The ins and outs of insider and outsider lobbying

One of the better indicators of the division between insiders and outsiders is the how and why of lobbying. Those who lobby powerfully are generally the insiders with the resources to employ professionals to do the work for them and the economic and social contacts to reach those holding the reins of power. Insiders generally lobby behind closed doors, out of the public gaze.

Outsiders generally lobby in public. The lobbying you see is a sign not of strength but of relative weakness. Many public lobbyists are driven into the public realm because they have no practical alternative. They would prefer to be cozying up to the government, conducting negotiations from a position of strength behind closed doors.

When considering different types of lobbying several general cautions are needed though.

Whether the Coalition or Labor is in office makes a difference. Each side has its own insiders and outsiders with just a few crossing the boundaries.

National and state and territory governments also have their own insiders and outsiders. The combination of party politics and federalism means that the Coalition today governs the federal government and three states, while Labor governs the other three states and the two territories.

The final caution is that the ins and outs can change. Ins can fall from grace while outs can become closer to the centre of power.

Australian politics in recent days has covered the public politics of Super Saturday by-elections, the Financial Services Royal Commission and ministerial listening tours to rural Australia, as well as the private politics of Cabinet decision-making, federal-state negotiations, the politics of corporate mergers and lobbying behind closed doors.

Media coverage can make private politics semi-public, but the public can never know whether they are being told the real story and/or what purpose media coverage is serving.

The range of political issues, beyond political leadership and the super Saturday fall-out, now includes energy policy, corporate taxation policy, school funding, financial services regulation, Indigenous representation and drought policy/primary industry.

Each shows a different pattern of interests and a diversity of political insiders and outsiders.

Consider the farming and Indigenous communities. They are both, especially the former, currently receiving a blitz of favourable publicity despite their dire circumstances. Each in their own way can pull on the heart-strings of the nation.

The farming community ought to be a political insider, especially when Coalition governments hold office. In these governments they are represented by the Nationals, who hold the powerful positions of Deputy Prime Minister/Deputy Premier and Minister for Agriculture in every coalition government. For the past five years, this has been the case both federally and in New South Wales.

There should be no shortage of political influence for this community, given powerful Liberals also have farming/rural connections. Even the Prime Minister describes himself as a long-standing rural land-holder and primary producer. That influence is supplemented by one of the top 10 lobby groups in Canberra, the National Farmers Federation.

Yet the farming community perceives itself to be neglected and hard-done-by. If this is so, how can this be the case? They may the victim of urban bias, they may be out of sight, out of mind, they may be pigeon-holed as a declining economic and social force. These factors may put them further from the centre, though surely still an insider.

The small and impoverished Indigenous community is an outsider with little economic, political or social clout whichever party is in government. Their few MPs pale into insignificance compared to the Nationals. The Garma Festival in Arnhem Land attracted considerable publicity, but it was against the background of the repeated rejection by the Prime Minister of their proposals in the Uluru Statement for an institutionalised Indigenous voice.

They lack powerful lobbying tools for insider politics despite some Indigenous individuals having privileged access to political leaders. That access can’t be backed up with political leverage through the ballot box or through the economy. They remain firmly an outsider.

The trade union and Catholic communities provide another perspective. Both were active in Longman, using different lobbying tools.

The trade union movement mobilised on-the-ground through union staff and volunteers. That tactic is an effective campaign tool, demonstrating its strength by its contribution to the election of Labor candidates. But it is a perfect example of the limitations of union power, because it places unions firmly in the anti-Coalition camp.

Of all the major players the union movement’s power position is the most cyclical. It is an insider, although, like farmers in the Coalition, not always a satisfied insider, when Labor holds office. But the cost is that it is clearly an outsider in the world of Coalition governments.

Some commentators see the Catholic community as a perennial insider, but it now doubts its own strength. While its major archbishops have guaranteed access to Prime Ministers and Premiers at short notice it is still reduced to running robo-call by-election campaigns on school funding issues. It has great residual strength through its social networks, numerical strength, financial resources and social services, but its brand is damaged in the eyes of the public and it often sees itself as hard done by and under siege. Its public campaign strategies are a sign of weakness not of strength, making it an insider/outsider in flux.

John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University