A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
A Crikey lobbyist list: send us names
|
Send your nominations to boss@crikey.com.au with “Lobbyist Register” in the subject title. We want full-time in-house lobbyists, government relations representatives, managers of corporate affairs, regulatory affairs directors – you name it – anyone charged with influencing government policy at the Federal level. As a start here’s a random assortment of names across a number of sectors to get you thinking: Media
Big Four accounting
Finance
Peak industry bodies
Mining
Broadcasting
Agriculture
Infrastructure
Religious
Retail
|
|
|
4 Comments
Surely this “lobbyist” thing is a two way street when we are talking about companies who have their own government relations/corporate affairs directors etc? I mean, you cant expect that the PM can just call us the head of Telstra or Westpac and have a chat about what they think can you? The Govt Affairs people are the first point of access for ministers etc to get the measured opinions of the corporate sector as well as an opportunity for the company to access the ministers. Two way street….what’s wrong with that? And in the end, surely an employer as big as BHP, Telstra, Westpac, etc have a right to an audience with the government of the day about policy that affects their business and the employees?? What conspiracy theorists the Crikey bunch are…..
All well and good Hugo, but why shouldn’t we know who these people are? How would that harm their operations? (And if disclosure did mean harm, shouldn’t we be worried by that?)
Who’s we? Crikey? What purpose would it serve for Crikey to “know” who these people are? Use your brains (and any internet search engine available)! I’ve found at least 5 current Govt relations manager just by looking at a few company websites…..it’s pretty simple stuff. And who said that disclosure meant harm? I only said that lobbying from within a company (as opposed to the third party stuff) is a two way street and that each had a right to present their opinions to the government of the day. It’s the kickbacks and the like that are really of concern, and that should be cracked down on. And why is it that you only want information on those who have federal influence. Surely those with State influence are just as important to “know” about - I mean, they are the ones who make decision to shut down free roads in preference for tunnel tolls, & screw up Health systems & give bribes & kickbacks & condone sex scandals at councils & tolerate pedophiles in ministries….
My understanding is that a lobbyist per the WA regs is a person, body corporate, unincorporated association, partnership or firm whose business includes being contracted or engaged to represent the interests of a third party to a Government Representative. “Lobbyist” does not include:
(a) an association or organisation constituted to represent the interests of its members;
(b) a religious or charitable organisation; or
(c) an entity or person whose business is a recognised technical or professional occupation which, as part of the services provided to third parties in the course of that occupation, represents the views of the third party who has engaged it to provide their technical or professional services.
While clearly some of these people are those driving the agenda of many things, they don’t fit that definition. If this is merely a list of spokespeople, well that’s something else.