David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the current lobbying rules are ineffective, do not meet public expectations and should be reformed to:

(a) ensure all lobbyists are captured by a code of conduct;

(b) provide effective deterrents and penalties for lobbyists who break the rules; and

(c) allow Australians to know which lobbyists have been given sponsored passes to access the corridors of Parliament House.

I move this motion today to discuss the appalling state of our lobbying rules in Australia. 'Rules' is, in fact, generous when you look at the set up that we have allowed to have in place when it comes to lobbying in Parliament House, in the people's house. Most Australians probably assume that we have decent lobbying laws. Yes, we have a lobbyist register and I will talk about that later, but we also have some 2,000 people who have sponsored passes and we have no idea who they are. Access is a very good thing. This is the people's house. There should be access, but Australians should know who is accessing their house.

Recently. my office and I were speaking with a US barrister about the differences between our countries' lobbying rules. Again, most Australians probably assume that we have equivalent or probably better lobbying rules than the United States has, but she was shocked and appalled. Although their system is far from perfect, in the US there are laws preventing the undue and unethical influence of private interests on people in congress. What's more, there are criminal penalties for breaking those laws, which can involve jail time. In Australia there are no laws. There is a code, which in reality is more of a guideline, and it doesn't even apply to the majority of lobbyists, just those that lobby on behalf of other companies—professional lobbyists.

It's clear to me that many people in this chamber just don't care about this. This has been in place for a long time, and we have seen no action from either side of politics. When raising concerns with people in the relevant positions, I've been dismissed like I'm trying to cause an issue about something that really isn't of importance. This does matter. This matters because influence over decisions that we make in this place has a huge effect on the people that we are here to represent. We are here to make decisions that should be in their best interests.

The first thing to note is that not all lobbyists are captured by the code of conduct. The code only captures those lobbyists that lobby on behalf of other companies, and in my experience these people are least likely to be an issue. Most people don't know it but in-house lobbyists—most lobbyists—are not subject to the code. This means that we don't know who they are, we don't know where they're from and we don't know what they're doing. They're not bound by any professional or ethical standards, and they're completely free to wander the building to bump into MPs and senators. The insidious nature of this power cannot be overstated. When there is controversial legislation it's not uncommon to see scores of in-house lobbyists lining the hallways seeking to influence the votes of parliamentarians. That's their job. But the community expects public scrutiny of who these lobbyists are and why they wield such power. Worse than that, in-house lobbyists are not even held to any ethical standard

Here's where it really breaks down. Under the code, a former staffer is prevented from lobbying on behalf of a company that they had policy responsibility for while they were in government. So if they were a staffer or an adviser in the communications minister's office they couldn't go to lobby and then take on Sportsbet as a client. But nothing prevents them from just getting a job at Sportsbet as its in-house lobbyist. This is not an actual example, but I do have a long list of actual examples. This loophole is so far below any conceivable ethical standard. Our rules are so loose that we allow people who have worked in the government to go and advise companies on how to manipulate the government.

This leads me to my second point. There are no deterrents or penalties for lobbyists who break the rules. Let's say a lobbyist seriously breaches the rules. The worst penalty that they can receive is a three-month break from lobbying. Sit it out for a few months. Go and put your feet up. Work in the office. You just can't come into Parliament House. In 90 days time, you're back in business. That's not a bad outcome for a serious breach of a generally unenforced code. The Attorney-General can enforce a more strict penalty, but none that would act as an effective deterrent. Last time I checked at estimates no Attorney-General had actually used that power.

I challenge the average Australian to try to get signed in and wander the halls to see an MP or a senator. It's not possible. But, if you're a lobbyist, you run free in these halls. You can get into every corner of this building, lurk outside offices, hang out at Aussies or the trough and orchestrate chance encounters with politicians and their staff. The community can't do this. And yet we have no idea who these people are. There is no requirement for any transparency over the use of these passes. There are 2,000 people roaming the halls. We have no idea who they are.

One of the only things we are signed up to where we do have obligations is the UN Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which expressly prohibits officials from engaging with big tobacco companies on matters of public health policy. Yet, because we have such a loose system, we know that they wander these halls. I can't imagine that they are here for a long black at the cafe. They are here to ensure that the parliament doesn't enact tougher rules on their products. I notice that a tobacco bill was introduced into the House this week, so I expect that we will be seeing even more of them in the parliament over the next few months.

Australians want more transparency. They want more integrity from the government. Indeed, we've been promised it. We hear talk of transparency and accountability, but when it comes to lobbying reforms we're not hearing anything. This is important. This is important for our democracy. I urge the government to look into this area and to listen to Australians who are saying: 'We want that transparency. We want to know who is potentially influencing decisions.'

We're in the situation where most states and territories are far ahead of the Commonwealth in this regard. In New South Wales there are ethical obligations that apply generally to all those who are lobbying government officials, not just third-party lobbyists. In Queensland, lobbying activities are disclosed publicly every fortnight. Here in the ACT lobbying activities are also disclosed publicly so that the people of the ACT can see precisely which interests are trying to influence the government. It's not enough to talk about integrity, though we hear many talk a big game in that regard; it's time that we ensure that there is integrity in all corners of our parliamentary system. We need better lobbying rules. In fact, we need laws. Australians deserve better.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Shoebridge for letting me speak first. I'm always brief, Senator Shoebridge. I never take any other approach. Every word matters.

I just indicate that the government doesn't support the motion. The lobbying code of conduct was indeed created by the last Labor government. It was one of the many integrity measures introduced by Kevin Rudd's Labor government, which included a new code of conduct for ministerial staff and a strengthened ministerial code. When tabling the lobbying code in this place in May 2008 the responsible minister, our former colleague senator John Faulkner, outlined the purpose of the code. It is instructive reading, and I commend his speech to Senator David Pocock and the Senate. In May 2008 Senator Faulkner said:

The government recognises that lobbying is a legitimate activity and part of the democratic process. Lobbyists can help individuals and organisations communicate their views on matters of public interest to the government and, in doing so, improve outcomes for the individual and community as a whole.

However, there is a legitimate concern that ministers, their staff and officials who are the target of lobbying activities are not always fully informed as to the identity of the people who have engaged a lobbyist to speak on their behalf. The government believes that this information can be fundamental to the integrity of its decisions and should be freely available to those who are lobbied and to the wider public.

For these reasons, the code and associated register aim to ensure government representatives know who is engaged in lobbying and whose interests are being promoted. 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 also imposes an obligation on government representatives: they must not knowingly be a party to lobbying by a third-party lobbyist not on the register. There are penalties associated with the 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.

I acknowledge that not everyone is happy with the scope of the lobbying code. Some, like Senator Pocock, want registration obligations to extend to in-house lobbyists. Some want to ban lobbying altogether. The government believes that the code strikes the right balance, recognising the right of lobbyists to lobby but placing conditions on the manner of third-party lobbying through mandatory registration and disclosure obligations.

I would caution that there are indeed competing principles that are engaged here. I think Senator Faulkner's outline of some of those competing principles is useful. I wouldn't start this debate by referring to the codification of lobbyist rules in other jurisdictions, because they do not have perfect results either. Extensive codification sometimes produces perverse results. There are many fine elements of the American system, but I would not hold it up as an example of that kind of codification, because it has not produced the result that its original proponents hoped that it would produce.

I also think that it's important that claims that are made here in relation to integrity in the system are well weighted. Claims about transparency that are made in other but related debates by people who launch, for example, dozens of OPD requests in this place and then complain that they're not fully complied with some weeks later are gaslighting the transparency debate in a way that—in some cases, not all cases—is cynical. In some cases, it is designed to create a little bit of whataboutism and equivalence around transparency and lobbying issues. That is actually not helpful. If you genuinely are concerned about transparency issues, then, for some people in this place, a reflection on what the last nine years was like might actually be instructive in terms of fixing the culture on some of those issues.

A reference to the states and territories isn't necessarily helpful either, because, of course, the jurisdictions that they operate in engage other sets of issues. For example, the planning regimes and their interactions with property developers do mean that there are different steps undertaken, depending on the structure of the legal framework in those states in relation to those issues.

I want to address the last element of Senator Pocock's motion. The lobbying code is an administrative instrument. It's an executive action, an action of executive government. For that reason, in my view and the government's view, it's misconceived to expect that the code require the disclosure of sponsored pass access to Parliament House. The question of access to Parliament House is not a matter for executive government. It is a matter and a prerogative of the parliament. That point is important to understanding what it is that executive government can deal with here. The question of disclosure of access—I heard Senator Pocock's outline of those issues in the debate but I have also heard it in the public discussion of these issues—is a matter for the parliament, not the executive.

It would be a great surprise to me indeed if the Senate adopted the position that's outlined in this general business debate, because that would have the executive reach into matters that are properly the preserve of the parliament and of the Senate. In terms of that issue, I caution colleagues about the broader implications, and I thought it was useful to set out the government's position at this stage of the discussion.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing to see here!

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

As Senator Pocock interjects: nothing to see here! How could this be legal? How could this be considered legal or ethical practice in 2023?

Yes, the former Morrison government was woeful—dreadful—and we all came in here hoping for better. And yet this is what we get: stepping out of being chief of staff to the Minister for Home Affairs one day and right into being government relations adviser for a major French multinational—which, did I mention, is mired in corruption scandal after corruption scandal around the globe? If anyone is interested, just Google 'Jacob Zuma', 'Thales' and 'corruption', and you can see that ongoing corruption trial.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was it?

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

'Jacob Zuma' and 'Thales'—the ongoing corruption trial in South Africa, where they literally corrupted the head of the government to get an arms deal with them. Nothing to see here!

So I commend Senator Pocock for the motion and I join with him and, I think, the vast majority of the crossbench to say to the Albanese government: you came in with all these promises, all these statements about transparency, and you said things would be different. Well, if that's true, I've got a French arms deal to sell you!

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ayres and Senator Shoebridge for their contribution. It is disappointing that there is no contribution from the coalition on what is a very important issue. It is not acceptable that there is so little transparency, that there are 2,000 people about which Australians have no idea who they are or what they're doing in Parliament House. I used the US example earlier just to highlight how far behind we are. You would assume that our lobbying code of conduct is better than the US, but it's not. We have such a long way to go.

We have an incredible democracy, and yet we have major parties who are comfortable with a system that works for them. They're comfortable with a system that produces this revolving door of staffers and politicians picking up the plum jobs in the private sector, working as lobbyists, working as government relations people, and this needs to change. There is an expectation from Australians that we work for them, because we do. The only power we have here in the Senate is through the people in our states and territories who elected us. How can we say to them that they do not deserve to know who we're signing into this building, who we're giving access-all-areas, 24-hour passes to? It's indefensible, and it's no wonder that we just hear silence from the major parties. We have the minister giving a statement but nothing from the coalition. We must do better.

I'm new in this place. I have learnt a great deal over the last year, and the number of people who have access to this building has shocked me. It is a good thing that Australians can make representations, that they can access policy experts, and I believe the sponsored pass system is also a very good thing: you can give people access on your behalf to get into the building, to just swipe, not to have to sign in—but Australians deserve to know who those people are. It's not good enough. We have to do better as a parliament. To simply say that this is something that I'm wrongly saying the executive should do! I'm saying that the parliament should fix this. We should all fix this. We should all care about this. Sure, ministers may have to wait a few years before they pick up that plum lobbying job, but this is in the interests of all of us: This is in the interests of Australians, of our democracy and our future, and we're currently failing Australians when it comes to lobbying. We are failing them.

You can't tell me that you can, hand on heart, look at Australians and say that there is enough transparency when you have 2,000 people accessing this building and nobody knows who they are. One parliamentarian has 55 people signed in under their name—swipe and go. Come up to security. Swipe your name. You're in. No-one knows who you are. You could be lobbying for any company. Just pointing to a third party lobbyist register is not good enough. We can do better. I would urge my fellow senators and those in the other place to think about this. I know that there are people in the major parties, good people, who are concerned about this. Don't stand by because it works for your ministers to be able to pick up a plum job at the end of the day and it works for your staff to go in and out of the private sector and lobbying firms whenever there's a change of government.

We've got to get serious about this. Our democracy is at stake if we keep taking it for granted. There are companies and industries that have figured the system out. They are working the system. They are wielding their power, and it's on all of us to ensure that this system is as transparent as possible so that we can have trust in government decisions; so that we know that, when the government make decisions, those decisions are being made with good advice; and so that we know who is accessing the government and making representations. You simply can't tell me that $1.5 billion to something like Middle Arm comes about without intense lobbying and access from vested interests. Australians are waking up to this. They're saying, 'We want better.' I would urge and invite fellow senators to join me in changing this system and saying that we can do better and we will do better.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put the question, noting that it is now past 4.30 and no division can occur. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to. A division is required. That will be noted and attended to when the parliament next meets.