Privacy, interference risks from naming lobbyists, DPS boss says

Department of Parliamentary Services secretary Rob Stefanic appeared before an inquiry into lobbyists and their access to Parliament House on Monday.

Independent senator David Pocock successfully called for the Senate probe last year, as he and several other crossbench MPs raise concerns about the current rules for those who seek to influence government representatives.

In Parliament House, where an array of coloured security passes swipe different groups into private areas, orange passes are known to demarcate lobbyists.

This group is broad and can include those representing commercial businesses as well as advocacy groups, non-government organisations, peak bodies, academics, unions, local government and faith-based organisations.

Federal politicians or the heads of the four parliamentary departments must sponsor the passes, but the details of who holds them, and how they got them, remain secret.

Asked about the decision to keep this information off the public record, Mr Stefanic told Senators privacy was the key consideration.

"Our principle position in respect of the policy is the Privacy Act and the privacy principles," he said.

"The Private Areas Access Policy has clear statements in it - as does the form that applicants for a sponsored pass complete - that provides an assurance that their personal details will remain confidential unless their consent is provided, or that it's required by law.

"As the policy stands, and based on the completed forms, publishing that information would be a data spill."

Mr Stefanic said "the way around that" would be to seek permission from every person who holds a pass to make their details public.

That would apply to 1977 people who hold an orange pass, as of March 31.

There are also security risks, pertaining to foreign interference, he said.

"If someone's identified as a lobbyist, they may be a target.

"So they simply need to make an informed decision whether they're happy for their details to be published as being in the business of - I guess - lobbying if we defined it as that."

"So the security's not a principle consideration, I think it's something the individual should provide some level of consideration."

Mr Stefanic took issue with the orange passes being referred to as lobbyist passes in media coverage of the issue.

"Our position has always been that the sponsored passes are not lobbyist passes, there are no linkages to the lobbyists register," he said.

This is another point of concern for those parliamentarians pushing for reform - which also includes independent MP Monique Ryan and Greens senator Larissa Waters.

The lobbyists register, overseen by the Attorney-General's Department does not interact with the pass system.

It means that if any of the 691 lobbyists registered were found in breach of the Code of Conduct they were bound to, they could still wander the halls of Parliament.

This register only captures those who lobby for third party clients - excluding those who represent an employer.

An expert told the committee this would mean the register only captures roughly 20 per cent of lobbyists.

Sanctions for breaching the code can include a suspension or ban from practising as a registered lobbyists.

Of seven breaches between 2021 and 2023, nobody was struck from the register.

Senator Pocock questioned officials from the department on the adequacy of the register, claiming it contained "so many loopholes".

"Anyone I speak to about the setup is horrified [by] just how loose it is," he said.

"That you have a lobbyist code with basically no penalties, for serious breaches, a slap on the wrist, have three months on the sideline.

"No way to know if that same person is then getting a sponsored pass and lobbying in their capacity as a sponsored pass holder."

Acting first assistant secretary Elizabeth Brayshaw said the code was primarily about "building greater awareness and visibility".

Chair of the Finance and Public Administration committee, Liberal MP Richard Colbeck, said he wanted to "dispel the misconception" about lobbyists in Parliament House.

"There are a few tourist traps, if you want to call them that, around the building where members of the lobbyists corp tend to congregate," he said.

"If you want to avoid lobbyists, you avoid those places.

"But it's not a free-for-all that exists within this building, it's an organised process and I just want to dispel the misconception that might be there, that there's people sticking their heads inside your door all day distracting you from your business."

Senator Pocock disagreed, saying he had experienced lobbyists "camped out" in front of his office.

"It absolutely has been my experience that in-house lobbyists [or] sponsored passholders will just sort of waltz into your office unannounced and seek a meeting," he said.

"And at times when votes are happening in the chamber, even representatives from groups like the Minerals Council were camped out in front of the office wanting to chat about an upcoming vote.

"So I think there is an issue there."