1. Pro-Democracy
2. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection

Transparent lobbying is essential for a healthy democracy. By requiring all lobbyists—including in-house and former government representatives—to register, publish detailed quarterly returns, and by making Ministerial diaries public, the Bill closes information gaps that allow undue private influence to flourish.

Reducing Information Asymmetry: When citizens and Parliamentarians know who is meeting decision-makers, about what issues, and on whose behalf, policy debates become more informed and accountable. This diminishes the risk of hidden networks swaying outcomes against the public interest [Judgment].

Strengthening Integrity: Extending cooling-off periods to three years aligns Australia with international best practice and reduces the ‘revolving-door’ perception that former office-holders can immediately leverage insider connections for private gain. Enforceable sanctions further deter corrupt or dishonest conduct.

Overall, these measures promote civic trust and ensure that government decisions reflect broad public interests rather than covert private agendas.

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection
2. Legal Principle [ICCPR Article 19]

The Bill’s extensive reporting and registration requirements impose significant compliance costs and administrative burdens on legitimate advocacy groups, small businesses and non-profits. Not all stakeholder engagement is high-risk: many meet with officials to raise community or technical concerns rather than to secure commercial advantage [Judgment].

Chilling Effect on Free Expression: By criminalising unregistered lobbying and sweeping incidental communications into the definition of lobbying activity, the Bill risks discouraging grassroots constituents and professional advisers from contributing to policy discussions. This may infringe the right to freedom of expression and the right to participate in public affairs guaranteed under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

Overbroad Definitions and Privacy Concerns: Publishing detailed diaries and quarterly returns that include names of individual advisers and minor participants may raise privacy issues and create deterrents to frank, off-the-record consultations that can be vital for early-stage policy development.

In sum, while transparency is important, the Bill’s one-size-fits-all approach may stifle legitimate civic advocacy and impose disproportionate regulatory burdens without clear evidence of improvement in governance outcomes.