Lobbyists
June 14th, 2011 at 2:30 pm by David FarrarStuff reports:
Legislation to set up a lobbyists register has been put forward by the Green Party.
Green MP Sue Kedgley today released a copy of Lobbying Disclosure Bill, which she said would go on to the member’s ballot at the next opportunity.
Well thanks to Labour filibustering, there won’t be an opportunity before the election, and as Sue is retiring it means the proposed bill will never be drawn unless another MP adopts it after the election. Its a good reminder of how Labour’s tactics are depriving all other backbenchers from having their bills considered.
Turning to the substance:
The bill would set up a register and a code of conduct for lobbyists.
As in Canada and other western countries, lobbyists would have to publicly notify all meetings with MPs.
I’m not entirely sure what problem this bill seeks to solve. All meetings are discoverable under the OIA. Do you need a law when an e-mail every six months will achieve the same with regard to meetings.
The proposed law also requires lobbyists to disclose their clients. Now look I’m not saying there is a problem with having a register, but it is already pretty well known who represents whom. And some firms, such as Saunders Unsworth, actually list their clients on their website.
I’m not aware of any behaviour when a lobbyist has not disclosed whom they are acting on behalf of.
So while I’m not against a register of lobbyists, I don’t think it is the most pressing issue facing the country. but members bills are about backbench MPs proposing what they see as important, so Sue has done that.
”The public has no way of knowing who is lobbying their politicians or what they are being lobbied about. There is also no information available on which lobbyists have special access to Parliament granted to them by the Speaker,” Kedgley said.
This fixation with special access to Parliament mystifies me. Hundreds of non parliamentarians have ID cards for Parliament. Dozens of party office holders have them, as do dozens of the youth wings who often come in to volunteer. Family members have them, as do hundreds of govt officials.
We have security at Parliament not to make it hard for people to see MPs, but to stop terrorists coming in and blowing the place up. My view is that anyone who is a regular visitor to Parliament (say more than 2-3 times a year) should be able to get a ID card so long as someone will vouch for them.
I’ve had an ID card since 1996. I was staff from 1996 to 2004 and after I left I’ve kept a card as I usually come into Parliament once ever couple of months or so and it is handly to avoid going through the metal detectors.
In the last few months, most of my visits have actually been to meet Labour, Green and ACT MPs over the copyright and telecommunications bills (where I have in fact been lobbying for them to support changes that National was against), plus been attending meetings about the reporting of suicides chaired by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne.
If there is a register of lobbyists, a key issue will be how you define lobbyists. 90% of lobbying is done directly by staff working for corporates. I would suggest they should be listed, not just the external lobbying firms.
Arguably I could be regarded as a lobbyist for InternetNZ. For many years I chaired their Public Policy Committee as Vice-President of InternetNZ. As VP I had a small honorarium of $12,000 a year. I’ve retired as VP, but still chair the now titled Policy Advisory Group. This involves literally chairing the monthly meetings, but also meeting with policy staff regularly to help develop submissions, pro-actively identifying policy issues etc. I am now technically a contractor, as I am no longer an officer, and still get $12,000 a year for it.
Now for the last seven years or so, I’ve been one of the InternetNZ people who speaks to our submissions at select committees, and meets with MPs to advocate for what we regard as good for the Internet.
One could argue I am a paid lobbyist for InternetNZ in my current role. I don’t quite see it like that because my advocacy is based on my beliefs of what is good for the Internet, which coincide with InternetNZ. But under the proposed law, I might be classified as a lobbyist. Now that doesn’t worry me at all, but it seems strange to me as I’m not like a lawyer or lobbyist who will argue for a client regardless of their own beliefs. If ever INZ adopted a policy position I disagreed with, I would not take part in the advocacy around it.
Now depending on how you define a lobbyist, my advocacy on behalf of InternetNZ might be deemed lobbying in my role as a contractor to them, but how about when I was their Vice-President? I was doing much the same then, as I was today. I would argue you should say that if I am deemed a lobbyist as a contractor, I am also a lobbyist as an office holder.
Now if you do take that definition, then just be aware that an awfully large number of people will now be classified as lobbyists. I’d suspect 1,000+ people would fall into that definition.
As I said at the beginning, thanks to Labour this bill will never see light of day. If it ever gets adopted by another MP in future, then a very interesting issue will be that definition of a lobbyist.
Related posts:
- The Lobbying Disclosure Bill
- The Lobbying Disclosure Bill
- State funded lobbyists
- My submission on the Lobbying Disclosure Bill
June 14th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“90% of lobbying is done directly by staff working for corporates. I would suggest they should be listed, not just the external lobbying firms.”
Under the proposed Bill, they would be – see cl. 6(4). Or, rather, their employer would have to make a disclosure as to the lobbying.
[DPF: Reading bills before commenting on them is a good idea - I should try that
. Finding time is an issue. Perhaps I should also advertise for a legislative assistant who can read and summarise bills for me - like the Bills Digests!]
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Silly, silly man, DPF. If we had a register of lobbyists and a register of pecuniary interests for judges, local body representatives, local body employees and civil servants granting public contracts, the public watchdog would be so thoroughly immersed in paperwork that we would never see her again. The fact that the wheels of government might come to a grinding halt is a small price to pay.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Something like this Nookin?.
State Employee Salary Database (Over $50k)
Below is a database of state employee salaries. For best results, keep the search as broad as possible. For instance, just type in a last name or select a job type or agency. You do not need to have all items chosen or filled out.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
I agree with the idea in principle, and think that Russell Norman is on the right track. There does need to be more transparency around lobbyists, not all of them have a high public profile or public support. The biggest offenders that will be caught out by this are the alcohol company lobbyists, hope this spikes them to some extent at least.
However this proposed legislation doesnt address the worst and most pervasive lobbyists – the internal ones i.e. all the unelected decision makers – the “consultants and advisors” that fill a number of Government Departments, often highly paid too. As it is, we elect all these MP’s, but they dont make the decisions or carry out the policies we voted for – instead all too many decisions are driven if not made by people that have been appointed, not elected. It is these unelected “mandarins” within the public service that need to go – those that make decisions but are not accountable
Where specialist technical advice is genuinely needed, a transparent process for contracting advisers short term when a need can be demonstrated would be the way to go. And some decisions should be made directly by referenda, where a clear threshold level of public interest has been met.
I dont know how familiar people here with the TV series “Yes Minister” – somebody in the news once said “its not a comedy, its a documentary”, and given some of the decisions I’ve seen over the years, I believe him. They have been known to try to obstruct popular legislation and derail democratically initated changes because they clashed with their strongly held ideologies. A clean out of these people from within government would not only result in better government but would also cut considerable costs. I wonder if anyone is game to tackle them?
Regards
Vote:Peter J
see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
June 14th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
WTF does this have to do with the environment? MORE regulation from the watermellons.
Go save a seal or something.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
[DPF: Reading bills before commenting on them is a good idea - I should try that
. Finding time is an issue. Perhaps I should also advertise for a legislative assistant who can read and summarise bills for me - like the Bills Digests!]
In this particular case, it took me about 10 minutes to work out what the hell that provision was meant to mean, so I’m not sure a quick read would have helped!
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
The more fundamental issue is the attitude that Ministers take towards lobbyists. Ministers need to bear in mind that their stakeholders are electors and not lobbyists. They need to ensure they properly listen to the electorate and take on board what they hear from the electorate. The PM should remind Ministers of this now and again. In this regard lobbyists IMO also include Departmental advisers – ministers around a long time tend to accept their advide in an unquestioning manner.
The Minister who I most admired in that regard was Helen Clark, who as Health Minister, told tobacco industry lobbyists where to stick it.
Penalty: 6 – 9 years sitting on Opposition benches with no influence, no Beehive offices, no BMW’s. It is that simple.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Surely we already have a register of lobbyists – its called the Electoral Roll.
Everyone is permitted access to MPs to express their views and opinions and to seek to have their interests reflected. The Select Committee process provides everyone with a further, formal process to do that. Everyone has the right to lobby at their own choice.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Murray says: “WTF does [lobbying] have to do with the environment? MORE regulation from the watermelons.”
Nobody says: “WTF does water have to do with business? MORE regulation from the capitalists.”
Even ignoring the fact that lobbyists have a lot to do with the environment, is it not possible in your world for a political party to have a broad range of policy positions?
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
peterwn: reminds me of people who complain about what’s on TV. Don’t those TV channels care about their customers? The answer, of course, being that the customer is the one who pays. In the case of TV, that’d be the advertiser. The product is the thing that’s being sold, in the case of TV that’d be you, the viewer, and your eyeballs.
So, let’s think about MPs. Who is the stakeholder that matters? That’d be the entity that got you elected. Sure, that may mean the voters – they clearly have something to do with it. But there are a bunch of other stakeholders who get you elected, or who don’t stop it. Maybe in your electorate, Forest and Bird could stop you getting elected if they decided to have a go at you. And so suddenly Forest and Bird are an important stakeholder. Maybe only because they have influence over voters, nonetheless they are. There are a lot of groups with this kind of influence – and they’re not the ones that people get all worried about. Unions have huge influence over chunks of voters. So do various NGOs, churches, pressure groups.
This is where they derive their power from, and their special access. The fact that lots of voters listen to them. I guess the question is, is that a problem? If I’ve delegated my decision making to some random group (my priest, Greenpeace, whomever), and I’m just going to vote whoever they recommend, then wouldn’t I expect that group to go do some research and make sure they’re making a good recommendation?
As for the usual bogeymen, those evil capitalists, how many votes do they deliver? I can’t think of anyone who’s ever told me they’ll vote for someone because their company told them to do so – I reckon they deliver almost no votes and maybe a little campaigning support. I’ve heard lots of people tell me their union tells them how to vote (endorses candidates), or one of the other pressure groups.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Lobbying is endogenous to the concentration of political power in Wellington. Set up all the silly registers you like, lobbying will not go away when 56 of the country’s assets and 45% of its GDP is under the control of about 61 MPs at any given time. Those MPs will be lobbied for as long as they have that much power.
The Green’s strategy here is transparent. A register will give them plenty of fodder every election campaign. As always, they are socialists and so they have it backwards: their solutions – ever more government power and coercion – will actually intensify returns to lobbying, and so a) more time and effort will be burned on lobbying, b) NZ will be poorer as a result and c) Greens will find themselves ever more electable in the eyes of NZ’s median voter, who mistakes idiocy for effectiveness.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
The Greens quote Carmen Lawrence in support of their claim about the evils of lobbying. This would be the same WA Premier found by a Royal Commission to have lied to Parliament about her Party’s political gamesmanship that led to a person killing themselves. Yes, her views about the ethics of politics are indeed interesting.
[DPF: A good point]
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
DPF: “I’m not aware of any behaviour when a lobbyist has not disclosed whom they are acting on behalf of.”
Isn’t this the entire point of the proposed bill? How can you be aware of something you don’t know about? Who’s to say you know about all of the visits that take place?
bhudson: “Surely we already have a register of lobbyists – its called the Electoral Roll.
Everyone is permitted access to MPs to express their views and opinions and to seek to have their interests reflected.”
The problem is that well financed lobbyist has far greater access to and influence on relevant ministers than Mrs Jones and her cake baking group. The imbalances (if and when they exist) need to be transparent.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
markblackham (2) Says:
June 14th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
The Greens quote Carmen Lawrence in support of their claim about the evils of lobbying. This would be the same WA Premier found by a Royal Commission to have lied to Parliament about her Party’s political gamesmanship that led to a person killing themselves. Yes, her views about the ethics of politics are indeed interesting.
[DPF: A good point]
Wasn’t Carmen Lawrence acquited by a jury on all charges?
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 9:49 am
She was not acquited, but rather was subsequently not found guilty in a civil case taken against her – a different thing. I pointed out the Carmen backstory to expose the very unstable ethical ground of politicians. This legislation says far more about the attitude of the Greens to civil discourse than it says about lobbying.
In fact, they really say nothing about lobbying – as they don’t even attempt to prove that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Their opening line is that New Zealanders have a “right” to know about lobbying. This is the first time I’ve heard about a right citizens have to know who other citizens are speaking with and what they say. For this legislation even to warrant the light of day, it needs to prove that such a right exists, and/or prove that such a right is made necessary by the existence of a problem that causes harm.
What it says about the Greens is mistrust of money (except when they’re earning it), mistrust of enterprise, and mistrust of the sincerity of people with opinions different to their own.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Shame we don’t have a free market economy as lobbyists are redundant as the state has no dealings with the economy.
Chalk another failure up to “government command and control”…
Vote: