The Lobbying Disclosure Bill
June 12th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David FarrarGareth Richards reviews the Lobbying Disclosure Bill in NZ Lawyer:
As drafted, the Bill applies only to lobbyists that receive payment to carry out lobbying activities. This requirement seems difficult to justify, as in principle, there is little difference between:
- A paid lobbyist lobbying a Minister for policy change on behalf of an organisation;
- A person lobbying a Minister for policy change voluntarily on behalf of an organisation; and
- A person lobbying a Minster for a policy change for their own private benefit.
It is unclear why being paid to lobby is a threshold test that triggers the requirement to disclose lobbying activities. The explanatory note offers no clues to explain why paid lobbying has been singled out.
One reason may be that removing the payment requirement would open “lobbying activity” up to an extremely large number of interactions; absent the ‘payment’ requirement, arguably a constituent who met with their local MP seeking a policy change would meet the definition of “lobbying activity”.
Requiring a payment relationship between the lobbyist and his or her principal before the lobbying activity is reported risks an under-inclusive regime. It will catch only a subset of the influence the Bill is concerned to cast sunlight on. There are readily conceivable scenarios where individuals may seek to lobby Ministers and MPs to obtain private benefits, for example immigration or foreign investment policy changes, which would not be caught by the Bill as drafted because the lobbyist is not paid for his or her services. There are also people who will, unpaid, communicate with MPs or Ministers on behalf of influential groups and organisations.
The current definition is problematic. I would have to register as a lobbyist for InternetNZ (which I do little lobbying on behalf of) yet would not to have to register as a lobbyist for KeepIt18 (which I do much lobbying on behalf of).
MPs and local authorities frequently lobby Ministers and other MPs about legislative, regulatory, and policy change, yet there is no requirement to disclose these activities under the Bill.
It is presumed the response to this is that lobbying is such a core and frequent part of the role of MPs and local authorities that: (a) it does not need to be proactively disclosed; and (b) if it had to be disclosed, the volume of interactions would make the register unworkable.
If those responses are accepted, then the Bill will create two classes of lobbying – one done by elected representatives which the public must uncover in some way and another done by everyone else which must be proactively disclosed.
Also a valid issue.
Related posts:
- The Lobbying Disclosure Bill
- Bill of Rights report on the Lobbying Disclosure Bill
- My submission on the Lobbying Disclosure Bill
- Williams on lobbying bill
June 12th, 2012 at 11:22 am
I dislike the whole idea. Why do we keep on limiting our democracry in these insidious ways? Making people, paid or unpaid, register before they can lobby, in whatever fashion, their elected representatives is an obnoxious concept.
Surely if we are so obsessed with this as the Greens seem to be (the old Leftie suspicions of an inner circle of influence from which they are somehow excluded) we could just publish a list every day of who attended meetings with Ministers and MPs. Then those looking for conspiracies and croneyism can pore over it.
And many of us will continue to find informal ways of making our views known rather than always having to be exposed to public view – which many people hate for quite understandable reasons.
Vote:June 12th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Where do employees of a government funded organisation that lobbies the government fit in to this? They are paid and they are lobbying.
The fact that they are effectively paid by the Government to lobby the Government is a separate issue.
Vote:June 12th, 2012 at 11:37 am
This is the just the greens attempt to exclude their mates from teh bill, greenpeace and all the usual lefty groups dont want sunlight on their activities so they make a huge noise about what ‘the other lot’ are doing.
usual lefty green weasel tactics.
Vote:June 12th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Why is anyone listening to anyone being paid to lobby on someone else’s behalf? If I was a minister, I’d tell them to bugger off and get the person who wants something from me to come in and make the case themselves.
Vote:June 12th, 2012 at 11:51 am
I think this whole idea is nuts. It is an affront to free speech, and an invasion of privacy. Most importantly, it would have a chilling effect on the ability of MPs to discuss and consult informally over matters of public policy – which is vital in figuring out what policy ideas actually make sense and are workable in the real world.
Furthermore this would become a trap for politicians. Because it is they who will get crucified whenever some lobbyist makes an offhand remark in a 30-second conversation at a cocktail party and forgets to declare it.
This whole bill is unnecessary: there is no problem with lobbyists making their views known to politicians.
Vote: