of all to ensure there isn't just a revolving door between parliament, senior ministerial advisers and lobbyists, and, secondly, so that the public knows who is here doing the lobbying and whom they are doing it on behalf of.

To the extent the minister in their response sought to limit this motion to actions that just the executive should take, that's not how I read Senator Pocock's motion. Senator Pocock's motion is addressed to the Senate. Of course it is the job of elected representatives, through the offices of this parliament, to put in place thorough transparency on who has a lobbyist pass and what they're permitted to do. All of us at different times, I'm sure, have signed passes for different people to get access to parliament. It's part of what senators do and it's part of what members of the House of Representatives do. None of us should be concerned about that matter being on a public register: of course it should be.

The Greens have been pressing for reforms on lobbyists. I particularly commend the work of Senator Larissa Waters in this regard. Senator Waters has been a champion of reforms for integrity in democracy in her time in this parliament. Let's look at some of what the Greens have been pressing for, because I think it very much complements what Senator Pocock has brought in this motion. First of all, we have called for reforms to address the secrecy around lobbyists influencing governments' decisions. That included—and continues to include to this day—strengthening the lobbying code of conduct to include in-house lobbyists. Currently, only lobbyists who are engaged by an external company need to be registered, but often the most powerful are the government relations employees in some of the biggest corporations in Australia. Indeed, I will return to a specific example of that, which is happening literally as this debate is playing out.

We need stronger penalties for breaching the code, including being banned from future meetings within the parliamentary precinct. If a lobbyist breaches the code and it's a serious breach, they should be prohibited from having meetings within the parliamentary precinct. Of course they can come and observe the chamber if they want, but they should have their privileges removed—of course they should. And it all needs to be more transparent.

One of the other fundamental disclosure requirements, closely linked to lobbyists, is to require ministers to publish their diaries. Having come here from a state parliament where the Premier's and every minister's diary is published at three-monthly intervals—and it's just standard, business as usual, in that state parliament and in other state parliaments across the country—I was astounded to see the Prime Minister of this institution resisting providing any details about his ministerial diaries. In fact, he is now fighting an FOI request through the Information Commissioner, and no doubt will fight it through the Federal Court. All that's being asked is to tell us who the Prime Minister met with in the first hundred days of office. What's remarkable is: some other senior ministers have provided those details, but we have a Prime Minister committed to secrecy. What is it about the meetings in the first hundred days that the Prime Minister doesn't want to tell us? Who did he meet with? Surely the people of Australia have a right to know who the Prime Minister meets with—not just in the first hundred days but on a continuing disclosure basis, throughout their time in office. It's the least that can be expected. It is standard behaviour. It's standard disclosure practice in state parliaments around this country. But there's this commitment to the cult of secrecy here. And it's starting, as you can see, in the highest office in the land.

The Greens have also called for an extension of the ban on former ministers becoming lobbyists and meeting with current ministers or shadows, from 18 months to five years. Former minister Christopher Pyne is making a fortune off his connections. And everybody thinks that's okay? He's making an absolute killing from his connections. And we all think that's okay? Is that really what the club thinks is good—that you step from being a minister into senior corporate lobbying positions, using the connections you got as a minister, paid for by the public, in a position of ultimate trust with the public, and then you benefit from it to that extent? Of course there needs to be an extension on those prohibitions on former ministers becoming lobbyists in areas where they were a minister, in areas where they had that special knowledge. And, of course, we need more transparency around departmental secondments to industry, and a far, far tougher code of conduct.

So I want to thank Senator Pocock for bringing the motion and continuing to put this on the agenda. The Greens will support additional transparency measures, no matter where they come from in the chamber. We'd urge the government and the opposition to get on board with that.

I said that there's a matter that's literally unfolding as this debate is unfolding, and that's in the office of the Minister for Home Affairs, where the chief of staff of the Minister for Home Affairs is in the process of moving—I think their last day of work will be tomorrow—from that powerful position as a senior adviser to take on a government relations job with the international arms manufacturer Thales, with no cooling-off period. They're literally walking out of being chief of staff one day and going straight in to being a government relations adviser for a major multinational arms manufacturer the next day. How is that legal in 2023? How is that permissible?

And it's actually worse than that, because Thales is in the process—and going through the Foreign Investment Review Board process—of taking over one of Australia's only remaining sovereign cybersecurity firms, Tesserent. There's been silence from the Australian government as to resisting that foreign takeover by Thales—silence from the home affairs minister about Australia losing its last remaining, serious sovereign capacity on cybersecurity and it being taken over by Thales. We find out at the same time that her chief of staff is stepping out from working as chief of staff for the minister straight into government relations with Thales, who is in the process of doing the Foreign Investment Review Board takeover.