|
June 30, 2005
Carmen Lawrence gives us a good description of the importance of lobbyists in the political life of federal Parliament. I have commented about it at philosophy.com in relation to public reason and the work of Carl Schmitt.
Carmen decribes the impact of lobbyist within Parliament House:
One of the most obvious features of national political life is the steady stream of lobbyists - individuals and organisations - who turn up in the corridors of Parliament seeking to influence the policies and decisions of their representatives. Some are motivated by their own or their shareholders' interests; others by a desire to achieve particular outcomes which they believe will be of benefit to the society or some more narrowly defined sectional interest. Most people would regard such contact as a legitimate and basic right in any democracy.
Well, as a political advisor to a federal Senator (Meg Lees), I often sat down and listened to briefings from a variety of lobbyistsas part of my job. I found many of them to be very informative and helpful in the legislative side of work an in terms of their understanding of issues. After my holidays I will become one.
Carmen,like myself, is uneasy about the inequalities within this aspect of liberal parliamentary democracy due to the resources and access. She says:
...it disturbs me - as it should all citizens - that there are some who are more equal than others. This is, in part, due to the fact that some - mainly business - groups are able to devote substantial resources to the task. They wine and dine MPs and provide them with "corporate hospitality" as part of carefully crafted lobbying built on personal contact and expensive "information" campaigns. And no public record is kept of these proceedings.
The implication of this inequality is that it:
.... gives rise to the not unreasonable suspicion that this hospitality and the large campaign donations made by the same players may help to open doors. It's almost certain that they do.
The Liberal Party now charges big bucks for access to Ministers at a variety of its events. A lot of groups (ngo's) are thereby excluded. So there is corporate lobbying and lobbying. This tendency is only goingto intensify after July I when the Coalition is incontrol of both houses of Parliament.
Lawrence points out the significance of the corporate lobbying behind closed doors. :
...we are aware of only a small proportion of the lobbying that goes on, there is a reasonable suspicion that a great many more decisions are being shaped without our knowledge and without the interest groups having to face public scrutiny of their claims and arguments.
So democracy is undermined by both the access that money can buy and because we are in the dark as we don't know how much is being spent to inform, persuade and cajole our decision makers.
The Australian Parliament is not serious about the need for MPs and ministers to be transparent about who is knocking on their doors. There needs to be accountability, public scrutiny transparency and regulation of this persuasion industy.
How should this be done?
|
Hey, she's been reading my blog. Or reading Fel. Or something.
I think we'd all be a bit more comfortable if there was more transperancy on lobbying. I won't ask you who you will be working for (even if I am damn curious) - but all the best for your new job.