The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, cites the use of lobby as early as 1640, which was defined as an area for legislators and the public to meet and chit-chat.
Nostalgia is a cruel beast
The Lobbying Disclosures Bill was introduced in 2012 and sought to bring a measure of transparency and public disclosure around the lobbying activity directed at Members of Parliament and staff.
In a bid to enhance trust in the integrity and impartiality of political decision-making, the bill would have established a register of lobbyists as well as requiring lobbyists to adhere to a code of conduct and file returns. Failure to comply could lead to suspension or removal from the register.
Engaging in lobbying activity without being registered with the Auditor General could lead to a fine of $10,000 for individuals, and $20,000 for entities.
A lobbyist was defined as an individual employed by, or who worked under a contract for services for, or who was otherwise engaged by a company, firm, or organisation.
Lobbying activity included communication with public officials around legislative proposals, potential bills or amendments, government policies or programmes, or the distribution of financial benefits and contracts. It also would include meetings with public officials.
The Government Administration Committee supported the intent of the bill but concluded there were better alternatives. It proposed developing guidelines for MPs, reporting requirements in bills, and encouraging disclosure of policy papers during the policy-making process.
The Attorney General weighed in, saying the bill could limit the right to freedom of expression as affirmed by the NZ Bill of Rights Act. And thus, the bill was no more.
For context, the US, Canada, European Union, UK, Germany, Austria, Australia, Denmark, France, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, and Taiwan all have some form of register. Some are voluntary - as is the case in the UK, which presents an issue in and of itself.
Where art thou definitions?
Instead, we have the latest iteration of the Cabinet Manual, which is as vague as it is conflicted in my view.
It says ministers do not act in isolation from their political, constituency, and community networks. Indeed, some ministers are elected to parliament because of their close association with and advocacy for particular interest groups, it reads.
“In a democracy, everyone has the right to make representations to Ministers on matters that concern them. Ministers will receive a large number of requests for meetings with people and organisations seeking either to influence government policy or to position themselves for providing services.
“It is a valid and appropriate aspect of a minister’s role to engage with representatives of non-government and commercial organisations.
“Care should be taken, however, to avoid creating a perception that representatives or lobbyists from any one organisation or group enjoy an unfair advantage with the government.”
For one, nowhere is a lobby group or lobby activity defined. In the absence of a definition or an official lobby register, everyone and their dog might apply.
Jumping ship
On the issue of jumping ship, the minister rulebook newly says: “[w]hile in office, ministers’ conduct and decisions should not be influenced by the prospect or expectation of future employment with a particular organisation or sector”.
This section could be a nod to former broadcasting minister Kris Faafoi, who entered the lobbying industry fewer than three months after leaving Parliament last year.
Following the controversy, Chris Hipkins pledged to update the Cabinet Manual so that “while in office, ministers’ conduct and decisions should not be influenced by the prospect or extension of future employment with a particular organisation or sector”.
But, interestingly, while ministers’ “conduct and decisions should not be influenced by the prospect or expectation of future employment with a particular organisation or sector”, the Cabinet Manual also highlights ministers’ right to “engage in employment after they cease to hold office”. What is it, then? The former or the latter? Can the two be mutually exclusive? I see the intention, but where’s the bite?
Without a stand-down period in place, it’s a case of ‘see you later alligator’ with no consequences in sight. Hilariously one could argue the resistance to do so until recently is almost a slur against ministers’ skills and abilities to find alternative employment. But I digress.
So there’s a pickle
More generally, while decision-making falls within Cabinet, there’s a deficit of monitoring and oversight. The manual requires ministers to actively declare actual or perceived conflicts of interest or breaches.
With the onus on ministers to tell their mates - I mean colleagues - of interests or breaches, it could lead to a lot of dirt accruing under many Persian rugs in my view. And in the event my mum or dad were to be fair when marking my homework, well they’re still family.
It seems only reasonable that if a minister were in a pickle, there’s more than an incentive to keep it under wraps for fear of getting the sack. A conflict of interest, if you will.
