Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will respond, in part, to that interjection. I've never named anyone in this chamber as being those people. I have seen the commentary out there. So you can say I'm making it up, Senator Pocock, but I'm not casting any aspersions on you. Maybe we'll just agree to disagree on some points.

Now, the idea of lobbying is a very legitimate one. As I said previously, I, personally, used to lobby on behalf of the Council of Social Service. I lobbied on behalf of many community organisations—small community organisations, with critical issues that they needed to deal with. We had the appropriate passes when we came here, and we declared that we were here; there were no secrets: 'We're here talking to ministers. We're here talking to backbenchers. We're here trying to get people to understand our issue.'

Now, the interpretation by some is that, because someone has come to speak to you, you are immediately on their case and you're going to funnel bucketloads of money to them and support their cause, just because they walked in the door. Or the interpretation of, I know, many people in this parliament is that I only meet with people I agree with. I don't; I meet with people that I don't agree with; I meet with people from all sides of an argument, if there's something in front of me as a senator. That's particularly so for those of us who chair Senate committees. You have to deal with contentious issues; you have to deal with significant issues that have many views. The appropriate thing to do and, as a representative of South Australia, the right thing for me to do is to listen to all perspectives, to listen to all views, and then form an opinion myself once I have seen that evidence. To blank people out and say that people shouldn't be allowed to talk to us—shouldn't be allowed to come into this place and engage in activities of our democracy—is not where I'm at. I completely disagree with that perspective, which has been put out by some in the media and some out in the community and in some commentary from some people within the parliament.

Lobbying is a legitimate activity. And it was a Labor government that brought in the code. It was a Labor government that sought to ensure that lobbyists were well regulated. We know who people are. They have to disclose who they are, where they are and who they're working for. So there's no great secret here.

The interpretation that parliamentarians are too vacuous to make up their own mind—to meet with a lobbyist, digest the information they might give them and actually come to a perspective, rather than just going, 'Oh, if someone's sitting in front of me, obviously I must agree with them'—is completely absurd. That may be the case for some of my colleagues; maybe they just listen to what's in front of them. That's absolutely not how I work; I know it's absolutely not how the majority of my colleagues work.

So: we have lists; we have regulation. People who have sponsored passes range across such a vast array. You'd like to think it ranges across our whole society. Certainly, people seek to visit and talk with me about the issues that are concerning for them or issues they're trying to promote. I see people from all walks of life, from big business to small community groups. They all have a perspective, and they all deserve to be heard. They all have a right to come and talk to people in this place about the issues that are important to them. I will stand by that. I think restricting people from talking to politicians is a bad idea—I just do. I think the codes that we brought in in 2008 made it a much, much more transparent system. The fact is we're at the centre of democracy in our country and as many people as possible should have access to this place.

In a quite recent report from the finance and public administration committee, there were some additional comments from Labor senators, and I was taken by some of the comments that were made—