Summary

  • NSW now has two distinct proposals for widening lobbying oversight: a government package centred on the existing Electoral Commission and a private bill that would establish a new statutory commission.
  • Their overlap on council-level lobbying conceals different regulator mandates, disclosure systems and post-office restrictions. Neither proposal is law, and the government has not published draft clauses.

The choice is institutional

The NSW Government’s 12 October announcement is the first public outline of its lobbying-reform package, not the text of a bill. It would formally establish the NSW Electoral Commission as Lobbying Regulator and strengthen its ability to audit compliance with the Lobbying of Government Officials Act 2011 and the NSW Lobbyists Code of Conduct. Agencies and officials would have to provide relevant records for those audits. The package would also extend the Act to lobbyists who deal with local-government officials, require third-party lobbyists engaging councils to register and require all lobbyists to follow the Code.

That design keeps oversight inside an institution that already runs the state’s lobbying-regulation hub and third-party register. The government also proposes consolidated, searchable ministerial diaries, disclosure of fundraising events involving exclusive or private access, and restrictions lasting up to six months for certain public-service roles after departure. These are commitments in a ministerial release; the release does not set out a draft law, commencement date, regulator budget or procedure for challenging an audit decision.

A separate proposal is further along in legislative form. The Lobbying of Government Officials Amendment (Access and Influence) Bill 2026, introduced by Greens MP Kobi Shetty on 24 September, would create a new statutory Lobbying and Integrity Commission. The bill page records it at second reading, with debate adjourned five clear days, and says it will lapse on 6 November unless parliamentary progress changes that status. It has not been enacted.

The bill’s first print specifies a broader institutional package: a Commission led by a Commissioner; audit, advice and complaint functions; a public searchable register; and disclosures by lobbyists and senior public officials. A Minister would recommend the Commissioner, while a joint parliamentary committee could object within 28 days. That appointment route is a meaningful safeguard to examine, but the bill does not describe the proposed body as institutionally independent in those terms. Its text also lets the Commission direct a person to provide specified information or records, with a penalty for failure without lawful excuse.

Shared council terrain, different boundaries

Both proposals address a long-running gap around local government. Operation Dasha recommended applying the lobbying Act to local government. In 2022, the government accepted that recommendation in principle but said the fit with councils required further consideration and consultation. A 2023 progress update recorded mixed views from local-government stakeholders and draft lobbying guidelines under review. That history helps explain why the 2026 announcement matters: it signals a policy shift after years of consultation, but it does not tell councils which contacts, records or workflows will fall within the final law.

The bill is more explicit on coverage. It defines public officials to include councillors, council employees and people contracted to provide services to a council; its register and disclosure rules are not limited to the government release’s description of third-party lobbyists engaging councils. It also proposes a four-year lobbying exclusion for defined former senior public officials. The government’s announcement instead refers to restrictions of up to six months for certain public-service roles. Those periods concern different legal mechanisms and covered groups; comparing the numbers alone would misstate the proposals.

What remains to be written into law

The core public-accountability question is not simply whether a register becomes searchable. It is who can test the entries against records, how wide that access is, and what reasons or review route constrain an adverse decision. The government says agencies and officials must supply “relevant records” for audits, but the release does not define relevance, notice, confidentiality, retention or appeal. The private bill has clauses on notices, complaints and reasons for adverse decisions, but it remains a proposal and could change during debate.

For now, the NSW Electoral Commission’s existing hub provides a visible administrative starting point. The next evidence will be the government’s bill text, the Assembly’s handling of the private bill and any published implementation plan. Until those appear, the contrast is clear at the level of institutional design—expand an existing commission or establish a separate one—but unresolved in operational detail.

Sources