(Cth) Expand the Definition of Lobbyist to Include In-House Lobbyists
- Bianca-Rose Sun
- Jul 1
- 8 min read
Author: Bianca-Rose Sun | Publish date: 1/7/2026
P: In Australia, the current definition of ‘a lobbyist’ does not include in-house lobbyists.
S: The Attorney-General should amend Section 5.2 of the Lobbying Code of Conduct 2022 to include in-house lobbyists in its definition of ‘a lobbyist’.
E: Transparency International Australia: ‘Expand the definition of lobbyist to include “in-house lobbyists” to provide a more realistic understanding of the presence of all lobbyists in Parliament House.’
Problem Identification:
Any individual who is considered a ‘lobbyist’ under the Lobbying Code of Conduct (Cth) (the Code) has to be registered under the Register of Lobbyists. Under the Code, a lobbyist is defined as ‘any person, company or organisation that conducts lobbying activities on behalf of a third party client’.
According to the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI), this means that in-house lobbyists ‘fall outside’ of this definition. According to the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC), meetings between government and in-house lobbyists hence ‘happen in secret [and thus], the extent of the influence and potential corruption isn’t exposed’.
Context:
Under the Code, if you are a registered lobbyist, the name and position of each person engaging in lobbying activities must be published in the register.
An in-house lobbyist refers to professionals who seek to influence government officials ‘on behalf of their immediate employer’. This is in contrast to the third-party lobbyists, who are defined as ‘paid professionals engaged to communicate with and influence public officials on behalf of their clients’.
According to a 2025 CPI report, it outlined that ‘75–80% of government relations work in large Australian firms is conducted “in-house” by government relations staff’.
Arguments:
Professor Yee-Fui Ng, Associate Professor at Monash University, argued that narrow lobbying definitions ‘fail … to provide proper transparency of government decision-making’. The CPI argued that the lack of status of in-house lobbyists in federal lobbying laws means that in-house lobbyists can bypass ‘current disclosure frameworks’ in lobbying guidelines. The OurDemocracy campaign outlined that ‘currently, the federal Register of Lobbyists covers approximately 20% of professional lobbyists’, meaning that the operations of the remaining 80% of the lobbying population are completely hidden from the public.
OurDemocracy argued that the lack of lobbying regulation for in-house lobbyists leads to ‘a real risk of corruption and disproportionate influence’. In an article for the Adelaide Law Review, Professor Ng countered that ‘if the coverage of lobbyists is too narrow, regulation is ineffective to achieve the purposes of political equality and the prevention of corruption, as it does not encompass those who undertake significant lobbying activities’. A Transparency International Australia report stated that ‘the lack of transparency and accountability risks corrupting the political decision-making process’.
The CPI has stated that the exclusion of in-house lobbyists ‘restricts the Code’s application’ and thus, ‘erodes the integrity of government in fact and in the eyes of the public’. A 2024 Mapping Social Cohesion Report found that trust in the Federal government to ‘do the right thing by the Australian people all or most of the time’ has decreased ‘from 44 per cent in 2021 to 33 per cent in 2024’.
The Senate Inquiry into Access to Parliament by Lobbyists outlined that in-house professionals often ‘assume a wide range of professional duties, not all of which relate to lobbying public officials’. However, Professor Ng argued that ‘there is no justifiable basis for distinguishing their direct lobbying activities from those by other “repeat players”’.
Advice/Solution Identification:
Transparency International Australia, Human Rights Law Centre, and the CPI have all called for the expansion of the definition of lobbyists to include in-house lobbyists. In an interview with FORE, Jenn-Lacy Nichols from the University of Melbourne argued that ‘any time you increase transparency, it allows a relatively small number who aren’t behaving especially ethically to face scrutiny’. A Transparency International Australia report further recommended the inclusion of in-house lobbyists to provide ‘a more realistic understanding of the presence of all lobbyists in Parliament House.’
Precedent:
There is international precedent for including in-house lobbyists in federal lobbying legislation. In Canada, Ireland and Scotland, in-house lobbyists are included and must be registered under lobbying laws.
Public Support:
This list reflects publicly stated positions and should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of this specific brief.
News Coverage:
The Guardian - “Free-roaming lobbyists in Australian parliament could face tighter restrictions, Albanese says.” The Prime Minister has outlined plans for a federal overhaul of unrestricted ‘orange-passes’ for lobbyists in parliament. By: Dan Jervis-Bardy | Tuesday 3 March, 2026 - Read the article here.
The Saturday Paper - “David Pocock: The lobbyists who control Canberra.” An opinion article by Senator David Pocock that outlined the impact of unregulated lobbying on federal politics, and his new bill proposal on reforming the Lobbying Code of Conduct. By: David Pocock | Saturday 30 August, 2025 - Read the article here.
ABC News - “Anti-corruption advocate calls for greater scrutiny over political lobbyists.” Anti-corruption experts called for lobbying reform in light of poor transparency outcomes for federal lobbyists. By: Ian Verrender | Friday 22 August, 2025 - Read the article here.
The Guardian - “Lobbyist breaches go unsanctioned as critics call for Australia’s rules to be strengthened.” Experts have outlined how breaches of the Lobbying Code of Conduct have gone without scrutiny. By: Tom McIlroy and Henry Belot | Saturday 26 July, 2025 - Read the article here.
The Conversation - “Senate report on lobbying passes the buck on improving transparency or legislation.” Professor Joo-Cheon Tham outlined how the upcoming Senate report on the Federal lobbying code could improve transparency. By: Joo-Cheong Tham | Wednesday 8 May, 2024 - Read the article here.
Where to go to learn more:
(2025) Behind Closed Doors: A Comparative Jurisdictional Analysis of Australia’s Lobbying Rules | Transparency International Australia - This report by Transparency International Australia provided an in-depth analysis and ranking of state/federal lobbying regulations based on 10 key indicators. This included recommendations to expand the definition of lobbyist to include in-house lobbyists. Read the report here.
(2020) Regulating the Influencers: The Evolution of Lobbying Regulation in Australia | Professor Yee-Fui Ng - This academic article outlined the evolution of lobbying regulations in Australia and how narrow regulatory frameworks on lobbying erode Australia’s democratic institutions. This included recommendations to include in-house lobbyists in the Lobbying Code of Conduct, among other groups engaged in lobbying activity. Read the article here.
(2024) Senate Inquiry into access to Australian Parliament House by lobbyists | OurDemocracy - This inquiry submission by OurDemocracy provided an overview of the current regulatory gaps in the federal lobbying system and made recommendations on expanding the definition of lobbyists to include in-house lobbyists. Read the submission here.
(2024) Senate Inquiry into Access to Australian Parliament House by Lobbyists | Centre for Public Integrity - This submission by the Centre for Public Integrity outlined the connections between lobbying and political donations. This submission offered a Five-Point Lobbying Reform Plan for addressing the ‘undue influence’ of lobbyists, including expanding the definition of lobbyist to include in-house lobbyists. Read the article here.
(2024) Mapping Social Cohesion Report | Scanlon Institute - This report released its July 2024 survey findings on social cohesion and trust in government institutions. Respondents in the report cited lobbyists as one of the factors causing division in Australian society. Read the Mapping Social Cohesion report here.
(2022) Selling Out: How powerful industries corrupt our democracy | Human Rights Law Centre - This report by the Human Rights Law Centre outlined how Australia’s ‘weak’ federal lobbying regulations enable ‘unfettered’ corporate influence over our politicians. Read the article here.
Lobbying Code of Conduct (Cth) - Read the full Code here.
Human Perspective:
John is a marine scientist who has spent years working quietly, persistently, to protect the places he loves. He attended a rally that protested against the approval of an offshore fracking site in Commonwealth waters. When he heard about the proposal, he didn’t just see ‘untapped resources’, he saw vital habitat for Australian marine wildlife that would be pushed closer to extinction. Upon further research, he identified that blue whales used the site as a breeding ground, and this new project would inhibit their ability to migrate. He wrote to the Minister of Resources, asking for a meeting and laying out his concerns in plain language. He explained how the proposed fracking site would threaten local marine life and fragment ecosystems. Days passed with no reply. Then weeks. Each time John checked his inbox, the silence grew heavier, as if the decision had already been made somewhere behind closed doors. He checked the Register of Lobbyists for the company approved to undertake the fracking but was unable to find a record of the oil company. John suspected that there had been undue influence on the Minister by the oil lobbyists that work for the company, finding that lobbyists that work for companies, including oil companies, do not have to be registered under the Register of Lobbyists. Outside, John saw that the proposal kept moving forward, supported by multi-national oil companies who seemed to have easier access to politicians and policy‑makers than the people raising environmental alarms ever did. Later, John heard on the news that the site was approved by the Minister for Resources, and he felt a mix of anger and resignation as a result. He felt that the outcome echoed a wider pattern: meetings and consultations with industry were frequent, while those trying to protect the environment or represent community concerns were often shut out, or simply heard too late. For John, it was a reminder that lobbying for change often meant speaking up in rooms where the ground had already been shifted by more powerful interests.
To protect the anonymity of those involved, this is a fictionalised account drawn from an amalgamation of real-life stories, experiences and testimonials gathered during the research process for this brief. Any resemblance to actual individuals is purely coincidental.
Conflict of interest/acknowledgment statement:
Any statement without a reference link came from conversations with Jenn-Lacy Nichols, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne, on April 22, 2026 and is shared with her permission.
Support
If your organisation would like to add your support to this paper or suggest amendments, please email Info@foreaustralia.com.
Disclaimers
Please review all FORE disclaimers here.
Reference list:
Finance and Public Administration References Committee. (2024, May 14). Access to Australian Parliament House by lobbyists. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/RB000307/toc_pdf/AccesstoAustralianParliamentHousebylobbyists.pdf
Lacy-Nichols, J. (2026, April 22). Snr Research Fellow of the University of Melbourne discusses federal lobbying code [Interview with FORE Australia].
Lobbying Act, 1985. (4th Supp. Canada)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/l-12.4/
Lobbying Code of Conduct (Cth).
https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2022-02/lobbying-code-of-conduct.PDF
Regulation of Lobbying Act, 2015. (Oireachtas, Ireland).
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/5/enacted/en/print.html
Lobbying (Scotland) Act, 2016. (Acts of Scottish Parliament, Scotland). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/16/section/1
Ng, Y.F. (2020). Regulating the influencers: The evolution of lobbying regulation in Australia. Adelaide Law Review, 41(2), 514-538.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdelLawRw/2020/19.pdf
O’Donnell, J., Guan, Q., & Prentice, T. (2024, July). Mapping Social Cohesion. Scanlon Foundation Research Institute.
https://scanloninstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Mapping-Social-Cohesion-2024-Report.pdf
OurDemocracy. (2024, February). Inquiry into access to Australian Parliament House by lobbyists.
The Centre for Public Integrity. (2025, July). A Seat at the Table: Embedding transparency, integrity, and equality into the federal lobbying regime.
The Centre for Public Integrity. (2024, February 16). Submission: Inquiry into Access to Australian Parliament House by Lobbyists.
https://publicintegrity.org.au/research_papers/lobbying-donations-reform-australia/
Transparency International Australia. (2025, August 28). Lagging federal lobbying rules leave door open for corruption and undue influence [Press release].
Transparency International Australia. (2025). Behind Closed Doors: A Comparative Jurisdictional Analysis of Australia’s Lobbying Rules.
https://transparency.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/20250828_Behind-Closed-Doors.pdf
Williams, C., & McDaniel, M. (2024, February 16). Submission 018: Inquiry into Access to Australian Parliament House by Lobbyists. The Centre for Public Integrity.
Comments