What Rough Beast?

¹Donald Trump will be re-elected in November because the US Democratic leadership are all Neville Chamberlain and his inbred courtiers, with nary a Churchill in sight.  Complacent, lacking empathy, and myopic, they don’t grasp what’s coming or why … they lack the clarity and courage to do what the times demand of them.

As his victory draws closer, Trump is more overtly using the language, logic, and supporters, of fascism, to drive his campaign forward. He’s intent on electing a compliant Congress, and already owns the Supreme Court. With the Presidency in his hands he will have obliterated the checks and balances supposedly built into the US system of Government, and neutered the constitutional constraints on his powers.

1933 saw the last arguably democratic election in Weimar Germany before World War 2, and 2024 is likely the last arguably democratic election in the US before … what?

Trump doesn’t really have a program. Insofar as he promises to do anything, it’s all about enabling Putin’s brutal imperialism, shutting down those who disagree with him, misusing the levers of government for personal enrichment and to stay in power, giving Christo-fascist and xenophobic ideologues free reign to control whatever and whoever they want, and abrogating international US leadership.

Can Australians do anything to change this? Probably not much, but what might help is using any and all connections to the Democratic Party leadership, to urge them to change candidates, to communicate successes relentlessly, and to implement programs which truly acknowledge and address the pain and distress of working-class and middle-class USA. They need a real champion, not the current pretenders.  They need to see the system working for them, not against them.

What will be the Australian reaction to a re-elected Trump? How will we be impacted? What will we do?

Democracy is at a low ebb internationally, and with the US abandoning any claim to moral leadership or benevolent democracy, the society we take for granted will less and less have thoroughgoing support. The expansion of Trumpian politics and advocacy across Australia, particularly inside the Liberal and National Parties, will continue to grow, with consequent attacks on rationality and democratic norms. In the absence of any achievements by Trump, “See,” they will say, “how great are the achievements of a different kind of leader! How good would Australia be with leadership like that?”

Trump is ascendant in the US because those in the Republican Party whose focus is more on power than enhancing democracy first gave him a foothold, thought to use him for power, then were themselves used, while the Democrats dithered.  The Trumpian project in Australia, a proto-fascist movement, is already well underway, and will succeed if the Liberal National Party leadership continue the delusion of thinking it is theirs to control.

Nationally, the LNP leadership are already making the same mistakes as the US Republican Party leadership. Their ruthless pursuit of power by any and all means, intolerance of diversity, and pandering to prejudice rather than needs, will lead to an Australian Trump. Tolerating and facilitating mad-right conspiracy theories helps undermine an incumbent government, sure, but it also undermines support for and viability of democratic institutions. Such damage lasts.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem) ↩︎

Do You Really Need a Lobbyist?

If there’s something you want from a government, you need to make a couple of decisions:

• Do you do all the lobbying and government engagement yourself?
• Do you employ a lobbyist?
• Do you hire a consultant lobbyist?

A few things you need to consider before that choice is made:

• Is the project significant enough to invest the necessary time or money?  I’ve dealt with clients who have not (initially!) understood the magnitude of the investment of their time involved in a successful lobbying project. I’ve had clients who were shocked at the price I quoted, until I explained the hours and professional skills involved.
• Have you, or someone already working for you, got the time, the skills, and the knowledge?  If no, or maybe, does someone already working for you have the capacity to make time and build necessary skills/knowledge? You might need to read all of our #howtolobby blog posts to be able to answer that question.
• Does someone already working for you have the capacity to create, build, and manage the necessary relationships with senior people in government?  Or have those relationships already?
• Would what you are after from government benefit from fresh eyes and a fresh approach? An objective perspective on your project, and objective lobbying?
• How public do you want to be?  In all but one Australian jurisdiction, third-party lobbyists are regulated and mostly must list their clients publicly. In some cases, meetings with Ministers and public servants must be publicly listed, too. Neither is the case, at the time of writing, for employees who do lobbying, only consultants, so an employee lobbyist is less in the public eye.
• What level of control do you want?  You have more control over the day-to-day activities of an employee than you do over a consultant, but do you actually need that? What might you need to control in an employee which can’t be covered off via instructions to a consultant?
• Are you well enough able to specify what you want from a lobbying campaign, that you can employ someone with the necessary skills and knowledge, or would you be better off with a proposal from a consultant?
• What’s the level of urgency, and is onboarding a consultant going to be quicker than getting an employee (new or existing) ready?

---

Lobbying Laws Are Everywhere!

In all Australian jurisdictions except the Northern Territory, there is a regulatory framework which imposes obligations on some or all lobbyists.

Jurisdictions draw a distinction between consultant lobbyists, often referred to as third-party lobbyists, and directly employed lobbyists, and several jurisdictions impose obligations on consultants only, leaving directly employed lobbyists unregulated.

New South Wales is a good example of limited obligations applying to all lobbyists, but much greater obligations applying to third-party lobbyists¹. In New South Wales, all lobbyists must disclose matters to be discussed, disclose their interests in a matter, not engage in conduct which is misleading, dishonest, corrupt or unlawful, and provide true and accurate information.  Third Party lobbyists have additional obligations including registration, client disclosure, not misrepresenting their access, keep political and lobbying activities separate, and not accept success fees.

In Queensland, third-party lobbyists carry similar obligations as in New South Wales, and also are required to publicly report lobbying contacts with government and Opposition representatives and senior public sector officials. At the time of writing, there is a Bill before the Queensland Parliament which if passed will change lobbying registration requirements.

Several jurisdictions have sought to grapple with the situation of multifaceted consultancies (for example major business consultancies, development planning consultancies, and more) where some lobbying is integral to the broader services offered.

As a rule, if you engage a consultant or third-party lobbyist, your lobbying activities are much more subject to public scrutiny than if your lobbying is conducted by an employee … but you can’t rely on the general information in this chapter, and you’ll need to closely check the contemporaneous regulatory framework in whatever jurisdiction you’re acting, to ensure you comply with the rules.

---

1. Current as at the time of writing. ↩︎

Government Relations, Not Lobbying

Sometimes your lobbying objective needs the support of a broader government relations program.

This might be if your product or credentials are little know or misunderstood, if you have many substantive competitors, or if government does not understand the risks involved in ignoring what you are proposing.

Throughout this blog, I have treated the terms “lobbying” and “government relations” as meaning the same thing, but in reality they have a very different focus and a different role. Lobbying is aimed at getting a particular decision from government, while government relations is aimed at building an effective relationship, an environment which supports the lobbying objective.

They need to work together, but “government relations” is always about supporting the pursuit of a particular decision, even if that’s off in the future and undefined when the government relations program is begun.

What I mean by “supporting” is this: businesses need to focus their limited resources on business objectives, and any investment in government relations (or lobbying) should be focussed on those business objectives. A business objective can be fuzzy at one point (e.g. increase information and communication technology sales to government by 50%) and you can construct a relevant and appropriate government relations program around that, with a later lobbying objective (e.g. get the government to trial our next-generation modem as a precursor to systemic deployment) providing a focus further down the track. At the point where the government relations program is first deployed, there might be several business-to-government sales objectives under development or consideration, each of which, predictably, will require and benefit from an effective government relations program.

In some circumstances, particularly where a government relations program is addressing an extant appetite, there may be a need for only a limited lobbying program. For example, to continue with that next-generation modem example,

• a program of listening to influencers and decision makers in the public sector about their needs, and applying what they say to messaging and product placement,
• identifying and communicating what makes the product’s deliverable(s) unique¹,
• showing off the technology at relevant trade shows,
• loaning the technology to relevant public service or professional conferences in exchange for acknowledgement and publicity,
• disseminating material demonstrating the superiority and capabilities of the product,
• identifying and equipping champions for your product, inside the public sector, and/or
• targeting advertising at public-sector influencers and decision-makers

might generate sufficient credibility and interest that not much work is required to get government to commit.

However, you can’t be sufficiently confident of that, to skip the lobbying program, without understanding what it is that decision makers want and are being advised, without testing their reaction to your government relations program, and without testing their intentions. And you can’t get that confidence, either before or after you start your government relations program, without a lobbying/research program.

To move away from that “next-generation modem” example above, some of the things which might be included in a government relations program beyond those suggested above, are listed in the “Going Beyond Mere Lobbying” post.

---

1. If deliverables aren’t unique to your product, then in almost every Australian jurisdiction the government’s procurement policies mean you won’t get your product purchased, even for a trial, until it undergoes a competitive tender process. ↩︎

Good Times, Bad Times

So many things determine whether a particular day is good or bad for chasing public servants, Ministers, and Ministerial advisors.

Here’s a few things to think about:

While Parliament is sitting

Some Ministers and their advisors see sittings as a major opportunity to connect with stakeholders, particularly when, as is the case with Commonwealth Parliamentary sittings, it means Ministers, their advisors, and their senior public servants are all in the same location. In states like Western Australia and Queensland, stakeholders looking to connect with regionally-based Ministers will often treat Parliamentary sittings as an opportunity to see multiple Ministers in a short space of time. On the other hand, some advisors and Chiefs of Staff are exceptionally busy and unavailable during sittings, because of Parliamentary business. You can’t presume – you need to know, and also see below regarding government or portfolio events.

Days of the week

The weekly cycle for a Minister and senior public servants is often highly constrained, and Ministerial advisors’ times are similarly restricted. For example, Cabinet might meet face-to-face on Mondays, and that means regionally-based Ministers in some states are likely to be travelling on the Sunday.  Depending on what’s happening back home, regional Ministers might want to head home as soon as they are out of Cabinet, or the next day.

Government, community and portfolio events

If the portfolio relates to regional issues, then it is a safe bet the Minister and senior public servants are travelling, a lot, away from their Ministerial Office. If the Minister has just made any big announcements, or is under heavy attack, you can be sure they’re busy. Regional cabinet meetings, regional Parliament meetings, and industry events which are away from the Ministerial Office can often cut into the Ministerial and public service diary.

When is the budget and when are estimates hearings?

In the weeks immediately after a Budget, Ministers and senior public servants are often obliged to be travelling to explain and sell key budget measures to local and regional communities. In the weeks before Estimates Hearings, Ministers, their advisors, and senior public servants, are often locked down for many hours, preparing for a public interrogation by non-government Members of Parliament.

Where does the Minister live?

Regional or metropolitan? Does weekly travel time have to be factored in? Is the Minister’s seat marginal, or hotly contested, or are they facing difficult local issues? Are there significant local events they must attend? Ministers have electorates to serve, and the answer to any or all of those questions might mean they need to spend much more time in their electorate than average, and more than you expect.

Ministers Can’t Do Everything

Too¹ many people, from uninvolved citizens to the captains of industry and everywhere in between, think that Ministers in governments can do anything, and everything.

As is discussed in other posts to this blog, to make progress on an issue you need to identify the right government(s), and the right department(s) or portfolio(s) in that/those government(s), responsible for your issue.

It’s also useful to understand some of things which can and can’t be done by Ministers².

They have no buckets of money into which they can dip, to fund your pet program. Every cent of government money is allocated or hoarded through the annual budget process. If they want to fund something, they must work with their department or Treasury department to find the money from an existing allocation.

They’re members of the Cabinet³ so obliged to adhere to the universal Westminster-like Cabinet principles of

• Confidentiality – no discussion, ever, about in-Cabinet conversations and debates, outside Cabinet
• Solidarity – adherence to, endorsement of, and implementation of, all Cabinet decisions, without hinting at lack of enthusiasm
• Consensus⁴.

There are many rules and codes which govern the way Ministers must operate. These include such things as

• Cabinet handbook⁵
• Ministerial handbook⁶
• Ministerial codes of practice⁷
• Public Service Act – or whatever it might be called in the relevant jurisdiction.

One of the significant areas of focus in many of those documents is the interaction between Ministers or Ministerial staff, and the public servants in the associated departments. Ministers and their staff are “small-p” public servants of a sort, but are not usually “capital-p” Public Servants, and there are significant constraints in the relations between them. In some jurisdictions, there’s even a specific directive for Ministerial staff which addresses these relationships.

Shocking though it may be to many, this is a good summary of the relations between Ministers and public servants:

Ministers should respect the independence and impartiality of the public service,
and should not seek to direct public servants in the day-to-day administration of their duties,
except where legislation or government policy expressly provides for such direction.⁸

Who tells public servants what to do and ensures they are delivering on the government’s priorities? The Chief Executive of the relevant department, and the managers to whom the Chief Executive has delegated their powers.

So what can Ministers do? What’s the point in seeking their support for anything, if they are so constrained?

They can ask important questions of their Director-General/Secretary/Chief Executive, like:

• “I don’t think this program is delivering what it promised. Can you please get some proposals to me about how we can change it right away to get better results?”
• “Why has this result come out of that process? It seems unfair to me. Can you get the appropriate officer to brief me about whether the process is fair and changes which could be made?”
• “This proposal seems inconsistent with what’s going on in that other portfolio. Can you tell me how I persuade the other Minister that we’re heading in the same direction?”
• “I think this is a really good idea. Are you able to find the funds to get it moving before we go to the next budget?”

… and express opinions in a similar vein, which a responsible public servant would consider, even if disagreeing.

And, of course, the proposals which go to Cabinet for programs, policies, and the departmental budget, are all ultimately the Minister’s proposals – the Minister supports and proposes the big picture agenda, the major projects and policies pursued by the agencies in their portfolio, and is the most prominent public defender and advocate for those agencies.

---

1. I’ve reviewed all of the “how-to-lobby” posts in this blog, and, as well as many being a bit dated, and a few embedded links not working, there’s a few gaps which I propose to fill with further posts over the next few weeks. ↩︎
2. Ministerial staff are given no powers other than to do things on behalf of a Minister, so anything a Minister can’t do, neither can their advisors, and the advisors must do only the things the Minister wants. ↩︎
3. Some governments sometimes operate with an inner and outer Ministry, and a Minister might not always be a cabinet minister, but these principles still apply. ↩︎
4. Most Westminster-like Cabinets operate consensually most of the time, and quite often a contentious proposal will be sent away for redrafting to iron out differences, where they can be resolved. ↩︎
5. E.g. https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/administration/cabinet-handbook-15th-edition or https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/policies-and-codes/handbooks/cabinet-handbook.aspx ↩︎
6. For example https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/policies-and-codes/handbooks/ministerial-handbook.aspx ↩︎
7. In some jurisdictions, Ministerial staff have their own, separate, codes of practice. ↩︎
8. ChatGPT wrote this paragraph for me, and lied about its provenance. It’s a good summary nonetheless. ↩︎

What to Ask From Government, First

Did¹ you propose marriage² to your Significant Other a mere 30 minutes after first meeting them?

You did not!

That first conversation might have been about going to a live music gig, a movie, or a walk in the countryside.

Your discussions with government may not be so personally intense, but governments too will normally need a getting-to-know-you phase.

You shouldn’t conceal what you are after – you should make clear what your ultimate request is, up front – but you shouldn’t look for an answer right away, in most circumstances.

At early discussions, there are two things to ask for, unless whoever you’re speaking with indicates they’re ready to say “yes” to your ultimate objective.

First, as you explain why government needs to run with your idea or product, you should ask a question which identifies early hurdles to be jumped.

Questions I have asked which have worked well in the past include these:

• “How do you think we might need to modify this proposal in order to get Treasury on board?”
• “What might we have to do or change to ensure this gets priority?”
• “Can you identify why this proposal hasn’t been successful so far? Is there a problem with it that we haven’t realised?”
• “Why might this be seen as risky or inadequate?”

Second, you should always make sure there’s a time-constrained and process-related follow up, and your ask will be something like “Can we meet again in a month after you’ve had a chance to get briefed?” or “Can I meet your advisors in the next couple of weeks so they can give you a detailed assessment before our meeting in February?”.

The important thing with both is to make sure there is a process underway which doesn’t involve getting a final answer too soon, before the decision-maker is ready to say “yes”.

I think of these two things as the initial or intermediate asks, and I believe that at each successive meeting as you edge towards a “yes” you need to have both an exploratory/content ask and a process ask.

There are other posts to this blog which address the feasibility and shape of your ultimate ask.

---

1. I’ve reviewed all of the “how-to-lobby” posts, and, as well as many being a bit dated and a few embedded links not working, there’s a few gaps which I propose to fill with further posts over the next few weeks. ↩︎
2. Or cohabitation! ↩︎

Going Beyond Mere Lobbying

Photo: Google DeepMind

Sometimes¹ lobbying alone isn’t enough, and it is best you work that out before you start lobbying.

For example, your business might be completely unknown to your target market, or your products may be unknown.

You might have a history of under-performing as a contractor to government, or you might have no history and therefore have a trust vacuum or deficit and associated risk.

Government may have no idea they need what you are offering – your solution may be good, but they possibly don’t know they have a problem, or are so paralysed by it they can’t respond.

So what do you do?

You need a much more comprehensive plan, though still focussed on the same outcome – government adopts your proposal or product. A good lobbyist will be able to make such a plan happen, most likely through other contractors.

The kinds of things² in which you may invest could include some or all of these:

• research and independent, empirical identification of
  • existing knowledge/credibility of your standing in government,
  • existing knowledge and credibility of competitors, and/or
  • on- and over-the-horizon risks for government in continuing their current course;
• building your connections with and value to the public sector³, for example:
  • presentations to the kind of subject-matter forums attended by public servants,
  • membership of and sponsorship of activities by relevant⁴ professional associations
  • inviting Ministers and senior public servants to address your Board,
  • attendance and involvement at relevant government activities⁵, and/or
  • widespread distribution of low-end and uncontroversial promotional materials.
• building knowledge of your solutions, your credibility, and risks for government in not adopting your proposals, for example:
  • a public relations program built on research papers,
  • media campaign,
  • briefing notes,
  • international experts,
  • ‘champions’, and/or
  • case studies;
• upgraded and public-sector focussed marketing and sales materials including websites;
• building community or practitioner support
  • making sure relevant communities⁶ (locality- or profession-based) understand and support what you’re up to, and will let government know of their support, and
  • finding and activating allies who will add their voice to yours.

---

1. I’ve reviewed all of the “how-to-lobby” posts in this blog, and, as well as many being a bit dated, and a few embedded links not working, there’s a few gaps which I propose to fill with further posts over the next few weeks. ↩︎
2. Not all of these will be appropriate or relevant to your circumstances ↩︎
3. Some of the suggestions in the blog post “Getting That Meeting” are relevant ↩︎
4. For example, Institution of Public Administration Australia, Association of Professional Engineers Australia, Australian Information Security Association, or Australian Medical Association – selected for relevance to your audience, expertise, or product, of course ↩︎
5. For example, does the relevant government give awards in a professional area relevant to your interests, such as music, innovation, or export achievement? Be there. Think about sponsoring an event or an award. ↩︎
6. Some organisations engage in “astroturfing” – faking grassroots support – to try to persuade government to get behind them. Don’t. Your project is dead when this behaviour comes to light. ↩︎

Who Is the Decision-Influencer?

A previous blog post¹ talks about identifying who actually makes a decision in Government, but sometimes you need to know who influences the outcome.

Identifying those who influence the outcome of a decision is a way bigger task than identifying the actual decision-maker – identifying the decision-maker is pretty much essential, though, so you can identify who influences their decision.

Whether the decision-maker is a public servant or a Minister, there are both formal and informal influences which bear on the decision they make. How far the net of influencers spreads depends very much on the magnitude of the decision.

If the decision in question has to go to Cabinet or a Cabinet committee, then effectively the whole of the senior levels of the public sector can get involved.

At the very least, for every major decision by a senior public servant or Minister, the following will have a role in influencing the decision:

• subject matter expert(s) in the relevant department,
• the various managers of the subject matter expert(s), and
• the leadership of the department – not always to give instructions, but they will want to know decisions made are consistent with legislative and policy obligations.

A wider range of individuals and organisations can get involved, depending on the level of engagement with other departments, and the level of stakeholder engagement:

• other subject matter experts in other departments,
• central agencies which need to check for consistency with legislative and policy obligations, such as Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or the Premier, Treasury, Attorney General’s department,
• professional lobbyists,
• peak bodies of all kinds,
• professional associations,
• agitated local communities,
• local governments,
• interested individuals,
• businesses and their organisations,
• unions,
• Members of Parliament (perhaps activated by their local communities), and
• Media.

But wait, there’s more: sometimes state or local government decisions can impact more senior levels of government², and those more senior governments may offer their thoughts.

To effectively make your case, you may need a good understanding of what any or all of those potential influencers might be saying to those who make the decisions; you’ll need to anticipate opposition to what you are pursuing, and be ready with arguments which undermine that opposition.

As well as anticipating opposition from some of those influencers, don’t forget that some may become allies if you approach them the right way.

---

1. I’ve reviewed all of the “how-to-lobby” posts in this blog, and, as well as many being a bit dated, and a few embedded links not working, there’s a few gaps which I propose to fill with further posts over the next few weeks. ↩︎
2. Commonwealth in the case of state issues, and state in the case of local government issues. ↩︎

When to Ask

To be the cat that’s got the cream¹, remember that the early bird definitely gets the worm … when it comes to ensuring an election campaign embraces your policy proposal, or it is funded in the budget.

Election Time

Many people looking for a decision from government see election time as an opportunity. It can be, but only if you approach it in the right way.

It is true that at election time governments, parties and candidates are all intent on compiling an attractive and differentiating package of policy and program proposals, and some of them welcome input from industry, community groups and individuals.

However, be warned: capable governments, political parties and candidates start putting their election policies together a long way out from Election Day, and finalise them months out from Election Day. As a general rule, the bigger the policy announcement or the bigger the budget associated with a policy announcement, the earlier will work commence.

Most advocates looking to make use of election timing as an opportunity to press the case for their particular proposal leave it far, far too late.

What constitutes timeliness varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and depends a lot on the tier of government with which you are dealing; this makes it impossible to advise a general rule, but a year out from an anticipated Election Day is not necessarily too early to begin advocacy of your proposition.

If you leave your intervention too late, then you have created an additional burden for yourself: as well as proving the validity of your idea or proposal, you will also need to prove that it is of sufficient political or community (i.e. campaigning) importance that the candidate or Party should reopen their policy development processes, and consider incorporating your proposal.

As an outsider to the process you might think that this is quick and easy, but depending on campaign resources and Party resources, and in particular the budgetary impact of your proposal, it can be a significant organisational or time burden to a candidate or a Party late in the campaign, to reopen their policy development processes.

The barriers to raising a new idea in the months immediately before Election Day are substantial.

Budget Time

Every year when I was in State Government, a month or two before the State Budget we would start to get letters and glossy pamphlets from stakeholders of all kinds, advancing proposals for government investment.

They were mostly too late.

Whilst every jurisdiction is at least a bit different, and there are plenty of exceptions from one year to the next, in most Australian jurisdictions there’s an annual Budget delivered in May or June.

The budget development process is generally managed, and proposals are evaluated, by Treasury in each jurisdiction.

Once developed, the detailed Budget is approved between the First Minister², Treasurer, and other senior Ministers, and then taken to the rest of the government, before eventual approval, perhaps after amendment, by Parliament.

Before all that, there’s normally a broad Budget strategy discussed between the First Minister, Treasurer, and other senior Ministers – perhaps as early as Christmas/New Year, and sometimes earlier.

Early in the new year, Ministers and departments advance their initial portfolio proposals – as early as possible if they are significant.  If they are significant, Ministers would normally ensure, early in the new year, that the First Minister, Treasurer, and other senior Ministers understand their rationale and significance.

From January to around a month before Budget Day there’s constant liaison between departments and Treasury, and when required between Ministers – haggling, checking, tweaking.

Once that’s finished, and subject to flexibility about timing, the budget is finalised, and then, there’s no more money – it’s all spent.

If what you’re proposing requires a new budget allocation, particularly if it is expensive, the earlier the better.

---

1. I’ve reviewed all of the “how-to-lobby” posts, and, as well as many being a bit dated and a few embedded links not working, there’s a few gaps which I propose to fill with further posts over the next few weeks.
   This post replaces an earlier version from 2018 which wasn’t, in retrospect, sufficiently comprehensive. ↩︎
2. Depending on the jurisdiction, the First Minister would be the Prime Minister, the Premier, or the Chief Minister. ↩︎