Lobbyists to lock on to 'weakest link' independents

YESTERDAY'S theatre of the three rural independents doesn't change one thing: the new government will be a minority administration.

That means it will be inherently unstable, no matter how much the independents like to spruik stability as a key criterion in their decision-making.

But aside from the unstable nature of the next three years - if the current parliament survives that long - another important factor will be the role of lobbyists in the political process.

In time it could emerge as the most significant factor during this term of parliament.

The public don't like the imagery of political lobbying. It gives the impression of parties doing backroom deals with wealthy and/or influential special interest groups. Implicit in that is a weakening of democracy. But, like it or not, lobbying is an essential part of the political process, both here and overseas.

It is one of the few ways businesses, community groups and non-government organisations can, as outsiders, engage with the insiders of the political process: the politicians and the state bureaucracies.

That's why political scientists recognise that lobbying is a necessary evil.

The issue at stake when it comes to political lobbying is ensuring that it doesn't lead to undue influence being exerted on our politicians such that they put special interests ahead of the public will or good democratic processes. This is where the power of political donations comes into the equation.

Lobbyists often offer up donations as a sweetener to their requests (in-house lobbyists from business in particular). The link is usually not so obvious, but everyone involved in the political process understands that those who give large donations often get greater access to government than they otherwise would.

Why else would businesses give political donations, especially when they do so for both sides (hedging their bets on which side might win)? It can't be an ideological decision.

Funnily enough, the rigid party discipline we have in this country - for all its faults - is one of the guardians against undue influence by lobbyists.

It means there is less value in lobbying individual MPs because the executives of the major parties are the ones who wield the power in government.

To be sure, individual MPs can take concerns lobbyists raise with them to the party leadership, but they can't do much more than that. They can't, for example, cross the floor and vote in the interests of a lobbyist, even if they are a generous donor to their local campaign. That is, unless they are prepared to risk their party preselection. And even if they did cross the floor it wouldn't have much impact, because they are usually just one seat in a stable government majority.

Lobbyists, therefore, need to target the executive rather than back benchers when trying to influence government policy. Political donations and undue influence is still a concern, but the ability for such factors to get in the way of good government is diminished.

In Australia, there is only one powerful body capable of being unduly influenced - the executive - rather than 150 MPs acting autonomously and who could be picked off one by one by lobbyists.

Which brings me to the new reality of the minority government. Every seat matters, which means even major party MPs can't be allowed the occasional lapse into ill-discipline, because it could bring down the government. That is a powerful weakness for lobbyists to exploit, and that's before they even try their hand at influencing the independents, who don't need to worry about loyalty to a party brand. In overseas political systems, such as the US, party discipline is nowhere near as rigid as it is here. For the most part, commentators see that as a good thing, allowing individual representatives to look after their local electorates rather than the interests of their parties.

It makes the voices in local communities stronger. But it also makes MPs more susceptible to lobbying influence and with that the influence of political donations. That's why US representatives spend more time fundraising than doing anything else (made worse by the fact the US House of Representatives goes to an election every two years).

Project forward to what we are likely to see now that Australia's political system includes minority government, with the cross benches controlling the balance of power, in the lower house. In addition to maverick major party MPs susceptible to being influenced, the independents will be key targets for lobbyists who hope to change government policy.

After all, if the independents can be convinced of the merits of a particular policy positions, and if collectively they feel strongly enough about those positions, then the party in power will be obliged to give serious consideration to them, because if they don't they may find the independents withdraw their support for the government.

On the ABC's Q&A program on Monday night, former Queensland premier Peter Beattie made mention of the difficulties for the Queensland government in 1998 of managing an independent who was constantly being lobbied in addition to the government being lobbied. You got the impression he was grateful for the strong majority he won in Labor's own right three years later.

Like lions that hunt down the wounded animal in the pack, lobbyists will target the independents if they think they are the weakest link and in doing so will deliver results. So, while the reforms the independents have negotiated, including amending political donations and parliamentary processes, are a good thing, the practice of government in this new period might leave voters wondering if what they get is that much better than the backroom deals of previous years.

It could even be worse.