ACT govt wanted to widen 'lobbyist' definition. Ethics adviser says no
The ACT Legislative Assembly's ethics and integrity adviser has rejected a Labor-Greens push to widen the territory's lobbyist register to include in-house lobbyists, arguing there was no compelling or logical reason to do so.
In a submission to an Assembly committee inquiry into the proposal, the parliament's integrity adviser Stephen Skehill has rejected the need for widening the people the register covers beyond third-party lobbyists.
While the inquiry is expected to report back to the Assembly early this year, the proposal to widen the register was a key item on the Labor-Greens 2016 deal to form government, and in a recent progress report was labelled as being "on track" for completion this term, suggesting the government will press on.
The agreement means the government plans to widen the register to include in-house government relations staff, industry associations and project management officers and companies, as well as review the changes after one year.
Those changes followed a series of controversies that marred the last term of parliament, including the Greater Western Sydney Manuka Oval redevelopment bid, for which a consultant had been meeting with ministers about the development, but refused to register.
Mr Skehill's submission has essentially restated the arguments he put in 2014 when the Gallagher government was examining setting the register up, in ensuring lobbyists were properly identified as such, and their clients, before meeting with politicians and public servants.
But Mr Skehill also criticised the government's proposal, arguing if it was extended to in-house lobbyists, their identity and the interests they sought to advance, those of their employer were readily apparent.
He also wrote there were also potential problems in defining in-house government relations staff, given companies could simply rename their positions, and the individuals concerned could continue to lobby without registration.
"Alternatively, if the category were defined to cover any person who might lobby on behalf of their employer, then registration could be required for potentially every employee," he wrote.
"Members would thereby be precluded from potentially any discussion with the chairs, directors and chief executives of identified entities unless they were registered, notwithstanding that members were fully aware of their position with such entity.
"Such a registration requirement would achieve no real purpose."
Mr Skehill also wrote extending registration to industry associations would also achieve no real purpose, given such associations were specifically created to represent the interests of their members.
While he also did not endorse widening the register to include project management firms or consultants, he wrote they should already be registered, given on a prima facie case, they were lobbying for third parties for reward.
Mr Skehill also responded to a request from Speaker Joy Burch as to the scope of the lobbyist register as it stands, to which he reiterated his concerns that the only significant problem was a failure to ensure politicians should not entertain lobbying from lobbyists who had to register but had not done so.
The committee is expected to report its findings back to the Assembly next month.