Go online to seek a dictionary definition of the word “lobbyist” and the choices are remarkably narrow, although the job does attract a range of more discriminatory descriptions on social media generally.
Persuading and influencing are the more common interpretations associated with a job that has been around for centuries. It originated with those waiting in public rooms next to parliamentary chambers to speak with politicians.
Like any occupation that has existed over centuries, lobbying has evolved while the market has determined demand and supply.
To those of us in the business, demand is very strong and it shows little sign of slowing down.
As much as the roles are far broader and strategic – corporate advisor is perhaps the term best used to describe the work of most – lobbying is the descriptor to which people turn.
I take the view I suppose it is a case of “call me anything as long as you call me often”.
However, while evolution and the market are best left alone because they tend to produce good outcomes there are justifiable reasons for legislators to interfere if there are valid concerns.
A former politician who has presided over major policy and legislative challenges or responded to issues such as war or disease provides extraordinary insights. They have dealt with matters that are generally far more significant than those faced by most corporate leaders.
The industry has become more professional. There are now client registers producing more accountability and transparency. When seeing a politician, it is commonplace to provide a brief on the subject about which discussions will be held.
That has helped formalise a previously informal industry, but more can always be done – as long as it does not produce unnecessary regulation to stymie business.
The efforts of Attorney-General John Rau to turn his attention last week on aspects of lobbying are thus justified, particularly in the context of ICAC’s Bruce Lander’s annual report.
Mr Rau has responded appropriately with a desire to lead a debate in South Australia and do so rationally.
On one key issue, success fees, he tolls the bell. Success fees in a political domain should no longer exist. While most lobbying companies nationally have stopped the practice of success fees, including Bespoke Approach, they are still allowed by law in South Australia.
There is enough pressure on public servants and politicians in general without being lobbied by those purely incentivised by a pot of gold. Success fees are particularly notable when it comes planning and development applications.
I appreciate Mr Rau’s intent to “study” the impact of success fees being banned in NSW, for example, but I would save time and simply outlaw them.
In running a business you are best to price to market, not to outcome; that is more the business of the TAB.
Those to whom one lobbies as well as clients undoubtedly feel more comfortable with retainers or a fee-for-service model. Lobbyists should operate as service-providers just like accountants or lawyers.
Of course public perspective on lobbying has been butchered by what we have observed (largely interstate) over decades and action has been taken to clean up certain activities as mentioned previously.
Meanwhile others in the SA debate who champion change to the rules of lobbying could be accused of motives that are simply conspiratorial rather than evidence-based.
The Greens’ Mark Parnell seems to have a particular concern with his own profession and the integrity of his former colleagues.
He talks of concern about the “speed” of former MPs and ministers becoming lobbyists after ending their time in politics despite the fact that there are reasonable timelines on the areas in which they can act already.
Mr Parnell’s comments are populist and ill-informed and they stoke the public’s unhealthy and unjustified suspicion of politicians.
As I explain to clients, the value that a former minister or political leader can bring to a strategy is reflected in their experiences.
A former politician who has presided over major policy and legislative challenges or responded to issues such as war or disease provides extraordinary insights. They have dealt with matters that are generally far more significant than those faced by most corporate leaders.
In the United States, where lobbying is part of the world’s most successful business culture, former Presidents and Secretaries of State are active lobbyists. In Australia, people like former Prime Minister Bob Hawke has continued to encourage inbound investment in his role as a lobbyist for some of the most significant companies.
It may be “lucrative” work in the words of Mr Parnell, but it does not make it wrong or sinister. His suggestion of “favors to be called in” by those who were once politicians embarking on lobbying careers is actually insulting.
Of course public perspective on lobbying has been butchered by what we have observed (largely interstate) over decades and action has been taken to clean up certain activities as mentioned previously.
South Australia has escaped the likes of Queensland’s Fitzgerald Inquiry, WA’s Burke legacy and currently the ICAC inquiry in NSW but in the annals of lobbying such events are in the minority.
Learning from those experiences means, as Mr Rau intends, that the challenges is to clean up around the edges of an industry that is here to stay.
Ian Smith is managing partner of Bespoke Approach.
His company is on the South Australian lobbyist register.
