Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Four to one: our lobbyist to MP ratio
|
Federal Parliament now has at least four lobbyists for every MP and Senator, according to the Government’s Register of Lobbyists, or just under 14 for every minister and shadow minister. The Commonwealth Lobbyist Register currently contains 631 individual lobbyists working for 267 companies, following the consolidation of several firms. However, these are only registered third-party lobbyists. The Government does not require companies’ in-house lobbyists, or the staff of industry bodies, or NGO representatives, whose full-time job is trying to influence Parliamentarians, to register. In 2006, Press Gallery lobbying guru Julian Fitzgerald calculated that non-third party lobbyists had over 2431 staff, including 260 public relations officers. Based on Fitzgerald’s figures, there are currently nearly 900 full-time lobbyists. In Canada, where registration of all lobbyists and identification who they are lobbying and why is mandatory, there were 867 third-party lobbyists and another 1754 in-house lobbyists in 2008. Using the Canadian ratio, that suggests up to 1900 lobbyists could be engaged in trying to influence politicians in Canberra — or more than 8 lobbyists for every individual politician in Federal Parliament. The number of lobbyists per parliamentarian in Canada is just over six. In the United Kingdom, where there is virtually no regulation of lobbying of any kind, the number of lobbyists is thought to be over 14,000, meaning 10 lobbyists for every MP and member of the House of Lords, although attention is primarily focussed on House of Commons MPs, who are said to receive up to 20 approaches a week from lobbyists. The actual numbers remain a matter for speculation. Washington, DC is of course the world capital of lobbying, where public policy is systematically and routinely debauched by lobbyists and party donors. The recession had led to a shake-out of lobbyist ranks but this year there are still over 12,000 lobbyists (down from over 15,000 in 2007), or 23.5 for every single senator and congressman or woman. The US political system allows greater freedom by politicians, with the whip used considerably less in Congress by both sides to control voting, and not at all in the Senate. This maximises both the difficulties and opportunities for lobbyists seeking ways to stymie a bill or get one passed. The US system shows that even a transparent process of registration does not deter lobbyists; the circumscription of unwarranted external influences requires a comprehensive approach involving electoral donation and spending reform, greater transparency of ministerial meetings and full disclosure by lobbyists of their financial arrangements and clients. In some ways our Lobbyist Register only gives an insight into the most anodyne end of lobbying. While the biggest and most influential third-party players are on the list — Hawker Britton, GRA, CPR, Kreab Gavin Anderson — the bulk of entries are, in some cases literally, mum-and-dad operations with one lobbyist and only a couple of clients – and frequently not companies or industries but NGOs or school or community associations. But the most powerful and influential people the in the country — the representatives of industry associations like Heather Ridout who is on Kevin Rudd’s speed dial and is a regular appointee to Government reviews, or senior business figures like Rod Eddington, or prominent trade unionists — have unlimited access to decision makers well beyond any form of transparency. At the moment, only Anna Bligh has demonstrated any commitment to the sort of comprehensive reform that would reduce our now well-entrenched political culture of access for special interests. While we may never end up quite as bad as the United States, that’s the template for what happens when a democracy allows lobbyists free reign. |
|
|
10 Comments
I remember Malcolm Turnbull, at the height of the hysteria over the Ozcar affair, referring to “Kevin Rudd’s mate, his benefactor…”, and all the screaming about “favours” and influence-peddling.
Which would be hysterically funny if the hypocrisy wasn’t of such a galactic scale. Compare the implied influence that a suburban car-dealer allegedly had, to the influence that Helen Ridout undoubtedly weilds.
http://tinyurl.com/n54kg3
It’s good to see Crikey and in particular the Sewing Circle at Camp PeePee are tackling the big issues of the day.
Poking fun at Steve Fielding’s dyslexia is a laugh riot and indicative of the basal reportage Tobias Ziegler continues to stoop to to get his jolly’s whilst their muse is on sabbatical.
Do subscribers actually PAY for that stuff?
Fielding has an Engineering degree and an MBA.
Beyond a Grad Dip in Stupid Toby, what have you got?
Can anyone tell me if the situation still exists where Ministerial personal staff can cross straight over from their positions to work for PR co’s who have a client(s) with a direct financial interest in the portfolio the staff have been working on?
Dear MPM, the Steve Fielding article is a couple of clicks away on a different page.
And I have a Masters in Advanced Cultural Studies from Greenwich Pacific University, for my 5,000 word thesis “Lonely in a crowd: Cognitive Dissonance in the Songs of The Backstreet Boys.”
I think that matches up pretty well to anything anyone round here has got, don’t you?
Dear Bernard, not really. I mean, doesn’t everyone have a masters nowdays! It’s just another degree.
An Engineering Degree on the other hand, now that is not for the faint hearted. Sorry to tell you Bernard, but you have been pipped by Fielding.
Damn you Bernard. You beat me to the draw. My Masters Degree (Hons) in The Abstract Connotations and Symbiotic Relationships of the Mathrodotic Mating Habits of the Lesser Grey Gunnel-worm. (University of Peruvian Marine Studies, Buffalo, USA: correspondence course). I failed my PHD by two thousand dollars.
MOST PECULIAR MAMMA: You are the second person today to have trotted out Steve Fieldings Engineering degree as if this made him an intellectual.
It doesn’t and he isn’t.
This same senator recently made the point that there is no Global Warming, because God hadn’t got around to inventing it.
I imagine the university (engineering, this means what used to be called our technical school system such as Prahran Technical School is now one of the minor universities like Swinburn) which awarded him his degree is now busy trying to remove all trace of his name.
Another ‘writer’ with a Yaaartz degree.
The comedy never ends.
“…my 5,000 word thesis “Lonely in a crowd: Cognitive Dissonance in the Songs of The Backstreet Boys…”
I stand corrected.
I’d be interested in hearing more about lobbyists - I don’t know much about it and how it all works. I wonder how much time politicians spend with lobbyists? How do they divide their time between NGOs etc as opposed to big businesses? Also interested to hear small “Mum & Dad” operations make up the bulk of registered lobbyists - I wouldn’t have thought this.
YES, very much agree with ACANNON. How do lobbyists push things their way? What is the source of their influence?
Is it just their presence and ability to nag persistently? (Roughly the equivalent of my 12 year old’s campaign for an xbox?)
Do they offer indirect financial incentives? How do they get what they came for? What is their credibility with potential clients? How do they prove their successes without outing politicians as easy-to-push-around puppets?
Bernard, can you do a follow up piece explaining the lobbyisits processes to those of us out here in the boondocks.
PS: I don’t care how many degrees Fielding has, he’s still a complete pillock.
Yes, JaneShaw. Here’s my rule of thumb, pick 10 people with any qualification you
like, from being a bread maker at Baker’s Delight, through to a fully qualified
GP, Geologist, Climate Scientist or Solicitor. 2 will be pillocks, 2 will be
very cluey and 6 will fall roughly between these extremes. Statisticians
will recognise this as a kind of central limit theorem.