Political lobbying in Tasmania is opaque — with little known about meetings with MPs — but that could change

Tasmanians currently have little information about who is lobbying their politicians & decision-makers, what their meetings are about, & who is trying to get specific policy outcomes — but that could be set to change.

The Integrity Commission has made 14 draft recommendations — sent to all MPs for feedback — to improve oversight of the state’s lobbying system, with reforms likely mid this year.

They include requiring every MP, ministerial adviser, department secretary and deputy secretary to disclose within five days if they have a meeting with a lobbyist.

This would also extend to CEOs & board members of government business enterprises, such as Hydro Tasmania, TasNetworks & TT-Line, having to disclose details of their meetings.

Tasmania has 66 registered lobbyists, some of whom have a long list of clients who could be paying fees to gain access to the state’s key decision-makers in the hope of influencing policy, legislation, contracts & funding allocations.

At the moment, the only information available to the public shows the identity of the lobbyists & their clients, but not their meetings or activities with public representatives.

The compliance system relies on self-regulation.

In its draft recommendations, the Integrity Commission outlined that its proposals use “the principles of transparency & accountability”.

“Lack of transparency & accountability in lobbying activities risks eroding public trust that decisions are being made fairly & in the public interest, & that there may be an imbalance towards decisions being made due to powerful minority interests,” it reads.

“The use of the term ‘powerful minority interests’ is deliberate — it is important that any system of lobbying oversight not stifle legitimate political discourse or the ability of individuals & community members to advocate for their interests to [public representatives].”

Lobbyists include former premiers Paul Lennon & Lara Giddings, former federal Liberal senator Eric Abetz, & former federal minister Christopher Pyne.

The Integrity Commission has noted that this “revolving door” could create “industry-friendly networks” & “warp access to politicians”.

Former premier Peter Gutwein was appointed as “strategic adviser” for shipbuilder Incat in December, but it was unclear if this would meet the definition of “in-house lobbyist”.

In-house lobbyists – who are directly employed by companies to lobby for them with government – would also be subject to disclosure requirements.

Tasmania’s current rules described as ‘light touch’ approach

Other draft recommendations include stopping lobbyists from being able to help with an election campaign & moving straight back into lobbying the government. They would instead need to wait 12 months.

Success fees for lobbyists who achieve a policy outcome for a client would also be banned, with Tasmania the only state still allowing this.

The lack of public information about lobbyist activity in Tasmania means it is difficult to know how widespread their influence is within policy circles.

This was noted in an earlier submission by the Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS), which believed a full & open investigation should be conducted into lobbying before reforms are adopted.

“We are concerned the current consultation will not provide the TIC with sufficient information to properly examine the state of lobbying in Tasmania, without which the key strategies for reform are unlikely to be identified,” the submission reads.

TasCOSS also called for a five-year period before government representatives could move into lobbying, but the Integrity Commission has suggested maintaining the 12-month cooling-off time.

Government relations company Font PR lists its 41 clients on the lobbyist register, including Coca-Cola Amatil, Lion Nathan, Asahi, Airbnb, Van Dairy, Neuron scooters, the University of Tasmania & Timberlink.

Font PR partner Brad Stansfield, who describes himself as a “political & campaign strategist”, was sceptical about the need for reform to the lobbying system, believing there was no evidence of “illegal or corrupt practices”.

He believed additional regulation would be onerous.

“To suggest that someone who happens to be a lobbyist & someone who also happens to be a government official would have to record & document each & every meeting … is absurd & nonsensical,” Mr Stansfield’s submission reads.

Tasmania’s current lobbyist rules are described as a “light touch” approach by the Australian National Audit Office, whereas NSW, Queensland, South Australia & Western Australia have lobbying rules enshrined in legislation.

Independent MP wants changes to go further

Independent upper house member Meg Webb believed the proposed changes should go further & called for the cooling-off period between holding public office & lobbying to be extended from 12 months to 24 months.

She wanted the oversight system to also cover local government.

In her response to the draft recommendations, Ms Webb said there would still be gaps in enforcement for improper conduct.

“The draft framework report recommendations present a considerable & significant improvement on Tasmania’s current lobbyist oversight & regulation system in relation to key elements of the OECD’s Principles of Transparency,” she wrote.

“However, the perceived lack of compliance & sanction ‘teeth’ means there is a risk that the proposed reformed lobbying regulation system would still be found lacking when measured against the third OECD transparency principle.”

The Integrity Commission will provide final recommendations for the government after receiving feedback. The government will then set a new lobbying oversight framework.

See more of Meg in the media.