We follow up these submissions by speaking with the relevant officials both before writing and afterwards.
By talking to officials beforehand, it helps us to understand the problems – both real and perceived – they are trying to solve, thus helping us to understand how best to approach our arguments in the submissions.
Afterwards, it helps us to understand which of our arguments are working and which need more emphasis.
It also helps to reinforce issues that are important and highlights to us what we might need to take higher – to relevant ministers – and how to make our arguments.
The message we might take to a politician can differ significantly from that which we take to a bureaucrat, even though the desired outcome remains the same.
Frankly, it can be a challenge to get the right outcome.
Policy can be generated by industry, the bureaucracy or politicians – each with a different purpose.
Politicians often come to power having made promises and the officials in the bureaucracy must come up with a plan to deliver on the promises.
Sometimes there is a thoughtful policy that is developed by the bureaucracy, but which is politically difficult to implement.
An example of this would be the GST.
It was first suggested by John Howard when he was Treasurer in the 1970s, then by Paul Keating when he was Treasurer in the Hawke Government.
It was deemed to be too politically difficult to introduce.
In the 1993 election campaign the Liberal Party, under the leadership of John Hewson, famously and unsuccessfully tried to introduce this new tax from opposition.
It was eventually announced by John Howard as Prime Minister and taken to the 1998 election, which he almost lost.
So, new and challenging policy requires support of the right politician at the right time.
Of course, industry wants policy that helps the private sector to operate more efficiently, which often doesn’t reflect the direction of policies that the bureaucracy wants to introduce.
Often, in our case, there is a perceived problem, the politicians want to be seen to be taking action, and this can lead to policy changes that are costly for industry and outcomes that fail to address the actual problem.
APGA is often pushing against the tide to reduce the costs of proposed changes,while finding a way to generate some improvement from the changes that are eventually made.
The Short Term Trading Markets, the Bulletin Board and the Wallumbilla Trading Hub are examples of policy through compromise.
I worked in and around politics for two decades, one decade in the Press Gallery covering our national politicians for print at The Australian, radio at the Macquarie Network and as a television reporter for the Seven Network.
I also spent a couple of years covering South Australian State politics for the Nine Network, so I understand the frustration at state level about lack of resources and clout; however, our state politicians and bureaucrats don’t face the same intense scrutiny that occurs in Canberra.
In Adelaide there were about 10 political reporters – in Canberra there are more than 100.
I also worked for Federal Ministers for a decade, as a media and political adviser and as Chief of Staff to Warren Truss when he was Deputy Leader of the National Party.
This means that, while never having worked in the bureaucracy, I worked closely with many senior bureaucrats and have nothing but admiration for the smart, hard-working officials who provide substantive back-up to Ministers’ offices.
(I also have scant regard for a few bureaucrats who see their role as inventing work or activities for themselves rather than helping to address the nation’s challenges.)
As we embark on a new year, with some quite substantial reports on our industry coming out, we will be reconsidering how to ensure our nation’s leaders understand our industry and its importance to Australia’s energy market and the economy.
But we are not alone. There are myriad industries represented in Canberra clamouring for attention. Some employ expensive lobbyists; others (like APGA) have political experience in-house.
The basic rules of lobbying:
- Have a clear message. If it’s a problem, make sure you also have a suggested solution.
- Make sure your message is relevant from the perspective of the minister/government. The issue being important to you is not enough.
- Understand what can be achieved by a discussion with a minister or official. Some things are not politically palatable and sometimes a commitment can’t be made immediately.
- Understand the minister’s motives and interests. Be relevant.
- Understand the motives of the bureaucracy. Meeting with them is an opportunity to provide practical explanations and useful information.
Most times that you meet a minister, on that same day he or she will be meeting many interest groups with a range of issues that are of varying importance.
The minister will also be dealing with Cabinet and backbenchers who have their own agendas and a Parliamentary program that can interrupt just about anything planned for the day (or the year).
Each industry group sees their own interests as of paramount importance.
The minister doesn’t!
He or she doesn’t want to hear a complaint without a solution and will respond if the issue is relevant or could cause a problem if not addressed.
Finally, if you leave a meeting feeling as though you’ve “˜had a good hearing’, well… you’ve achieved nothing! If the minister says you should keep him or her informed … not a great sign.
If the minister asks questions that draw extra information from you and if he or she agrees to follow something up and provide information or an answer, then you’ve achieved your aim: the minister has noticed – and noted – your issues.
APGA has recently had a formal meeting with our new Minister, Josh Frydenberg.
Unlike former ministers Ferguson, Macfarlane and Gray, Mr Frydenberg does not have a background in resources and energy; however, he is interested in economics, having graduated with Honours in both Economics and Law, and has broad experience.
He is learning about the new portfolio quickly and is very interested in the issues.
Our message to the new Minister was high level and his current interest in our sector is mainly the question about domestic gas supply and the challenge to that supply of the major LNG export facilities on the east coast.
He certainly understands the economics and questions why there is a doubt about supply for the domestic market when, as we’re assured, Australia has sufficient reserves to meet both export and domestic demand.
He understands our concern that policy changes have tended to focus on pipelines when the answer to domestic market challenges is to increase supply.
This issue is being addressed by the current ACCC review, the outcomes of which will provide a guide to political and bureaucratic thinking.
On the other hand, we understand that a minister will want to be seen to be taking action.
This is our challenge – to make sure that policies being developed by the minister’s officials allow him to take action, and be seen to be taking action, without having a negative impact on our industry.
We’ll meet with the Minister again after the ACCC releases its report – he hasn’t heard the last from us just yet!