Alcohol, tobacco, food and gambling industries are among those that lobby government ministers and their advisors to help shape public policy.
But when we looked for details of who’s lobbying whom in Australia, we found government lobbyist registers largely left us in the dark.
In our recently published research, we found these registers were time-consuming to navigate and not detailed enough. The registers couldn’t give us a comprehensive picture of who’s lobbying whom, and how often. Most registers weren’t set up to do so.
We’re concerned about this lack of transparency and the potential for business interests to have undue influence over health policies. This has the potential to diminish trust in government, a risk to democracy.
Why are we concerned about lobbying?
In Australia, anyone can lobby governments and has a right to represent their views. It’s an important part of the democratic process. Yet not everyone has fair access to decision makers.
Some individuals and businesses have outsized and undue influence on government decision-making. Lobbying is one form of such influence.
For instance, in the past 10 years or so, the alcohol industry has lobbied to delay the implementation of pregnancy warning labels.
The gambling industry, which has funnelled millions of dollars into both major political parties, has lobbied to weaken gambling regulations.
The tobacco industry sued the Australian government for its plain packaging laws after concerted lobbying had failed to derail plans to introduce them. While the lawsuit was unsuccessful, this has deterred other governments from implementing similar laws.
A deep dive into lobbyist registers
Understanding who is seeing which government ministers or their advisers and what they are meeting about is the first step towards protecting against undue political influence and fostering political integrity.
So we decided to look at lobbyist registers to see what they tell us. These registers are like digital phone books, with information about lobbyists. The aim of these registers is to guard against undue or unethical political influence.
Last year, we systematically extracted information from all lobbyist registers in Australia. All jurisdictions, except for the Northern Territory, have one. We:
- compared the disclosure requirements of Australia with international registers
- mapped the population of lobby firms, lobbyists and clients that were active in each jurisdiction
- identified which lobby firms represented tobacco, alcohol, gambling and ultra-processed food organisations.
Here’s what we found
Compared to international lobbying registers, Australian registers provided little information. In the United States, for instance, companies must disclose how much money they spend on lobbying.
Only four jurisdictions (federal, Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Queensland) provided information about whether a lobbyist had previously worked in government. We need to know this to gauge whether there are any conflicts of interest.
Of the registers that provided this information, few provided enough detail to identify the specific position or the exact date a lobbyist left government. Of particular concern, 96 lobbyists said they both had and had not worked in government, raising questions about oversight of these registers.
Which industry hired the most lobby firms?
Of the four industries we explored, gambling organisations hired the most lobby firms, followed by food, alcohol and tobacco.
Tobacco companies hired lobby firms in six jurisdictions, potentially contravening Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which warns against the tobacco industry lobbying governments.
Most registers are a directory of lobbyists rather than their activities. So, as most registers did not require disclosure of lobbying activities, it is unclear what service the firms provided for the tobacco industry.
What’s missing?
Registers only provide information about “third party” lobbyists who work for professional lobby firms. This excludes many lobbyists working in Australia, such as those working directly for tobacco or alcohol companies or industry associations. In practice, this means a great deal of lobbying is hidden from the public.
Except for Queensland, registers did not provide a record of lobbyist meetings or contact with government officials. This information is important to understand who meets whom, and why.
The lobbyist registers hold no information about how much money is spent on, or received for, lobbying activities.
Lastly, we cannot see which individual lobbyists worked for which client. For firms that represent organisations with different interests, this raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Greater transparency and oversight needed
In the past year, Australia has created the National Anti-Corruption Commission and recommendations about reforming political donations. Lobbying reform is the next logical step to ensure an integrated and coherent approach to political integrity.
The Australian government, like others, has a lobbying code of conduct with rules about ethical behaviour. It also stipulates that former members of government are not allowed to work as lobbyists for a “cooling off period” of 12 or 18 months (depending on where someone worked in government).
However, in the lobbying code, “lobbyist” is only understood as those working for third-party firms (such as the ones we analysed). It places no restrictions on ministers or government officials taking jobs with companies they used to regulate, or the consulting sector. Expanding the definition to include all forms of lobbying would help close this loophole.
We also need better enforcement of the rules around lobbying with sanctions and fines imposed to improve compliance.
Do you think lobbyists have too much power to influence government? Write to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The irony is not lost on me that the creation of an advisory body, the Voice to Parliament, was defeated in a Referendum; and yet lobbyists with potentially far more sinister objectives effectively have unfettered access to Parliament.
I wonder if a referendum asking if lobbyists should have their influence curtailed, whether Dutton would stand up and say that lobbyists are divisive and that we should vote ‘no’ to lobbyists trying to unduly influence our parliament.
If such a question were ever to be put, you can rest assured that you would have enthusiastic bipartisan support from the major parties for the status quo to continue.
The duplicity of politicians sickens me.
Not just pregnancy warning labels, the alcohol industry has a lot at stake because of irrational taxation of alcohol. Different drinks are treated differently according to political influence, some of which is in the distant past. Like the people they represent, a lot of politicians enjoy a drink and are easy pickings for lobbyists who seek to defend the status quo.
Do you know anyone that wouldn’t be very happy to see all gambling advertising, especially sports betting advertising, banned tomorrow? The vast majority of voters would love to see gambling advertising banned, and yet is doesn’t happen because of lobbying and political donations. Care to comment Communications Minister Michelle Rowland?*
New Zealand recently passed a new law on tobacco sales. No one born after Jan 1, 2009, will ever be able to legally buy tobacco products in NZ. Why don’t we have that one Health Minister, Mark Butler? And why can you still buy deadly tobacco products from convenience stores, shopping malls, and Woolies and Coles? That keeps tobacco consumption in the mainstream. Why not restrict tobacco sales to the same outlets licenced to sell take-away alcohol? While you’re at it Mark, why not tell us how much alcohol consumption costs out economy, how much domestic violence accompanies alcohol abuse, and why you can still legally advertise booze?
And please take this last question on notice because you’ll probably want to consult Agriculture Minister, Murray Watt, to frame an accurate answer: Why don’t we have a sugar tax when most people who work in health see it as a “no-brainer”? See you for an answer next week down in the lobby.
*https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/michelle-rowland-s-lavish-society-lunch-paid-for-by-gambling-lobby-20231016-p5ecnf
You can shut down gambling and ban smoking by all means, but it you want to take away my beer and whisky you can GAGF.
Relax good doctor, I’m not suggesting modern-day wowserism. Anyhow, we know how well attempts to ban alcohol have gone in the past. I’m just suggesting that it shouldn’t be legal to encourage people to consume alcohol via advertising.
Now, I do believe it is beer o’clock. Time to rest the keyboard.
Cheers.
Nothing “My vice is speshal!” there, then.
You forgot to add take “.. from your cold, dead liver…err..fingers”.
As with “Do you know anyone that wouldn’t be very happy to see all gambling advertising….banned tomorrow?” so “Do you know anyone that wouldn’t be very happy to see all
gamblingUNTRUE POLITICAL advertising banned?” – widely reported to have 90+%public support.And 200+% certain not to happen due to bipartisan political perfidy.
Nothing essential, product or service, needs a multi billion dollar industry to sell pr promote it.
Advertising, in the politely mendacious sophistry on which it is based, claims to be merely helping people choose which unnecessary, almost always deleterious, purchase to make and competition is fierce – the more so in reverse ratio to its uselessness such as cosmetics, junk food, fashion etc.
“No Tracey Island”?
… Thunderbirds à-Go-Go – strings attached.
Alcohol, tobacco, food and gambling – these items are points of excess on any contemporary register of the Vices and Virtues. Excess is the register that those who promote them, endorse them and want others to consume them, want. Significantly, refusing these must be a personal choice. Simply ‘calling’ for their public moderation is not virtue. Though, sometimes – and appropriately- making such public calls is needed. We need to call a spade a spade. But most urgently, we must actually live moderately ourselves. To those trenches we go!