Labor Senators Additional Comments

1.1Labor Senators support the view that it is in the interests of the democratic process that as many people as possible have access to Parliament House and our nation’s democratic processes. On the other hand, public confidence in our democracy requires oversight, transparency and accountability for what happens within. We need strong and robust transparency and accountability that doesn’t stifle participation. This means our accountability frameworks need to be fit for purpose and targeted at key risk areas.

1.2While those unfamiliar with Parliament might presume that a visit to the heart of democracy might focus on watching Parliament or meeting with a Minister, MP, or Senator, the reality is far more dynamic and diverse. Many of these diverse activities are designed not just to influence parliamentarians, but also to raise awareness, reach wider audiences, or deepen understanding of diverse points of view and build common ground or momentum around issues.

1.3As a result, our Commonwealth Parliament is a busy and vibrant place. On any sitting day, there will be a myriad of events. This includes activities from more than 100 parliamentary friendship groups engaging in topics as diverse as:

Child abuse and neglect

Bringing Julian Assange Home

The Screen Industry

The Australian Spirits Industry

Blockchain

Foreign aid

Electric vehicles and future fuels transport

Medical Technology

Nuclear Industries

Public Health

Orchestral Music

Timber Products

1.4In addition, there are events and meetings associated with country groups covering the globe. Parliamentary passes are needed for a myriad of reasons, many pass holders are regular visitors engaged in activities like:

Industry Associations hosting forums and events for their own members and inviting Senators and Members to attend and participate alongside their own members and make contributions to their discussions.

Advocacy groups doing media and launching reports to elevate recognition of the issues they raise not just to the Parliament but also to the wider public.

Medical technology companies will showcase innovations while health advocacy organizations may do onsite health checks so that Senators and Members can do social media to promote such checks in their communities.

Science meets Parliament, where scientists come from around the country to promote their work and equally importantly to understand how their work might apply to public policy debates.

Showcases of products from different regions or industries to elevate national understanding of their place in our diverse economy.

Recognition of leaders in different industries through awards nights.

1.5Many of the activities are designed to lift the profile of issues or interests, while others are targeted at specific policy outcomes. Most importantly, for a place of vibrant democratic engagement, people meet and network and exchange ideas; a chance encounter can sometimes inspire momentum for policy and legislative outcomes.

1.6This, of course, all exists alongside what one might typically expect in the building, including those seeking meetings with Ministers, opposition spokespeople, lobbying backbenchers as well as seeking the attention of crossbench MPs.

1.7In the midst of all this, lobbyists play a role. While many people seeking to influence decisions might be lobbying, and many do this professionally, there are also many lobbyists paid by third parties who are valued by their clients for their understanding of how Parliament and Government work and their ability to support clients to communicate their views.

1.8Senator Faulkner highlighted the role of third-party lobbyists when he tabled the first federal lobbying Code of Conduct (the Code) on 13 May 2008:

The government recognizes that lobbying is a legitimate activity and part of the democratic process. Lobbyists can help individuals and organizations 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.[1]

1.9However, there are specific concerns about risks inherent in the role of third-party lobbyists which led to the first Code introduced in 2008. Senator Faulkner highlighted at the time that there is:

...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.[2]

1.10The Lobbying Code of Conduct is but one important plank in a broader framework of obligations and reporting mechanisms that support ministerial accountability, establishing a clear and regulated framework that governs interactions with third-party lobbyists.

1.11The Attorney General's Department highlighted that the Lobbying Code of Conduct is part of a broader integrity framework that includes significant regulations like the Code of Conduct for Ministers, the Public Service Act, and the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. This integration reinforces ministerial accountability by creating a comprehensive system where ethical standards are upheld across different levels of government interaction. This system enhances transparency, manages conflicts of interest, and ensures that executive Government is clear about whose interests registered lobbyists represent.

1.12Notably, these interests can vary considerably depending on a lobbyist's client base. The expansion of the Register of Lobbyists (the Register) was not an explicit part of the Terms of Reference for the inquiry, nor were the implications of its expansion considered in the context of supporting the broader ministerial accountability framework. Given that lobbyists can represent a diverse array of entities, it is crucial for the Register to provide transparent information about these entities, ensuring that Ministers are not indirectly influenced when making decisions.

1.13Many of the third-party lobbyists required to register under the Code also contribute to the organization of the diversity of the activities highlighted above, alongside their work involving ministerial engagements which leads them to the requirement to register under the Code.

1.14Labor Senators note that expanding the registry to include parliamentary pass holders would not necessarily increase transparency in a way that enhances accountability. Labor Senators also note that the evidence to the committee and the recommendations drawn from them, while a welcome contribution to the issues, do not sufficiently address the dynamic way in which influence occurs in our parliament and government.

1.15Although many individuals, corporations, private interests, health and rights groups, and organizations such as peak bodies seek to influence government and other key decision-makers, who they represent is self-evident. If, on the other hand, they are in fact a paid lobbyist making representations for a commission, fee, or other payment, we would expect these entities and individuals to be registered under the Code.

1.16Whereas, the need for the Code as introduced in 2008 remains clear, ministerial decision-makers need a clear line of sight to who representations being made by a third party are being made on behalf of. Expanding the Register may, in fact, result in diminishing the focus on the need for this transparency. Expanding the Register to include every entity, or simply more entities without clear purpose, will not necessarily increase accountability and transparency.

1.17Labor Senators work with a great diversity of stakeholders every day. We know our Ministers are required to actively engage with them to meet their ministerial responsibilities too.

1.18We see firsthand hundreds, and collectively thousands, of stakeholders from our community. We frequently hear from for-profit interests who are active in seeking to influence outcomes both for their own and the public interest. We understand our role is to listen and make decisions that focus entirely on the public interest that serves the best interests of our nation.

1.19Expanding the Register, unless carefully considered in its scope and application, will not necessarily make meaningful contributions to insights about influence on policy outcomes.

1.20Further limiting passes or creating obligations to register as a lobbyist may inadvertently quash the vibrancy of democratic activity in our parliament.

1.21Labor Senators note that the increased number of pass holders is a response to the end of the unescorted day pass. Labor Senators recognize that those attending meetings or events often require an escort several times a day to and from security, are required to both show their identification and have a pass holder sign for them each time. Backbench offices often only have one staff member in the parliament with their senator or member. At times, people miss scheduled meetings because staff must prioritize the needs of their member in preparing for speeches and urgent attendance in the chamber. Often, these interruptions happen many times a day. That said, the opportunity for exchange and a walk down the corridor is welcome when time permits.

1.22The building is large, and escorts often take unnecessary time at the expense of other parliamentary business. Labor Senators note that the removal of the day pass does indeed impact the ability of people to participate in the parliament and the many and varied democratic processes within.

1.23On this basis, Labor Senators also strongly support the return of the unescorted day pass for the reasons outlined in the Chair's report as well as those above. However, the committee believes their restoration needs to be weighed up by Presiding Officers alongside a current assessment of any arising security risks or concerns.

1.24Labor Senators are also very concerned that the publication of the passholder database risks exposing marginalized and stigmatized communities to unwelcome attention and the politicization of relationships between parliamentarians and advocates, whistleblowers, and constituents. Labor Senators note that for example, some witnesses to parliamentary committees have been subjected to online hate, including becoming targeted by people inciting violence towards them. As highlighted by Health Equity Matters, it is not inconceivable that the disclosure of some passholders' identities could also make them targets.[3]

1.25Therefore, Labor Senators believe the call to publish the names of all sponsored passholders would unnecessarily capture a range of persons accessing Australian Parliament House for legitimate civic purposes. Labor Senators concur with the Chair's report findings. (noting also that the database is managed in accordance with the Australian Privacy Principles contained in Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act 1988).

1.26Labor Senators note that the Attorney General’s Department highlighted that some paid lobbyists became aware of their obligations to be on the Register when seeking ministerial meetings and were informed by ministerial offices of their registration requirements before meetings with Ministers take place.

1.27It is therefore unsurprising that compliance with the Code has seen the Register has grown substantially since its inception.

1.28The committee report canvassed how the pass system could help support the further capture of those who should be on the lobbying register but may not yet have registered.

1.29Labor Senators believe that while the passes are a matter for the parliament, and the Register pertains to the transparency of executive government, DPS can help ensure that pass holders are aware of the obligations under the lobbyist Code and the clear circumstances to which they apply.

1.30We note that many stakeholders that might be covered by an expanded requirement to join the Register and comply with the Code engage not only with Executive Government but also contribute to the myriad of parliamentary friendship groups and events. Labor Senators believe that expanding the Register without proper consideration could potentially inhibit the kinds of activities that we would expect to see take place from a wide variety of actors participating in a vibrant and contested democracy. We don’t want to inadvertently set administrative traps for those who participate, we need clear justification in response to clearly identified problems to justify an increased administrative burden and liability for all those players participating in good faith in our already complex democracy.

1.31Labor Senators are also concerned that the recommendations in the report extend beyond the consideration of the “current transparency arrangements relating to the lobbyist register”. This means that while the evidence given to the committee includes some valuable insights and arguments, other submitters were not able to contribute their own views about their viability or effectiveness. Labor Senators cannot on that basis endorse the recommendations without qualification.

1.32Labor Senators recognize and welcome the advice and evidence given by submitters including academics to the committee. They include valuable insights that Attorney General the Hon Mark Dreyfus MP has also welcomed. However, Labor Senators are concerned that some recommendations as drafted need consideration in the context of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and broader accountability frameworks.

1.33Labor Senators do offer some simplified recommendations consistent with the Chair's report.

1.34Labor Senators recommend that the Presiding Officers oversee the Department of Parliamentary Services to ensure that orange pass applicants are made aware of the Register of Lobbyists and can consider if the Code applies to their activities in Parliament.

1.35Labor Senators also firmly support the restoration of the unescorted day pass for persons who require only occasional access to Australian Parliament House for the reasons outlined in the Chair's report. However, Labor Senators believe their restoration needs to be weighed up by Presiding Officers alongside a current assessment of any arising security risks or concerns.

Footnotes

[1]The Hon Senator John Faulkner, Ministerial statement on the Lobbying Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists, 13 May 2008, p. 1510.

[2]The Hon Senator John Faulkner, Ministerial statement on the Lobbying Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists, 13 May 2008, p. 1510.

[3]Health Equity Matters, Submission 345, p. 2.