Policy Advisory System

22/4/2024

There has been much debate and discussion lately about lobbyists’ roles, with some calling for more regulation and oversight.

As an observer of policy-making processes, I recently had the opportunity to provide feedback to Health Coalition Aotearoa and Transparency International on their proposals for regulating lobbyists. Specifically, their call for greater transparency and conflict of interest registers to be put in place for lobbyists.

As someone who values evidence-based policies and equity, I appreciate Health Coalition Aotearoa’s goals and efforts to counter the influence of lobbyists who support harmful products.

However, I had concerns about their proposals for regulating lobbying.

We have a policy advisory system.

After the failure of new public management, we designed a networked system that ensures decision-making is not limited to a few officials, ministers, or lobbyists.

It is a system that has been in place for several decades.

Indeed, the literature on policy advisory systems is four decades in the making.

While the system itself is by no means perfect: for instance, it tends to reward the best-resourced and those with contextually relevant expertise, it does include a diverse range of voices and perspectives that the old public service or new public management models could never accommodate.

My working hypothesis is as follows:

In Aotearoa-New Zealand the policy advisory system is a vast network of non-state actors and institutions, including local and regional government, iwi, hapū, whānau, and whanui institutions, pan-tribal arrangements, whānau ora and social services providers, businesses, industry bodies, regulated parties, associations, community groups, academics, expert advisors, consultants, and various institutes.

It is a networked and plural advisory system in which ministers and the Cabinet are the key decision-makers, officials run processes and manage issues, and the vast majority of actors are external to the Poneketanga processes.

In my mind it looks a little like this:

So, while I appreciate the intentions behind Health Coalition Aotearoa’s proposals, I expressed my concern that they have unintended consequences.

For example, their definition of lobbying and the integrity outcome they seek could inadvertently encompass every non-state actor in the policy advisory system, including every institution in Te Ao Māori.

This outcome is contrary to the Te Tiriti-led approach and, instead, would strengthen the kāwantanga and interfere with the exercise of rangatiratanga.

Every Te Ao institution would have to declare and reveal their work with officials, ministers and other non-state actors to get changes in public policy.

Implementing such a register would raise concerns about privacy, data sovereignty, and confidentiality.

Can you imagine the administrative burden of such a system?

In summary, while transparency and accountability are essential, we need to be careful not to inadvertently undermine the policy advisory system while improving access and participation.