Lobbying tactics have become perverse. I should know, I'm a lobbyist

Calls for more regulation of the lobbying sector are heating up across the campaign. Bring it, says Holly Bennett, founder of Awhi.

Watch Holly Bennett answer questions in a new episode of At Large with Toby Manhire.

Lots of people talk about lobbying being a legitimate part of society, and that is true. It’s how new ideas, crucial community concerns, and industry realities contribute to policy-making that benefits society – it’s how my firm seeks to fulfil our value of using lobbying as a tool for social and economic good (if that sounds familiar, it should, because I’ve written it verbatim before).

What we’re missing in the ongoing conversation regarding lobbying and improving transparency is why.

I joined Monday's cross-party panel on lobbying reform held by Health Coalition Aotearoa to hear what each political party had to say about the issue. Of the seven biggest parties vying for our votes this election, only four – Labour, Act, the Greens and Opportunity – showed up.

I took the opportunity to ask a question to every panellist: “Lobbyist here, question to all panellists: when was the last time you (as a political party spokesperson) spoke to a lobbyist, be it a ‘third party lobbyist’ (like me), a government relations advisor, a public affairs manager, or the like?”

The answers were refreshingly blunt.

Act MP Todd Stephenson answered “yesterday”, saying that he will meet with anyone who requests a meeting, unless they are threatening. Jessica Hammond, representing the Opportunity Party, said “Friday”, noting that candidates get lobbied all the time.

Camilla Belich MP of the Labour Party said “today” because she “speaks to people who want to change laws every day”. Hūhana Lyndon MP of the Greens said that she was “just on the phone with someone” who gave her an earful about something they wanted changed, noting that she tries to "take meetings when I can”.

The answers provided are representations of how most New Zealanders see lobbying: send an email, make a phone call, have a meeting and make the case for an issue that a political leader might be able to help solve.

But how most New Zealanders perceive lobbying, and how it actually happens, are two different things. Which means the reason this conversation is so important is not because lobbying happens all time (that is plain to see) but because of how it is being done.

As a practitioner (or a third-party lobbyist, as some would call me), the tactics at my disposal are vastly different to that of your average punter. I can say with certainty that your average punter is not:

● lobbying a ministerial staff member with an untraceable document;

● setting up an advocacy campaign on settings tied to race;

● phoning every ministerial office on a Friday afternoon to see what is going to Cabinet the following Monday;

● prematurely intervening in an action the court is seeking to decide;

● flooding politicians with ‘peaceful’ mass mailings; or

● having off-the-record conversations with influential individuals across politics or the media to compel a particular point of view.

But these tactics are being adopted by some people lobbying today.

Tactics are choices. And choices reflect values.

When we allow for these kinds of tactics to manifest within our democracy unchecked, we are telling New Zealanders that we do not value ideas or advocacy grounded in robust argument; that we instead value the views and ideas of those with the resources and strategy available to mobilise tactics that are – more often that not – adopted by those who simply cannot, or will not, bother to think.

It is the proliferation of an acceptance that such tactics are legitimate that I think is, frankly, perverse.

There is not a single part of me that believes that those with the most resources have the best ideas. Having capital merely means you have learnt to turn other people's needs into your opportunities.

Our democracy is not a plaything of those with abundant resources. It is a shared inheritance, held in trust for every citizen equally. And I believe that is a view shared by the vast majority of New Zealanders.

I believe this because we have long been a largely moderate society. We tend to gravitate toward ideas that substantively align with how we operate our own lives. That is, if something sounds reasonable, if it sounds within our reach, and if it makes sense within the context of making decisions in our own life, we will understand and accept it, even if we don’t agree with it.

Yet many tactics now in play are not neutral tools. They carry meaning, create precedent and in some cases establish faux credibility. I don’t think New Zealanders should accept this.

The four politicians at the cross-party panel were honest about the extent to which they are being lobbied, and that means they are doing what we should expect of them: meeting with constituents and having all kinds of conversations. This allows them (I hope) to hone their thinking and interrogate all kinds of ideas. But they can only do that for us, when we have trust in the system they work in.

If trust in democracy is eroding due to increasingly perverse tactics, should we not want them to call it out?

I believe politics is less about announcements and more about thinking, so we need to start thinking about why we may need more transparency. For me, improving transparency in lobbying has always been about one simple thing: duty.

Just like a lawyer's first duty is to the court – not their client – a lobbyist's first duty must be to democracy. And that carries with it the duty to maintain trust in said democracy.

Lobbyists and advocates alike are not maintaining trust when they leverage actions the average citizen cannot. Otherwise, dear citizen, your good idea is just one rubbish tactic away from landing in the trash.