David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to today to speak to the Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025, and I start by acknowledging that the bill was first introduced into the other place by the member for Kooyong, Dr Monique Ryan.

This bill is about an issue that cuts to the core of how decisions are made in this country: lobbying and the urgent need to reform the way that it's regulated. It's not always visible to the public. It rarely dominates headlines, but it influences everything that happens in this place, from how policies are shaped to which voices are heard and which are ignored. Before I was elected as a senator I, like so many Australians, was deeply frustrated by politics. I was disappointed by government decisions that made little sense. I was frustrated that often policies and decisions seemed to ignore communities and evidence based policy. They seemed to ignore what the best and brightest—the experts and scientists—were telling us. I was a little perplexed at how powerful voices often seemed to win out while ordinary Australians struggled to be heard. When I arrived in parliament, part of the reason for that became very clear—a system of influence that operates behind closed doors, protected by outdated rules and a lack of transparency.

Lobbying plays a legitimate and vital role in our democracy. We need experts, community groups and advocates to inform policy and raise concerns, and I welcome them into this place. But that role must be open and accountable, not concealed behind legal loopholes and privileged access. What we have today is anything but open or accountable. A recent report from Transparency International Australia found that federal lobbying rules are the worst in the country, scoring just 17 out of 100, compared to a score of 75 for those in Queensland. It's pretty clear how weak they are here at a federal level. Other jurisdictions require publishing of ministerial diaries, have an independent watchdog and have lobbying laws with teeth. But the most striking failure of federal lobbying rules is that 80 per cent of lobbyists are not even considered lobbyists.

Most Australians assume that corporate government relations teams from companies like Qantas, Woodside, Santos and others are regulated as lobbyists, but they're not. And talking to people that I represent, when I talk about this, they're shocked and appalled that this is the status quo in Canberra. What about industry peak bodies who clearly are trying, on behalf of their members, to speak to the government, to put forward their views, to lobby? The Australian energy producers who represent the gas industry or the Pharmacy Guild—they're not even considered lobbyists either. These groups should have access; these views are important. But these groups should not be excluded from the federal lobbying register and code of conduct. They face no obligation to disclose meetings or report their activities. They can be granted a sponsored pass to this building and no-one is required to say who they are and who gave them access or for what purposes.

These lobbyists can walk into a minister's office unannounced while community organisations wait weeks for a response to a meeting request, if they get one at all. At any given time, over 1,500 individuals hold all-access passes to Parliament House. In the last parliament, at the estimates before the election, I asked, and there were over 2,000 sponsored passholders to this building—and that excludes staff, volunteers, family. Clearly they don't need to be made public, but, when it comes to sponsored passholders for organisations, for companies and for industry groups, there is a very strong argument that they should, because we currently don't know their names. We don't know which MPs or senators sponsored them and we certainly don't know who they're meeting with and what decisions they are having with decision-makers. This isn't oversight. This is not accountability. It's a system built for insiders, not the public, and we need to and can change that.

The need for reform is urgent. We need a single comprehensive lobbying register that covers all lobbyists, including those who work in-house for powerful organisations, corporations and other groups. We need meaningful rules, not a code of conduct so weak that it's been described as 'dishwater'. We need real enforcement and serious consequences for those who breach them. Asking at estimates, it seems like the worst thing that can happen if you breach the Lobbying Code of Conduct is a three-month holiday from lobbying, which doesn't stop you from accessing the building with a sponsored pass; you just can't be a lobbyist. In other similar jurisdictions there are civil, sometimes criminal, penalties, as there should be for breaching privileged access and the rules around that to this building. We need transparency. We need published ministerial diaries. We need quarterly disclosures showing who lobbyists meet with, for how long and about what, and the Senate will know full well how hard it is to get these details out of government ministers. That should be a base-entry-level requirement of being a minister and working on behalf of the people of Australia—to be transparent.

Last year I secured support for a Senate inquiry into lobbying, and it confirmed what many of us suspected: the system is fundamentally broken. But it also showed this appetite for reform, even from within the lobbying industry itself. Sadly, that appetite hasn't been matched by political will from the major parties. Repeatedly, I've seen them resist even modest changes that would make the system more transparent, and I want to acknowledge my crossbench colleagues—Senator Lambie, the Greens and others—who have repeatedly pushed for more transparency around lobbying, for the release of ministerial diaries, only to be teamed up against by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. And it's not hard to see why. After three years in this place, I've witnessed how much influence certain industries still hold, particularly gambling and fossil fuels. Lobbyists from these industries walk into ministers' offices at will. Meanwhile public health experts, environmental scientists and community advocates are left knocking on closed doors or waiting for email responses to secure a meeting.

That's why I've brought this bill to the Senate, again acknowledging that was it introduced into the other place by the member for Kooyong. It is a practical, sensible package of reforms, and it's exactly what this parliament needs. This bill would expand the definition of lobbyist to cover in-house staff, industry associations and consultants engaging with government; legislate a mandatory lobbying code of conduct with real penalties for misconduct; require quarterly online reporting of lobbying activity; require ministerial diaries to be published; ensure oversight by the NACC; and impose a three-year cooling-off period for ministers and senior advisers before they can take lobbying jobs. These reforms are not radical. This is not a radical proposal by any means. Much of this bill is standard practice in other democracies like Canada and the UK, and it's time Australia caught up.

Transparency International has highlighted the urgency of reform. They found that, since 2001, almost every single federal resources minister has taken up a role in the fossil fuel sector after leaving office. They documented multiple former ministers and advisers moving straight into roles promoting gambling. Is it any wonder that meaningful regulation of these industries continues to stall or that reviews like the one that was led by the late Peta Murphy into gambling harm, with 31 recommendations and cross-party support, sit unanswered by the government? Who are they listening to? Who are they in here to represent?

We're told the government is protecting children from social media, but what about protecting them from wall-to-wall gambling ads? We're told there's no money for environmental protection and a limited budget for social housing, yet last term the government passed changes to the petroleum resources rent tax that have seen revenue fall rather than rise. This is unfathomable. The parliament is becoming out of touch with the Australian people on these issues, and I urge the Senate to take action. We can turn this around. We can actually start to implement changes like this and say: 'We're going to be more transparent. We're going to let you see who is meeting with ministers.'

The cost of broken lobbying rules is immense. While countries like Norway are using their natural resources to build an over $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, here in Australia, one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, we have a budget which is mainly in deficit and a trillion dollars of national debt. That's quite the contrast. Imagine what we could do with all of that lost revenue. We've just had a case where the government, until they were essentially forced to do it, wouldn't release 20,000 home-care packages for older Australians seemingly because of the cost, yet we're happy to give gas away for free and buckle in the face of vested interests, which clearly is not in the interests of Australians now and certainly not in the long-term interests of this country and younger Australians.

Despite all this, I remain hopeful because across the country people are rising up and demanding better—people like Konrad Benjamin. Known to many as Punter's Politics, he has built a following of nearly half a million Australians as he seeks to hold the government to account. He's raised tens of thousands of dollars for billboards calling for fairer tax policy, and now he's fundraising for a people's lobbyist, someone who can represent the punters' interests here in this building day in and day out. I think that's the kind of democratic innovation that we need more of, but it also underscores just how unequal our system has become when you have to do that to actually try and deal with the system.

I want to conclude with a small but important step forward on this issue, one that I hope signals a broader cultural shift in this place. Today I am launching the parliamentary pass register, a public website that brings long overdue transparency to an area of our political system that has operated in the shadows for far too long. As part of this effort, I've written to every senator and every member of the House of Representatives asking them to disclose the names of the individuals they sponsor for building access—the names of the people and the organisations or companies they represent who have access-all-areas passes to this building. I've asked that this information be provided by 1 October, giving the public, for the first time, a clear view of who holds sponsored passes and who granted them. I'm incredibly grateful to the parliamentarians who've already responded. It's a small act, but I think it speaks volumes about a commitment to openness and trust.

I want to especially acknowledge Senator McDonald. We may hold very different views on a range of issues, but she has led by example. For me, this highlights what sponsored passes should be. As a parliamentarian, if you're giving someone a sponsored pass, you should be willing to stand publicly and say, 'Yes, this person has a legitimate reason to access this building.' I'm not ashamed to give someone a sponsored pass, and for that reason I've been disclosing my sponsored passes on my website. It's a check on me, too. Every time someone asks for a sponsored pass, I have to weigh it up and ask: What would the people who I represent think about this? Does this align with people in the ACT? So I thank Senator McDonald. And I thank the members from the other place who've already sent their lists. I encourage and welcome others in this chamber to do the same.

Again, lobbying is an important part of our democracy. I'm not antilobbyists. I just think there should be more transparency over who is accessing this building. By doing that, we will start to rebuild trust in the parliament and in institutions at a time when we desperately need that. If you turn on the TV, you'll see this is the time we need to rebuild trust, not continue to erode it.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support the Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill. At the outset, I'd just like to say that the Lobbying Code of Conduct in existence was created by the last Labor government. When the code was established the first time, lobbyists were required to register their activity and comply with strict rules on transparency. It was one of the many integrity measures introduced by the Rudd Labor government of the time, which also included a new code of conduct for ministerial staff. It also strengthened the ministerial code.

When the government tabled the lobbying code at that time, in May 2008, in the other place, the responsible minister, Senator John Faulkner, outlined the purpose of that code. It is instructive reading, and I commend his speech to the chamber. In May 2008, Senator Faulkner said:

The government recognises that lobbying is a legitimate activity and part of the democratic process. Lobbyists can help individuals and organisations communicate their views on matters of public interest to the government and, in doing so, improve outcomes for the individual and community as a whole.

However, there is a legitimate concern that ministers, their staff and officials who are the target of lobbying activities are not always fully informed as to the identity of the people who have engaged a lobbyist to speak on their behalf. The government believes that this information can be fundamental to the integrity of its decisions and should be freely available to those who are lobbied and to the wider public.

For these reasons, the code and associated register aim to ensure government representatives know who is engaged in lobbying and whose interests are being promoted. When a third-party lobbyist contacts a government representative, including a minister, the code requires that they confirm they are on the register and disclose whose interests they are representing. The code also imposes an obligation on government representatives. They must not knowingly be a party to lobbying by a third-party lobbyist who's not on the register. There are penalties associated with the failure to comply with the code, including a power for the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to bar a lobbyist who has committed a serious breach.

I acknowledge that some, like Senator Pocock, want registration obligations to extend to in-house lobbyists. There are also some who want to ban lobbying altogether. The government believes that the code strikes the right balance—recognising the right of lobbyists to lobby but placing conditions on the manner of third-party lobbying through mandatory registration and disclosure obligations.

The code prohibits former ministers from lobbying on matters they had official dealings with in their last 18 months in office for a period of 18 months after leaving office. This prohibition is intended to balance the benefits of individuals moving between positions in the public and private sectors against the integrity risks that this may represent. The code promotes trust in the integrity of government processes and ensures that contact between lobbyists and government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty, which is what all Australians expect. The code is focused on government representatives as the decision-makers within our democratic system. The code places obligations on third-party lobbyists to increase transparency and allow government representatives to make informed decisions about lobbying activities. The code also sits within a broader integrity and transparency framework, such as the Code of Conduct for Ministers, the Public Service Act 1999, the APS Employment Principles, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018—which also regulates lobbying activities—and, of course the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The lobbying code is an administrative instrument. It is an executive action. For that reason it is misconceived to expect the code to require disclosure of sponsored pass access to Parliament House. Parliamentarians are already expected to comply with the rules of access to Parliament House, including in relation to sponsored passes. These rules of access to Parliament House are a matter for the Presiding Officers. Access to official documents of government is available under the Freedom of Information Act by request. These decisions are subject to review by the Information Commissioner and, if necessary, by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

The current freedom-of-information regime is another legacy of the last Labor government. Labor abolished conclusive certificates. Labor created a three-commissioner model—an information commissioner, a productivity commissioner and a freedom-of-information commissioner. The former Liberal government regrettably smashed that model by trying to repeal the legislation and then defunding the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. When Labor returned to office we reinstated the three-commissioner model as the parliament had originally intended. The Albanese Labor government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability in government.

I recognise Senator David Pocock's advocacy for more transparency in government, and, after nine years of Liberal government, more transparency was desperately needed. The Albanese government is committed to upholding a high standard of integrity, transparency and accountability, as I've said—a standard the former government never aspired to let alone achieved. We have already delivered a significant integrity reform agenda to restore public trust in government and strengthen standards of integrity in the federal public sector. And we have more on the way. Within months of coming to office in 2022 we established the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the single biggest reform to the integrity framework in decades. The commission commenced operations on 1 July 2023, a major reform of the current Labor government. We said we would get this done in the same year we were elected, in 2022, and we did.

We also established the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. We implemented the Bell inquiry recommendations to improve transparency and accountability and to restore public trust in Australian democracy, after Scott Morrison appointed himself to administer multiple departments without disclosure to his colleagues or the public. We have reformed Australia's system of administrative review with the creation of the Administrative Review Tribunal, a new federal review body that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. We have re-established the Administrative Review Council, a recommendation of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, which will be an expert body to monitor and advise on the operation and integrity of the Commonwealth administrative review system. We have strengthened provisions in the Public Service Act 1999 to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. We have established an APS Integrity Taskforce to identify gaps and opportunities to deliver system-wide integrity improvements in the Australian Public Service.

We have also strengthened whistleblower protections through a first tranche of reform to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. These reforms implemented 21 of the 33 recommendations of the 2016 independent Review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 by Mr Philip Moss, and we've commenced work on a second stage of reforms to ensure the Commonwealth public sector whistleblowing framework is fit for purpose. We've reinvigorated Australia's participation in the Open Government Partnership, developing a third national action plan promoting transparency and accountability in government. We have passed new laws to address challenges with detecting investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery in Australia. And we've also passed the Respect@Work legislation—another job left half done by the former government—which now requires businesses across the country to take proactive steps to create workplaces that are safe from the risk of sexual harassment. This is a major step forward for our nation.

All of this speaks to what we have done, but we have much more to do. This week, the Attorney-General introduced important reforms into the parliament to improve the freedom of information system so that anonymous FOI requests are no longer permitted, genuine FOI requests are prioritised and taxpayers' money is saved on frivolous and automated requests. Freedom of information is a vital feature of our democracy. It promotes accountability and transparency of government. It also enables Australians to access their personal information and supports the media in their important role as the fourth estate. But right now, the FOI Act is flawed and not working well for anybody, and our laws need updating.

Despite successive reviews, the FOI framework is stuck in the 1980s—before the use of email and well before the capabilities of AI were contemplated, not all of which is used for public good. In 2024, public servants spent more than a million hours processing FOI requests. Modern technology is making it cheap and easy to create anonymous, vexatious and frivolous requests, tying up masses of resources through abuses of process, unnecessarily costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars of money and delaying the processing of genuine requests. More fundamentally, frivolous requests divert public servants from their core priority of delivery, and we must strike a better balance. The government looks forward to engagement across the parliament on this important reform.

In closing, I want to make some additional comments about Transparency International's annual Corruption Perceptions Index. The Albanese government has reversed Australia's decade-long slide by lifting the country's ranking on Transparency International's annual Corruption PerceptionsIndex, from 18 to 10. This didn't happen by accident. As I said earlier, we established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We strengthened the ministerial code of conduct. We have strengthened protections for whistleblowers. We have increased funding to the Australian National Audit Office. We have restored transparency to AAT appointments. We have reinstated a standalone privacy and FOI commissioner, and we have implemented the Bell inquiry recommendations.

In conclusion, the Australian people voted for a government that would deliver on integrity. The Albanese government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability in government. The government does not support this bill.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025 and commend Senator David Pocock for bringing it before us today. When each of us enters public office, we do so to represent the communities, our constituents and the concerns of Australians, who entrust us to act with integrity, accountability and transparency in this place. We have no mandate to serve the corporate interests of Woodside, Santos, Sportsbet, Pfizer or Lockheed Martin, yet the current lobbying regime gives precisely those interests disproportionate access to decision-making through a weak code of conduct, with minimal to no consequences for poor behaviour, undisclosed ministerial meetings, minimal oversight of sponsored parliamentary passes and a revolving door between government and industry spinning unrecorded and unchecked.

I heard the government quote Transparency International. I'm also going to quote some of their figures. Transparency International Australia's recent analysis shows the Commonwealth ranks near the bottom amongst Australian jurisdictions on transparency, enforcement and anticorruption measures, scoring just 17 out of 100. There is no independent federal regulator to enforce lobbying rules. Over 700 registered lobbyists, more than triple the number of elected MPs, operate with minimal scrutiny. The Centre for Public Integrity has shown just how deep the link between lobbying and donations runs in this country. Political donations from lobbyists have risen more than 500 per cent since the late 1990s, spiking into the millions during election years. Most of this money flows unchecked through donations and backroom access.

Speaking of backroom access, the revolving door between this place and cushy jobs is bipartisan and systemic. Both Labor and Liberal former ministers regularly transition from regulating industry to working with it, raising legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest. Simon Birmingham, finance minister until 2022, is now the CEO of the Australian Banking Association, just three years after overseeing the very industry he now represents. Ian Macfarlane, industry minister until 2015, joined Woodside almost immediately after leaving office, following nearly every former resources minister into the fossil fuel sector. Josh Frydenberg, Treasurer until 2022, is now chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia and New Zealand. And, just recently, the Australian Financial Review reported that ADNOC, the United Arab Emirates state owned oil company, hired Prime Minister Albanese's former chief of staff to advise on its Santos takeover bid, while Peter Dutton's former chief of staff joined lobbying firm TG Public Affairs. These aren't isolated cases. How do you think this instils confidence in the public that we are in here representing their public interests?

These cases form a pattern. Ministers and senior advisers are moving straight from regulating industries to profiting from them, while the public is left in the dark. Yet, despite all this capital, we have a weak lobbying code with virtually no enforcement. Since 2013 there have been at least 14 confirmed breaches of the federal lobbying code, yet not a single sanction issued. Breaches have been handled informally, with no penalties beyond a slap on the wrist.

That is why the Greens acknowledge the measures proposed in Senator David Pocock's bill. We must strengthen lobbying rules by expanding the register to include in-house lobbyists. We must improve transparency, restrict gifts and conflicts of interest, and extend cooling-off periods to close the revolving door between politics and industry. These steps are long overdue and would bring Australia a step closer towards international best practice. Countries like Ireland, Canada and Scotland already adopt many of these standards. The proposed measures in this bill would move the dial considerably on honesty and trust, but of course much more is needed to truly shift the balance of power in our democracy towards genuinely representing the public interest. Transparency and accountability matter—of course they do—but transparency without structural change still leaves corporations with outsized power to shape laws and policies.

We must take on the fossil fuel giants and gambling companies that are holding entrenched influence over both major parties here in this parliament because, frankly, what we are facing is state capture. Nowhere is this clearer than the fossil fuel industry's capture of successive governments in this country. In the Australian Democracy Network's report Confronting state capture, they write:

The fossil fuel lobby has been an aggressive and ubiquitous presence within Australian politics for as long as these industries have existed. Its present form has been shaped in opposition to the growing urgency of the climate threat since the late 1980s, with the coal industry joined in recent decades by the rapid growth of the export gas industry.

Within this report, a fossil fuel lobbyist themselves is quoted as saying:

We know more about energy policy than the government does. We know more about industry policy than the government does. We know where every skeleton in the closet is—most of them, we buried.

This capture permeates law, policy, media and culture from all angles: laws cracking down on climate activists who dare to speak the truth about these industry giants, fossil fuel companies sponsoring community infrastructure to brand themselves as good corporate citizens, and media outlets captured and funded to run favourable stories. Over the past decade, tens of millions of dollars have flowed from the oil and gas industry to politics in donations, sponsorships and membership fees, targeting both major parties to block climate action, to weaken environmental laws and to delay meaningful reform.

How can we write strong and bold climate policies when Labor alone received almost $800,000 from fossil fuel companies in the last reporting period, when former ministers walk into fossil fuel board rooms, and when corporations are handed the pen to draft policies that don't just ignore the climate crisis; they actively accelerate it? And, I might add, we are still waiting for Labor to disclose their latest political donation figures. How much has the Albanese government taken from fossil fuel companies this time, just as they prepare to decide on critical policies like our 2035 emissions targets? The Albanese government must open its books.

To confront this deep and entrenched state capture, we must not only rein in lobbyists but also level the playing field, making space for grassroots voices, community advocates and scientific experts, who too often get crowded out or just simply ignored. I meet daily both here and back in Victoria with tireless community representatives. Just yesterday I met with the AYCC, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, and Seed Mob, a group of ferocious young activists pushing this government towards bolder action. I hear from healthcare and consumer groups, multicultural communities, researchers and lived experience advocates. Their voices are vital, yet too often they are ignored, encounter closed doors or are pushed aside by corporate interests.

Meanwhile, well-resourced corporate actors book out calendars, set agendas and secure influence—whether it be through an expensive lunch or a ticket to a box at the footy. This isn't democracy. It's corporate dominance at the expense of the voices of people who have the solutions to the problems that we face and, frankly, deserve to have a seat at the table and to be listened to. We can and should do so much more. We can require full disclosure of all legislative consultation, including who is being consulted, when and where the gaps lie. We can prioritise and properly resource community advocates. We can listen to and adhere to science and expertise by establishing a parliamentary office of science and technology. We can support participatory forums such as citizens juries, public assemblies and community panels. We can consider restrictions on success fees and industry rent-seeking. These reforms shouldn't just be viewed as nice to haves; they are essential to a well-functioning democracy.

If we're to have a fighting chance against the might of the fossil fuel, gambling, weapons and pharmaceutical industries, we must enact structural changes that shift the scales in favour of the broader public interest. Transparency alone is important but won't be enough. Real reform must create space for community voices and grassroots advocacy to have genuine access to decision-makers so that public policy reflects the interests of Australians, not just the balance sheets of corporations. These steps would begin to restore balance in our democracy and give the public a fighting chance to have their voices heard and acted upon.

I must say, we're off to an appalling start in this term of parliament. The Albanese government is now seeking to charge for freedom of information requests and is refusing more Senate orders for documents than the Morrison government. It has already become an administration of secrecy. But we can turn this around. We can make the 48th Parliament one of openness and fairness, and the Greens stand ready to work with the government to strengthen our democracy and transparency measures, as we do with the crossbench who have brought this on today.

We can build a democracy that works for Australians and not corporations. We can create a parliament where laws and policies reflect the voices of communities, not the balances of fossil fuel corporations, gambling giants or other entrenched corporate interests. That is the democracy Australians deserve and that is the democracy the Greens are committed to building.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of Senator David Pocock's Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025. Yesterday I moved that the government should table a very simple list: the organisations that currently hold sponsored passes to access Parliament House. It's a measure that would cost the government nothing but would give the public some insight into who has privileged access to the decision-makers in this building.

That motion was blocked by both the Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition. It highlights and is a very small example of a bigger problem. In almost every area, this government has sought to reduce the ability of this parliament and the Senate—and, by extension, the Australian people out there—to scrutinise its activities. Rates of compliance with Senate orders for the production of documents are now among the lowest since record keeping began. We have to drag information out of departments that should, by right, belong to the people. The freedom of information system is already broken. Is that to anyone's surprise? Requests are delayed for months, bounced between agencies or stonewalled altogether.

Instead of fixing it, the government proposes so-called reforms that would make things even worse. They want to introduce new fees for Australians who make FOI requests. But Australians already pay fees. They're called taxes. They already pay the wages of the public servants who process these requests. So I don't understand what the government's trying to get at there. Charging them twice isn't efficiency; it's about discouraging people from making the request in the first place and discouraging them from asking those real questions.

We've also seen that even answers to basic questions on notice in Senate estimates have become increasingly unhelpful. Orders for the production of documents are usually returned entirely redacted and blacked out, page after page—so much for transparency—months late and often reduced to a link to a department's website or a vague paragraph about government philosophy. This isn't transparency; it's an obstruction that's dressed as process.

When it comes to accountability, Australians in 2022 were promised a national anticorruption commission that would restore the trust in government, but what we have is a body so restricted in its scope and so hamstrung by secrecy provisions that it cannot do the very thing it was created to do. A commission that can't compel transparency, that dismisses referrals without explanation, that shields the most powerful from scrutiny, is not a watchdog. It's window dressing. It gives the appearance of integrity while protecting those in power from real consequences.

This isn't what the Labor Party, historically, stood for. Labor has always claimed to be the party of integrity, the party of transparency and the party that champions the rights of ordinary people against entrenched interests—from John Curtin's wartime government that trusted Australians with the hard truth to Gough Whitlam's reforms that expanded access to information and broadened rights of participation. Labor has claimed the mantle of honesty and openness. Yet what have we seen transpire in the previous parliament and in the 48th Parliament?

The modern Labor Party platform commits to 'restoring trust in democratic institutions, ensuring integrity in government decision-making and championing the rights of people over the influence of vested interests'. Those are not my words; they are the Labor Party's words. Yet when the moment comes to honour them, to stick by them and to implement them, when the Senate asks about transparency and about who holds passes to this building or when the public asks to see documents behind government decisions, the shutters come down.

Let's remember why this matters. The people who sit in this chamber and who walk the halls of this building make decisions that affect every person on this continent: decisions about housing, health care, the environment and our nation's future—decisions that young people in particular will live with for decades to come. I speak with young Australians every week, whether in WA or here in Canberra—in communities across the country. They're engaged, they're informed and they're watching. But, too often, they tell me they feel locked out of politics. They don't believe that the government is listening to them. They see lobbyists who have passes to this building being given more access than the communities they represent. They see secrecy where there should be openness and see self-interest where there should be service.

That's the crisis we face. It is not just a crisis of policy and mismanagement but a crisis of trust. When the Albanese Labor government was elected in 2022 we thought that the era of mistrust had gone, that they would bring hope to Australian politics, to do things differently. Unless we fix it, unless we build that transparency back into the way government operates, we risk losing an entire generation's faith in our entire democratic system, and that's dangerous.

This bill gives us an important opportunity to turn back from that path. As Senator Pocock said, this is not a radical proposal. It's simple. It's sensible. It's a basic attempt to repair the fabric of that trust between people and government. I say to my former colleagues in the Labor Party: you built your party on a promise to stand with the people against secrecy and entrenched power; do not walk away from that legacy now. Do not abandon young Australians who are demanding integrity and honesty in politics. You shouldn't see transparency as a threat. It's a foundation of our democracy. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. For the sake of young Australians, who deserve a government they can believe in, and for the sake of rebuilding trust in this parliament as well as for the sake of Labor's own legacy of integrity, I commend this bill to the Senate.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025. Senator Pocock and some members of the crossbench, including the Greens and possibly even the Liberals—which is astounding—have made themselves the self-styled prefects of this parliament. They ensure that we all have our ties straight and our shoes polished. Yet, when I look back on the track record, it's not them who ushered in the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which we did in our first term of government—this Labor government. They were a footnote in history, but history will show that it was the Albanese Labor government of the 47th Parliament—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ananda-Rajah, resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Ananda-Rajah sat in silence while other senators made their contribution, and I expect that she's given the same courtesy.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth hurts. History will show that it was the Albanese Labor government in the 47th parliament, when it was elected in 2022, that within a year of election established, as promised, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. What a legacy that was.

That wasn't all we did. If you recall, there was this small issue that was lingering for many, many years called robodebt. Has anyone forgotten that? Robodebt was an absolute calamity for this nation, a complete and utter systemic failure of public administration, and it happened under the Liberals' watch. It was the Liberals who basically did nothing about robodebt but fuel it. It led to an immense amount of suffering for 430,000 Australians. Never forget that. It was this Labor government—not the crossbench, not Senator Pocock, not anyone else—that led the royal commission into robodebt. There were many recommendations and lessons that were learnt, which we are now working through and will enact, and will strengthen integrity in this country, ensuring that our most vulnerable are never subjected to that again.

We—not them, not anyone else, not any of the other passengers in this place—also are the ones who implemented the Bell inquiry recommendations to improve transparency and accountability and to restore public trust in Australian democracy.

I'll take the contributions from the Greens political party. Let's look at the Greens. The Greens stand here and champion transparency and openness, yet within their own political party they evict people over contested issues. What is it? Maybe you can help me out here. Maybe it's gender diversity. Those conversations are shut down and people are evicted. You even kicked out one of your own co-founders, Drew Hutton.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ananda-Rajah, I remind you to direct your comments through the chair. I've already called other senators to order. It's disrespectful not just to the speaker but to me in the chair.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens political party come into this place and talk the big game, but they've got a few housekeeping issues that they need to address. One of those is why exactly their co-founder, Drew Hutton, leave—or was he expelled? We don't know; it's all a little bit murky. There was also—and I still remember the case—Alex Bhathal, a candidate in Melbourne in Victoria, who basically accused her own party, the Greens, of bullying. What came of it? Crickets, absolutely nothing. The pure-as-snow Greens political party like to come in here, wave their finger at the Labor government and lecture the rest of us, but they don't want to really open that black box and do their own housekeeping. Never forget that.

Going back to this Labor government's record on integrity, we also cleaned up the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That old chestnut was a millstone around this country's neck when we came to government in 2022. It had been absolutely stacked with a bunch of Liberal mates, cronies and hacks. We basically completely abolished it and created what is called the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, a new federal body that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair, and has merit based appointments. It's not just putting your buddies on there to do your work—those people who were failed politicians or would-be politicians.

That's not all. We also strengthened provisions of the Public Service Act 1999 to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. I remember that in the other house, in the first term of government, I spoke about this. I remember speaking distinctly about the importance of ensuring separation of powers with respect to our Public Service. As we know, in the aftermath of robodebt, the Australian Public Service, a venerated institution in this country, had been absolutely gutted. It was cowering in the corner after 10 years of coalition rule, leading to the catastrophe that was robodebt. We brought in legislation to ensure that we strengthen the independence and integrity of the APS so that it can provide free and fearless advice to government. We established an APS Integrity Taskforce to identify gaps and opportunities to deliver system-wide integrity improvements in the Australian Public Service. That's not all. I'm reading out a few of them, but that's not all. These are some of my favourites. I want to pay tribute also to the previous attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, for his work in this space. He quietly went about doing it, but he brought in significant reforms as part of a broader integrity agenda—things that are foreign to the Liberal and National parties—completely alien.

We also strengthened the whistleblower protections, knowing that there is more work to do. The first tranche was reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. These reforms implemented 21 of 33 recommendations of the Moss review. When was that Moss review handed down? Was it in 2022 or 2021 or 2020? Actually, it was in 2016, and, FYI, it wasn't us in power then. It was the opposition. Why didn't they act on it? I'm not sure, but perhaps we wouldn't have had some of the issues around whistleblowers doing the right thing but getting persecuted for it had the recommendations been enacted. I cite specifically the case of Mr Richard Boyle, who was recently exonerated. He should never have gone through that kind of suffering. My heart goes out to him and his family. Had these whistleblower protections actually been enacted by the previous government, maybe all of that would have been prevented and maybe taxpayers would have saved a few bucks.

We have now commenced work on the second stage of reforms to ensure that the Commonwealth public sector—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, on a point of order?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order on relevance. This is about lobbying reform, not whistleblowers. I understand it's a filibuster, but if it could be specific to lobbying, that'd be great.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Pocock. I'll draw the senator's attention to the topic of the debate, but, in my observation, she has been generally relevant over the course of it.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that context is important. It is very important that I lay out the context before I start talking about the substance of this private member's bill. Context matters.

With respect to our broad based integrity agenda, we are now working on a second stage of reforms that will strengthen the whistleblower framework, and next week we're going to be opening that up to public consultation. I encourage all Australians who are interested in whistleblowing to make a contribution—not just the peak bodies but all Australians. We certainly have committed to establishing a whistleblower ombudsman, which I think is a very welcome step.

We have also proudly rejoined what is called the Open Government Partnership. This turns out to be an international alliance of countries that are determined to progress transparency in government. It is this Labor government that did that. We have passed new laws—and I'm particularly proud of this—to improve the detection and prosecution of foreign bribery, influence and, particularly, money laundering in this country through mechanisms like real estate and even jewellery, precious metals and stones. There are now much stronger protections around those kinds of activities.

Of course, let's not forget that we passed the Respect at Work legislation, not in piecemeal fashion but in its entirety. That was a piece of work that was left half done by the previous government. When we came to government, this parliament was stained with a reputation of toxicity and alcohol-fuelled behaviours and partying. It looked nothing like a professional workplace. The injection of a large cohort of women parliamentarians through the Albanese Labor government means that we've seen an uplift in standards in this place. I pay tribute to the work of the member for Newcastle, the Deputy Speaker in the other place, Sharon Claydon, and Minister Katy Gallagher in pushing this work through. It's incredibly important.

Now let's go to the matter of the lobbying register. I have just laid out a catalogue of all of the Albanese Labor government's achievements on integrity. It was a very broad based agenda. It was far-reaching, touching on many aspects: corruption, strengthening the Public Service, whistleblower protections and improving the standards and behaviour of parliamentarians in this place. But there is now the important matter of how we manage lobbying in government. Speaking to another Labor government legacy, the Lobbying Code of Conduct was introduced by the Rudd Labor government in 2008. It applies to ministerial staff and ministers. In 2008, Senator Faulkner—and I'll read it out because his words were prescient and they apply to today as well—said:

The Government recognises that lobbying is a legitimate activity and part of the democratic process. Lobbyists can help individuals and organisations communicate their views on matters of public interest to the Government and, in doing so, improve outcomes for the individual and community as a whole.

However, there is a legitimate concern that Ministers, their staff and officials who are the target of lobbying activities are not always fully informed as to the identity of the people who have engaged a lobbyist to speak on their behalf. The Government believes that this information can be fundamental to the integrity of its decisions and should be freely available to those who are lobbied and to the wider public.

So we established a lobbying code of conduct which extended to third-party lobbyists.

For people watching, third-party lobbyists are basically on a register now. They're listed on a register. Companies or even not-for-profits, for example, can approach them and seek their services, which are paid for, usually, and then they go to work to try and seek meetings with ministers or parliamentarians, for example, in Parliament House. They are registered. The substance of this bill, I think, that Senator Pocock has put forward is to now extend that to in-house lobbyists. That means the people who come through Parliament House who have sponsored passes. The two are quite separate. The sponsored pass list is managed by the parliament and the people who have carriage over that are the presiding officers. It's not the government. It's held at arm's length from that.

Returning to the issue of the lobbyist register, if there are breaches of that, it comes with penalties. The registration obligations now put forward in this bill seek to extend this to in-house lobbyists. I'm happy to speak about some of the people who lobby me. It's not Woodside. It's actually renewable energy companies and a lot of community groups, and I never say no to them. They're welcome to come and see me in my electorate office or here. Of course, it's also a lot of pharmaceutical companies because of my background as a doctor and my previous membership on the health committee in the other place.

The code currently prohibits former ministers from lobbying on matters that they had official dealings with for at least 18 months after they've left office. So there is a lockout period baked in because we recognise that we have to protect the public and private sectors against integrity risks, knowing full well that we also have the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which has all the powers of a royal commission and can investigate any claim, complaint or concern put forward by any member of the public. So that is the outline of our track record. (Time expired)

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

On this bill, the Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025: this is an issue that has been spoken about by many of my colleagues for some time now, in this chamber and also in the other place. And I find some of the commentary quite challenging. The assumptions that are built in to some of this commentary are, quite frankly, in my humble opinion, a bit misplaced.

When we talk about lobbyists—from my perspective and certainly from the government's perspective, lobbying is a legitimate activity. It is a legitimate activity undertaken by a whole range of different people. The assumption that is put forward by some of my colleagues is that lobbying is bad—that, on some interpretation, lobbying is only done by evil people and only ever done on behalf of bad companies. That's absolutely not my experience, and I personally have been in a position of lobbying—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Grogan; resume your seat. Senator Pocock on a point of order?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, a point of order on potentially misleading the Senate: none of that was said in my speech at all. No-one in their speech has denigrated lobbying in this debate.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, it's not a debate. I hear you, thank you, but there is no—

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't just make stuff up.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, there is no point of order. I see no point of order. I will go back to Senator Grogan.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate having expired, the debate is interrupted.