Nearly nine in ten New Zealanders want lobbyists subjected to clear rules. Yet, as the election campaign gathers pace, the people paid to influence politics are also increasingly being employed to explain it.
A new national survey published in the New Zealand Medical Journal found that 88.6% of respondents supported mandatory rules requiring lobbyists to engage with government fairly and responsibly. Support exceeded 80% among voters of every political persuasion, from Act and National through to Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First and Te Pāti Māori.
The Cancer Society-funded survey of 1,635 adults also found that 74.4% supported a one-year cooling-off period before politicians and their staff could take lobbying jobs with the alcohol, unhealthy-food or sugary-drinks industries. Even among Act voters, more than 70% supported the cooling-off period.
The public, in other words, appears well ahead of the political system. New Zealand still has no statutory register of lobbyists, no enforceable code of conduct and no cooling-off period covering the revolving door between government and lobbying firms. The OECD’s latest integrity assessment gives New Zealand a score of zero for both the regulation and practical oversight of lobbying.
Meanwhile, the boundaries between lobbying, political commentary, election campaigning and public office are becoming harder to see. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the country’s news media.
When lobbyists become political commentators
Simon Bridges is one of the most conspicuous examples. The New Zealand Herald has taken him on as a regular columnist, giving him a platform to advocate lower corporate taxes, reform of the electricity sector and other business-friendly policies.
Bridges is not just a former National Party leader offering disinterested reflections on politics. He is chief executive of the Auckland Business Chamber. His job involves persuading political parties and the Government to adopt policies favoured by the Chamber and its members.
In a 21 August column, Bridges made the relationship unusually explicit, saying he had spoken to every party leader represented in Parliament during the preceding month to promote the Chamber’s election policies. His columns therefore occupy a grey area between commentary and organised advocacy. That does not mean they should not be published, but readers should be given enough information to understand the institutional interests accompanying the argument.
The Herald identifies Bridges’ Chamber position. It has been less consistent about disclosing that he is also chair of the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency. And today Labour’s transport spokesperson Tangi Utikere is arguing that Bridges should show “a little bit more restraint” in entering the election fray. In response, the Post reports Transport Minister Chris Bishop saying he thought Bridges was “pretty careful around this stuff”.
The Herald has also hired Andrew Ketels as a fortnightly political columnist. Ketels spent years as David Seymour’s chief of staff before moving this year to become head of government relations at corporate-affairs firm Sherson Willis.
The Herald usefully tells readers about Ketels’ former political role and his current employer. That is better than presenting him simply as a former adviser or political commentator. But naming the lobbying firm does not always disclose the interests relevant to the subject being discussed.
Sherson Willis’ clients include Foodstuffs North Island. In an August column arguing that the coalition had not gone far enough on public-sector and economic reform, Ketels criticised expanded Commerce Commission powers, market studies and new controls affecting established businesses.
Every one of those is a legitimate subject for a columnist, and they are also the exact terrain of the Government’s fight with the supermarkets. Foodstuffs North Island is a Sherson Willis client. Nobody is suggesting Foodstuffs commissioned the column, and there is no reason to think it did. But naming the firm while withholding the client tells readers half of what they need to weigh the argument, and it is the less useful half.
Ketels is also appearing on RNZ’s Nine to Noon politics panel. His appearance on 17 August paired him with Neale Jones, the managing director of Capital Government Relations. RNZ identified both men by their firms, but listeners were not told whether either firm represented clients affected by the subjects under discussion.
Other government-relations professionals appearing in such commentary slots include Ben Thomas, Tim Hurdle, Brigitte Morten and Tracey Martin. These are intelligent and often well-informed people. Their experience inside politics can provide insights unavailable to more detached commentators.
But insiders are not automatically independent analysts. Some are simultaneously advising clients, cultivating political relationships and shaping public debate. Media organisations need a consistent policy for distinguishing those roles.
When the commentator is also campaigning
The disclosure question becomes even more pressing during an election campaign.
Infrastructure New Zealand registered with the Electoral Commission as a third-party promoter on 17 August, with chief executive Nick Leggett named as its authorised representative. Registration means the organisation expects to spend enough on election advertising to cross the statutory threshold.
Leggett also appears regularly in the Herald and The Post, writing about infrastructure and the election. His arguments may be worthwhile, but the fact that his organisation is now a registered election promoter is relevant information for readers.
The Taxpayers’ Union registered as a promoter in April. Its co-founder and executive director, Jordan Williams, writes for The Post. His 10 August column, “National risks standing for nothing and getting run over”, gave direct advice about what National should campaign on. The boundary between political analysis and election advocacy could hardly be thinner.
Again, exclusion is not the answer. Lobbyists, campaigners and business advocates are legitimate participants in public debate. The answer is meaningful disclosure.
“Former political adviser” is not a disclosure when the writer’s current employer is a lobbying firm, and naming the firm is not a disclosure either when the subject under discussion is one of its clients’ live commercial problems. The same goes for “economist” when the economist is paid by a business-funded advocacy organisation such as the New Zealand Initiative.
The question for the Herald, RNZ, The Post and other newsrooms is simple: do they have a standard for identifying lobbyists and active campaigners, and, if so, what is it?
The paywall begins here. Paid subscriptions support the Democracy Project and provide access to the rest of this briefing, including: lobbyists moving into journalism, government appointments, the lobbyists at Politik’s Election Summit, tobacco-industry influence, ministerial diaries and the Government’s missing lobbying policy.