Maxim Institute made a submission to the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, which is currently before Select Committee.
The basic problem with the Bill is that in attempting to create a clear picture of influence, it covers an unreasonably wide range of communications.
The requirements imposed on these communications would stifle democratic speech on the sorts of issues where it is crucial that MPs are able to hear from the people they represent.
This will undermine the public’s trust and confidence.
Further, the Bill would not even achieve the level of transparency it aims for, because of the narrow definition of ‘targets of lobbying’ and a number of drafting issues and anomalies.
These factors would also undermine public trust and confidence in the scheme created by the Bill.
Two principles
There are two relevant principles for assessing the Bill: it is crucial for healthy, vibrant democracy for people to be able to communicate with their elected representatives and public decision-makers; and public trust and confidence in democracy is fundamental and can be damaged by improper influence on decision-makers.
The Bill is an inadequate expression of these principles.
Main problems
The wide definition of “lobbying activity,” the requirement to be registered as a lobbyist, the significant penalties for lobbying without registration and the narrowly defined “targets of lobbying” create four main problems with the Bill in principle. They are as follows:
The Bill creates a privileged class of people with greater rights to speak to MPs, namely, registered lobbyists
The Bill would chill essential democratic speech
Only those who are well resourced will be able to cope with the regime
Some influential lobbying activity will not be covered, creating loopholes.
The Bill is therefore wrong in principle and should be rejected.
If it does proceed, it will at least require amendments to fix a number of anomalies and (presumably) unintended consequences.
We consider that as long as the current objective of the Bill is retained, it remains inconsistent with democratic principle and should be rejected.
Statements that the Bill is a starting point and will be amended suggest that submitters are being asked to hit a moving target that they cannot see. This is frustrating and does not uphold the integrity of the democratic legislative process.
Editor’s Note: Alex Pank wrote the above a few weeks ago on the Maxim Institute Website. Since then, the Government Administration Committee has been granted extension until July 26, 2013 to report to the House.
The extension will allow time for Holly Walker, Member-in-charge of the Bill to revert to the Committee with options to address some of the key issues raised by submitters, including the definition of key terms, the extent of the disclosure regime, the proper components of a lobbying regime, and how such a regime should be applied and administered.
Ms Walker has agreed to comply.
Meanwhile, the Committee will not hear further evidence from submitters.
Should the new proposals result in recommendations for a redrafting of the Bill, the committee would make the proposed drafting public and consider seeking further submissions.
