In order for public trust to remain strong in democracy, the way we lobby needs to change, argues lobbyist Holly Bennett.

The lobbying industry is back in the headlines and, unsurprisingly, it’s less than complimentary once again. The latest news involves allegations of a co-ordinated campaign of secret lobbying with regard to climate change litigation. Accused of having secretive meetings and receiving previously undisclosed reports, the government denies having any record or recollection of these events or documents.

As a vocal proponent for increased transparency in lobbying, whenever news of this nature hits the headlines, I invariably get asked by the media to comment about what’s going on. This is not a tono I take lightly, but seemingly a space void of other voices.

It’s curious to me that others in my industry – many of whom are making millions of dollars from it – do not want to comment.

As a lobbyist myself, I’m proud of the work my firm does and what we achieve for our clients. Everyday, I see brilliant organisations struggling to navigate the complex machinery of government. Policies get stuck, ideas fail to launch, press releases don’t get picked up; not because they weren’t good, but because the pathway to influence was unclear.

Unfortunately, lobbying remains plagued with perception problems, and the latest saga does little to quell legitimate concerns.

So what is really going on?

In short, these latest events detail activities by representatives of Fonterra and Z Energy providing physical briefing material to kaimahi (one or many) in the prime minister’s office, that detailed the “rationale for proceeding with the introduction of legislation to prevent private litigation seeking to impose liability for climate change”, while referencing action brought by climate activist Mike Smith.

However, the rub is that the same physical briefing – which presumably should have come to light in an Official Information Act request made to the prime minister’s office – only came to light through the discovery process in the High Court, relating to Smith’s claim.

This shows the transparency systems we have been told are there to maintain integrity in our democratic system don’t always work.

It should come as no surprise that political staff across parliament get handed briefings, papers, post-it notes, and documentation of all sorts. They also receive unsolicited text messages and phone calls every day. This is part of being the right-hand to a politician. You will be lobbied.

But political staff should not be put in the position to carry another organisation’s risk; especially that of a private business facing litigation. I am perturbed there are lobbyists who think an “untraceable” hardcopy briefing is an acceptable way to advocate on behalf of an interest.

Handing over a physical briefing in this manner moves the political risk from the organisation to the political staff and ultimately the politician. If you don’t want to email the briefing, why are you presenting a hard copy?

Arguments that rise and fall on their substance (like they are supposed to in a courtroom) must have both reason and rationale.

Have I been lobbied with a hard copy briefing before? Of course. Do I do it myself? No. Do I teach those under my instruction to adopt that tactic? Absolutely not. Why? Because I believe in the power of what you know, not who you know.

A politician once said to me that my workstyle could be considered somewhat masochistic. That is, I tend to make things harder for myself in the pursuit of reason and logic rather than utilising the access and connections I amass through a career both inside and outside politics. I simply responded there is nothing I will ever lobby for that is worth someone’s reputation being put at risk; whether that be a politician’s, their staff member or my own.

My political disposition leads me to believe in competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement. If you’re good at something, you can sell it to the market. If you’re really good at it, the market will reward you for it.

This is why I stand steadfast in advocating for my industry as both a legitimate activity and career pathway. It’s why I’ve published freely available, voluntary principles for anyone undertaking lobbying activities. It’s why I asked the Tertiary Education Commission to consider adding lobbyist as a career to Tahatū, Career Navigator, and launched Tauawhi, the first lobbying internship programme for the next generation interested in a career in lobbying. 

Yet here we are in 2026, seeing lobbying activities once again undermining trust in our democratic institutions.

Lobbying is a vital democratic tool. 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.

However, integrity must be at the core of any lobbying effort. Without it, we risk losing public trust in the system, which undermines democracy itself. Meanwhile, transparency ensures that our democratic processes are fair, true, and accountable. It keeps people informed, ensuring equitable access to decision-makers. It’s about making sure that when lobbyists simplify the complexity of policy and politics, they do so openly.

Where the government continues to remain silent on lobbying reform, the market could step in.

The days of little black book advocacy should be well and truly over.