Not all lobbyists are bad, but their revolving door is out of control

In a recent interview on breakfast radio, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy made a startling assertion: he maintained that the current federal lobbying regime in place under the Albanese Labor government is strong . Why startling? Because most integrity experts, including those at the Centre for Public Integrity, which I chair, regard the current federal regulation of lobbying to be a broken system.

This is not because lobbying is inherently problematic. In our work, we have always recognised that (appropriately regulated) lobbying is an indispensable part of the policymaking process. This reflects the reality that it is neither possible nor practical for government to maintain within it expertise in all the areas it regulates and legislates, and lobbying allows it to access that expertise as required.

The challenge arises when – as is the case federally – there is an absence of transparency and accountability, and the capacity to be heard either is, or appears to be, profoundly unequal. This creates the risk of lobbying driving the exercise of public power away from the public interest, and can undermine public trust.

Yet the Lobbying Code of Conduct is broadly ineffective and has no enforceable sanctions beyond deregistration. Third-party lobbyists are registered , but in-house lobbyists are not captured by the current regulatory regime. There is no transparency about what lobbyists do, who they are lobbying and on what. And there is no transparency about ministers’ interactions with lobbyists. The revolving-door situation is intolerable and reeks of conflicts of interest and undue influence.

How could a senior minister be comfortable with this system? How could the government conceivably be comfortable with it? There are two significant observations to be made: first, inexplicable though it is, while the government may be comfortable, it is manifestly clear that the public is not. A casual glance at the traditional media and social media reveals the level of public disquiet and discontent.

A good example lies in the recent deal between the major parties on gambling reform. The public outcry has been loud and consistent in its condemnation. The plain fact is that the major reforms proposed in the report by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, You Win Some, You Lose More , have been abandoned in favour of a weak response that benefits vested interests. It is a blight that these interests have succeeded to the extent they have. The public interest in achieving meaningful reform against the scourge of gambling, and in particular gambling advertising, has been significantly downgraded.

This leads me to the second observation: the government generally is so captured by vested interests as a consequence of intense lobbying and the lure of donations that it is unable to comprehend its own entrapment.

The Centre for Public Integrity has long advocated for comprehensive reform of lobbying regulation.