The report states
Lobbying activities refer to communications with government representatives in an effort to influence government decision-making. To help safeguard decision-making processes from factors such as undue influence or unfair competition, governments around the world, including the Australian Government, have introduced lobbying regulatory regimes.
The Australian Government’s regime was established with the introduction of the Lobbying Code of Conduct (Code) in 2008. The policy objective of the regime is expressed in the Code as: … to promote trust in the integrity of government processes and ensure that contact between lobbyists and Government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.
The regime specifies that this objective will be achieved through lobbyist and Government representative compliance with the Code’s various provisions and its main administrative mechanism, the Register of Lobbyists (Register). The Register is a publicly available database of registered lobbyist organisations and lobbyists, and their clients. As at March 2020, the Register listed 257 lobbyist organisations, 590 individual lobbyists, and 1,792 clients.
Lobbyist organisations have administrative responsibilities associated with keeping the Register up to date, and lobbyist organisations and individual lobbyists must also comply with a number of lobbying principles and prohibitions under the Code. Government representatives are required to check the Register prior to meeting with a lobbyist, and to report any known breaches of the Code. The Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) became responsible for administering the Code following a machinery of government change that transferred accountability from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) in May 2018.
Auditor-General Report No.27 of 2017–18, Management of the Australian Government’s Register of Lobbyists, assessed the effectiveness of PM&C’s management of the Code, and concluded that:
While the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s arrangements to manage the Australian Government’s Register of Lobbyists are consistent with the framework agreed by Government, improvements could be made to communications, compliance management and evaluation for the Code and the Register. It would also be timely to review the appropriateness of the current arrangements and Code requirements in supporting the achievement of the objectives established for the Code.
The Auditor-General recommended that the department review the appropriateness of current arrangements in supporting the achievement of the Code’s objectives. This included: implementing a strategy to raise lobbyists’ and Government representatives’ awareness of the Code and their responsibilities; assessing risks to compliance with the Code and providing advice on the ongoing sufficiency of the current compliance management framework; and developing a set of performance measures and establishing an evaluation framework to inform stakeholders about the extent to which outcomes and broader policy objectives are being achieved.
PM&C partly agreed with the recommendation, indicating that it would implement the recommendation where it was consistent with a non-legislation based scheme.ANAO comments
To form a conclusion against the audit objective, the following high-level criteria were adopted:
- Does AGD have effective governance arrangements to oversee the implementation of the recommendation from Auditor-General Report No.27 of 2017–18?
- Has a strategy been implemented to raise awareness of the Lobbying Code of Conduct among lobbyists and Government representatives?
- Has AGD assessed risk to Lobbying Code of Conduct compliance and provided advice to the Australian Government on the sufficiency of the current compliance management framework?
The bad news is that
- Have performance measures and an evaluation framework for the Lobbying Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists been developed?
AGD did not implement the recommendation from Auditor-General Report No.27 of 2017–18, Management of the Australian Government’s Register of Lobbyists.
Governance arrangements to oversee the implementation of the ANAO recommendation were limited in effectiveness. There was no implementation planning at any stage in the transition of accountability for the Code and ANAO recommendation from PM&aC to AGD. ...
AGD did not develop a strategy to raise awareness of the Code. Registered lobbyists received information about some of their administrative responsibilities. Limited activities were undertaken to inform lobbyists and Government representatives of their compliance obligations under the Code.
AGD did not systematically assess risks to compliance with the Code and did not advise Government about the sufficiency of the current compliance framework in meeting the Code’s objectives.
AGD did not develop an evaluation framework for the Code and did not develop performance measures. It did not assess or inform others about whether the current regime is achieving the regulatory objectives.The report's 'Supporting findings' in summary are
Governance structures and processes
There was no plan for the implementation of the ANAO recommendation, or for the implementation of the machinery of government transfer of accountability for the Code from PM&C to AGD. The ANAO recommendation was broadly considered when designing and building a proposed IT system for the Register, but no attempt was made to map IT functionality to the specific components of the ANAO recommendation.
Arrangements for senior management and audit committee oversight of implementation for the ANAO recommendation were partly effective. Divisional responsibility for the Code within AGD was clearly established. The Executive Board and Senior Management Committee had visibility of the Code, however this was focused on technological issues associated with the transfer of the Register rather than the implementation of the ANAO recommendation. Progress against the recommendation was reported to the ARMC, but the commencement of this process was delayed.
Communications to raise awareness
AGD did not develop a communications or stakeholder engagement strategy for the Code.
AGD’s effectiveness in communicating regulatory requirements to lobbyists cannot be assessed in the absence of a communications strategy. Communication primarily occurred through a dedicated website and through correspondence with registered lobbyist organisations, with limited public information and stakeholder engagement. Communications focused on administrative responsibilities rather than broader compliance obligations, with no communication activities targeted at unregistered lobbyists.
Communications to Government representatives to raise their awareness of the Code and regulatory obligations were partly effective. AGD used the lobbying website to provide some information to Government representatives about compliance obligations, but did not undertake any broader communications activities with Government representatives, including with the Australian Government entities that employ them or the entities that have a responsibility to provide guidance to the Australian public sector.
Assessment and management of compliance risks
AGD did not systematically consider or manage risks that impact the ability or willingness of regulated entities and individuals to comply with the Code. Risks in relation to AGD’s ability to administer the Code were assessed at a basic level and only after actual risks associated with data accuracy were realised. There was no strategy to ensure that administrative risks, or risks to compliance with the Code, are effectively managed. In practice, activities and procedures such as email communications with lobbyist organisations, compliance dashboards and draft standard operating procedures aimed to manage some administrative risks.
AGD did not advise Government about the sufficiency of the compliance framework in meeting the Code’s objectives.
Performance measurement and evaluation
AGD did not develop an evaluation framework for assessing the regime’s success in meeting objectives and did not develop performance measures.
AGD did not develop a monitoring program for the Code and did not establish any performance measures for AGD processes in administering the Code. A service standard was developed for timely updates to the Register, but performance against this standard is not yet measured or assessed.
No performance information was provided to the Parliament or the public about work undertaken in relation to the Code, and whether intended regulatory objectives are being achieved.
