PUBLICATIONS




Consider for a moment the life of a federal politician. When not in Canberra they must service the needs of their electorate by meeting constituents and attending a relentless round of local engagements. During Parliamentary Sittings they are stuck in Canberra, usually away from their families, with long hours of sittings, frequent late nights, incessant committee work, preparing speeches, engaging in debates, again representing their constituents and being available to vote on issues at a moment's notice. And while all this is happening, they also need to focus on the next election and how to persuade firstly their party members to give them pre-selection and then their constituents to re-elect them!

When you add to this the never-ending stream of Special Interest Groups (SIGs) doing the rounds of Parliament, each seeking the ear and attention of individual politicians and committees to get their special interest views across - you might well say "…a politicians' lot is not a happy one…”

The 2006 Survey Of Politicians’ Lobbying Preferences undertaken by Committee Bulletin, a fortnightly review of Parliamentary Committee activity published by Client Solutions, has attempted to capture the opinions of our federal politicians in an effort to help alleviate these demands and present collective recommendations about how politicians prefer to interact with lobbies and essentially Special Interest Groups (SIGs).

Report Highlights

Downloadable Highlights Booklet [Print Version]

Full Report available for free download here

Report Launch

Client Solutions has also produced a handy pocket guide that summarises the key tips that Special Interest Groups (SIGs) should draw from the Survey. This is free to download from our Other Products page.

[Back to publications] 

Foreward

This research follows on from a Survey administered by Committee Bulletin twelve years ago that was the first of its kind in Australia to investigate how politicians preferred to be lobbied.

The 2006 Survey builds on this foundation but also aims to;
  • Seek the views of a new generation of politicians on their personal lobbying preferences:
  • Update the information being collected to take account of changes processes, new circumstances and advanced communication technology;
  • Provide relevant and timely advice to SIGs to assist them  in refining their lobbying efforts in a professionally responsible way; and
  • Make the lives of Members and Senators (and their staff) a little easier by having their views taken on board by SIGs
This summary explores some of the key findings of this Survey and most importantly, examines the implications of this data for both lobbyists or SIGs and our federal representatives.

Monica Telesny
Editor
Committee Bulletin
August 2006

Methodology

The Survey was primarily conducted online during May and June 2006. Questionnaires were sent to 215 politicians who had publicly listed email addresses.
 
The Survey required Members and Senators to log into a survey site and complete the questionnaire over the Internet. The responses received in this way were tabulated automatically into aggregated answers complete with charts, data analysis and statistical measurement tools. Almost 55% used the internet based electronic survey and 45% an alternate printed form.
 
The survey response period ran over five weeks. During this time two reminder emails and a hard copy of the Survey were distributed.

Response

At the time of the Survey there were 150 Members of the House of Representatives and 76 Senators. There were 86 respondents to the survey, over 40% of those contacted.
The 2006 Committee Bulletin Survey of Politicians’ Lobbying Preferences had the following break down by House, Political Party and Gender.

Women (35% of the sample compared to 28% of parliamentarians) were slightly better represented than men but the spread across the parties and between the House of Representatives and the Senate was highly representative.

Results in summary

Q.1 Where do you prefer to meet with Special Interest Groups (SIGs)?

Q. 2 How do you prefer to meet SIGs?

Q. 3 Please select the 5 most common mistakes made by those who lobby politicians.

  1. Ambit claims
  2. Badly advised
  3. Ineffective leadership
  4. Lack of follow up
  5. Lack of local electorate focus
  6. Misstating the facts
  7. Not appreciating time constraints
  8. Poorly briefed/prepared
  9. Poor presentation
  10. Wasting time on insignificant issues
  11. Other

Q. 4 How effectively do SIGs/lobbyists use the parliamentary and party committee systems?

  1. Very
  2. Quite
  3. Moderately
  4. Not very
  5. Very badly

Q.5 On sitting days what is the best time to meet?

  1. Early morning (0800-1000)
  2. Before lunch (1000-1230)
  3. After question time (1530-1730)
  4. Evening (1830-onwards)
  5. Other
Q. 6 Please indicate your views on the effectiveness of –

Q.7 What role do you think the Internet will play in the next Federal Election?

Q. 8 What do you see the role of blogging having in future advocacy programs?

Q. 9 Which are the top five SIGs with HQs in Canberra?

  • Australian Medical Association;
  • Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
  • Pharmacy Guild of Australia;
  • Australian Industry Group; and
  • National Farmers' Federation

Q. 10 Should there be a Register of lobbyists?

Q. 11 Should there be a Code of Ethics for lobbyists?

Q. 12 Do you host your own website?

Q.13 Do you resent people making opportunistic contact to lobby you?

[Back to contents]

Conclusions

Implications for Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

A table summarising the implications for Special Interest Groups (SIGs) follows:
Implications for Members and Senators
It was never the intention in undertaking this exercise to proffer gratuitous advice to Politicians themselves. However, after reading about their real concerns and frustrations some feedback might be appropriate – so here goes!
 
  • Be proactive in advising SIGs of your meeting preferences up-front, even to the extent of a checklist of your preferred time, size of “delegation”, professional background, current interests etc;
  • Specify what you want and expect of them;
  • Don’t even agree to see people if you have no interest whatsoever in their issue(s) – otherwise it is a waste of your time as well as theirs;
  • Provide some feedback to SIGs after the meeting – both good and bad;
  • Concentrate on the meeting if you have agreed to see someone – it is disconcerting for SIGs to feel that their messages are being drowned out by the live telecast from the Chamber during the meeting – many SIGs are already nervous about actually getting in to see you in the first place.

Report Launch

The 2006 Survey of Politicians' Lobbying Preferences was launched on Tuesday 15 August, at Parliament House Canberra by John Warhurst, Professor of Political Science from the Australian National University.

The launch was attended by Members and Senators and representatives from key Canberra based lobby groups such as the Australian Medical Association, Australian Divisions of General Practice, and Pharmacy Guild of Australia.

Please select the following link to download a copy of Prof Warhurst's speech.

Photos from the launch will be posted shortly.

 

 

Full Report

2006 Survey of Politicians' Lobbying Preferences

Full publication

  • Foreward
  • Acknowledgements
  • Author's Highlights
  • Executive Summary
  • Methodology
  • Response Analysis
  • Results and Commentary
  • Conclusions
  • Appendices

Published August 2006; $49.50 (GST inclusive)

Please note: There is a postage and handling charge of $4.90 (GST inclusive)

To order the full report please contact Client Solutions via email or phone 02 6282 2471.

[Back to contents]
 


 

Very few organisations could claim that they have never had members asking:
  • What do I get for my subscription?
  • How does it help me?
  • Those at H.Q. are out of touch with the members.
  • We go in too hard on issues.
  • We don't go in hard enough!
In my own 36 years of industry/professional association work, I have heard them all - and in each organisation I worked in! This has caused me to think about what are the key measures of an organisation's health - and how often are they checked, analysed and calibrated?
What are the symptoms of an ailing association? Some danger signs clearly are:
  • falling membership;
  • ageing membership;
  • loss of influence;
  • lack of competition for elected positions;
  • rapid changeover of senior staff
  • loss of corporate memory
  • a sense of treading water rather than moving forward;
  • no direction, no vision; and
  • the emergence of competitors.
This is the tip of the iceberg. Like a disease, there is not much benefit from simply treating the symptoms if at the same time you don't determine the root cause and implement major change. It is always easier to fill in the potholes rather than resurface the road, but the road will get progressively weaker through this process. (Now that's a three metaphor paragraph!)
In answer to this, Client Solutions has developed a range of services which will allow groups to know more about themselves and to improve the way they operate. It's called Association Analytics and will cover a range of analyses, diagnostics and recalibration in areas such as:
  • Internal Analysis/Review
  • Membership Analysis/Review
  • Outputs Analysis/Review
  • Environmental Analysis/Review

 

       
 
This website and its content is copyright Client Solutions 2006. Website developed by Websites At Work. Design by Graphics That Work.