Who is lobbying the Commonwealth, other than the third-party lobbyists on the register?
The Register of Lobbyists covers third-party lobbyists. In-house government relations staff -- the large majority of people who lobby -- are outside it and are not recorded anywhere.
Why it matters
The Australian Government Register of Lobbyists is real, searchable and maintained, and it answers a narrow question well: which firms are retained to lobby on behalf of others, and for whom.
It was never designed to answer the broader one. A company, industry association, union or foreign entity that employs its own government relations staff has no obligation to register them, and by common estimate that accounts for the large majority of people who lobby the Commonwealth. The register therefore describes a minority of the activity while carrying a name that implies it describes all of it, which is arguably worse for public understanding than having no register at all.
This is not a publishing failure and the register should not dress it up as one. Nobody is withholding a list of in-house lobbyists. No such list exists, because no rule requires one to be kept.
Can it be answered?
What stands in the way
| Obstruction | What it means here |
|---|---|
| not collected | Nobody holds this. Answering it would require someone to start counting. |
Data that bears on this
How people get at it anyway
The existing register covers third-party lobbyists. Beyond that, the practical routes are parliamentary pass records, disclosed meeting requests obtained under freedom of information, and annual reports of the organisations themselves -- each partial, none comparable.
The formal request route
No effective route. There is no held record to request.
General description only. It is not legal advice, and the applicable regime and its time limits are set out on the relevant FOI regime page.
Notes
Checked on 2026-09-01, and recorded with not_collected as the only blocker,
which puts it among the small number of entries in this register that cannot be
fixed by a publishing decision. Extending coverage would require a new scheme:
a definition of in-house lobbying, a registration obligation, and someone to
administer it.
Stating that plainly is the point of the entry. The register is at its least useful when it treats a policy choice about what to collect as though it were an act of concealment, and at its most useful when it can say which is which. Most entries here are about material the Commonwealth already holds. This one is not.
The closest domestic comparison is that several states apply broader definitions of who must register, so the design question has domestic precedent rather than being theoretical.
Companion to Which lobbyists and organisations met which ministers, and about what?, which asks the other half: not who is registered to lobby, but who actually got in the room.
Sources
- Australian Government Register of Lobbyists and the Lobbying Code of Conduct
Know better?
If this data is published somewhere and we have missed it, saying so
improves the register more than adding a new question would — a false gap is
worse than no entry. Edit data/questions/lobbyist-register-coverage.toml, or
send the correction.
