Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
1 of 26
SENATE
QUESTION
QUESTION NUMBER: 3564
Murray Watt asked the following question, upon notice, on 23 April 2021.
1. Does the Attorney-General’s Department’s (the department) lobbying code of conduct define organising a meeting between
a minister and a business owner by an external party, if the purpose of that meeting is to pitch a business proposition to
government, as ‘lobbying activity’; if not, why not.
2. Does the department’s Lobbying Code of Conduct or the Ministerial Code of Conduct require a minister to undertake due
diligence before accepting a meeting organised by an external third-party, as to whether the facilitator is, or is not, registered as
a lobbyist; if not, why not.
3. Does the Lobbying Code of Conduct or the Ministerial Code of Conduct require a minister to undertake due diligence
regarding the nature of the meeting’s intention and whether it could come under the code’s definition of ‘lobbying activity’; if
not, why not.
4. Section 7.1 of the code of conduct prohibits any minister from engaging in lobbying relating to any matter that they had
official dealings with in their last 18 months in office for a period of 18 months after they cease to hold office, can the department
provide their definition of ‘official dealings’.
5. What are the obligations for an individual to register as a lobbyist.
6. Section 3.4 of the Lobbying Code of Conduct defines "Lobbying activities" to mean “communications with a Government
representative in an effort to influence Government decision-making, including the making or amendment of legislation, the
development or amendment of a Government policy or program, the awarding of a Government contract or grant or the
allocation of funding.” Under this definition, does the Department consider engaging a Minister in a meeting for the purposes
of proposing the government contract the services of the business as a lobbying activity; if not, why not.
7. Does the department believe Ms Julie Bishop was in contravention of the lobbying code of conduct when she organised a
meeting between then Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Greensill CEO, Mr Lex Greensill, in Davos in January 2020,
before she was registered as a lobbyist; if not, why not.
8. Was the then Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, in contravention of the Lobbying Code of Conduct or the Ministerial Code
of Conduct by accepting a meeting with Greensill CEO, Lex Greensill, facilitated by a third party (Julie Bishop & Partners)
who was not registered as a lobbyist.
9. On 16 January 2020, Greensill officially announced Ms Julie Bishop had been appointed as a “Senior Adviser via her
consulting firm Julie Bishop & Partners”. According to the Attorney-General’s registrar, Julie Bishop & Partners was registered
as a registered lobbyist on 14 April 2020. As at 21 April 2021, Greensill Capital is a listed client of Julie Bishop and Partners.
Ms Bishop arranged a meeting with then Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, Greensill CEO, Lex Greensill, and Mr David
Cameron during the World Economic Forum between 21 January and 24 January 2020. Was Julie Bishop & Partners in
contravention of the Lobbyist Code of Conduct:
a. if so, is the Attorney-General’s Department pursuing penalties for breach of the Code; and
b. if not, why not.
10. What penalties are available for breaches of the Lobbyist Code of Conduct.
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
2 of 26
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash has provided the following answer to the senator’s question:
1. Does the Attorney-General’s Department’s (the department) lobbying code of conduct define organising a meeting between
a minister and a business owner by an external party, if the purpose of that meeting is to pitch a business proposition to
government, as ‘lobbying activity’; if not, why not.
Clause 3.4 of the Australian Government
Lobbying Code of Conduct (the Code) defines ‘lobbying activities’ to mean
‘communications with a Government representative in an effort to influence Government decision making, including the
making or amendment of legislation, the development or amendment of a Government policy or program, the awarding of a
Government contract or grant or the allocation of funding’.
Clause 3.5 defines “lobbyist" to mean any person, company or organisation who conducts lobbying activities on behalf of a
third party client or whose employees conduct lobbying activities on behalf of a third party client.
Clauses 3.4 and 3.5 also set out certain exclusions from the definitions.
2. Does the department’s Lobbying Code of Conduct or the Ministerial Code of Conduct require a minister to undertake
due diligence before accepting a meeting organised by an external third-party, as to whether the facilitator is, or is not,
registered as a lobbyist; if not, why not.
The Code sets out the expected conduct of both lobbyists and Government representatives when a Government representative
is lobbied on behalf of a third party.
Clause 8.1(e) of the Code requires lobbyists, when making initial contact with Government representatives with the intention
of conducting lobbying activities on behalf of clients, to inform the Government representatives:
a.
that they are lobbyists, or employees of, or contractors or persons engaged by, lobbyists
b.
whether they are currently listed on the Register of Lobbyists (the Register)
c.
the name of their client or clients
d.
the nature of the matter that their clients wish them to raise.
Clause 4.1 of the Code states that a Government representative shall not knowingly and intentionally be a party to lobbying
activities by:
a.
a lobbyist who is not on the Register, or an employee, contractor or other person engaged by a lobbyist to carry out
lobbying activities whose name does not appear in the lobbyist's details noted on the Register in connection with the
lobbyist; or
b.
a lobbyist or an employee of a lobbyist, or a contractor or person engaged by a lobbyist to carry out lobbying
activities who, in the opinion of the Government representative, has failed to observe any of the requirements of
clause 8.1(e) of the Code.
Under clause 9.1 of the Code, Government representatives who become aware of a breach of the Code are required to report
the breach to the Attorney-General’s Department.
3. Does the Lobbying Code of Conduct or the Ministerial Code of Conduct require a minister to undertake due diligence
regarding the nature of the meeting’s intention and whether it could come under the code’s definition of ‘lobbying
activity’; if not, why not.
See the answer to question 2 above.
4. Section 7.1 of the code of conduct prohibits any minister from engaging in lobbying relating to any matter that they had
official dealings with in their last 18 months in office for a period of 18 months after they cease to hold office, can the
department provide their definition of ‘official dealings’.
The Code does not define the term ‘official dealings’. Consistent with the
Statement of Ministerial Standards, the department
interprets the reference in the Code to ‘any matter that [a former Minister or Assistant Minister] had official dealings with’ as
a reference to any matters that the former Minister was involved with as a Minister.
5. What are the obligations for an individual to register as a lobbyist.
Any lobbyist who acts on behalf of a third-party client, whether paid or unpaid, for the purpose of lobbying Australian
Government representatives must be registered and comply with the requirements of the Code.
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
3 of 26
Upon registration, lobbyists are required to provide information regarding the lobbying organisation’s details, the lobbyist’s
name and position and a statutory declaration stating that the lobbyist is eligible to register under the Code, information about
whether a lobbyist is a former Government representative, and the clients being represented by registered lobbyists.
Registered lobbyists are also obliged to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 working days of 31 January and
30 June each year, including to provide updated statutory declarations stating that the lobbyist remains eligible to register
under the Code.
6. Section 3.4 of the Lobbying Code of Conduct defines "Lobbying activities" to mean “communications with a
Government representative in an effort to influence Government decision-making, including the making or amendment of
legislation, the development or amendment of a Government policy or program, the awarding of a Government contract or
grant or the allocation of funding.” Under this definition, does the Department consider engaging a Minister in a meeting
for the purposes of proposing the government contract the services of the business as a lobbying activity; if not, why not.
See the answer to question 1 above. Consistent with the definitions of ‘lobbying activities’ and ‘lobbyist’ in the Code, a
person who meets with a Minister on behalf of a third party client in an effort to influence the awarding of a Government
contract may be undertaking lobbying activities if no relevant exclusions apply.
7. Does the department believe Ms Julie Bishop was in contravention of the lobbying code of conduct when she organised
a meeting between then Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Greensill CEO, Mr Lex Greensill, in Davos in January
2020, before she was registered as a lobbyist; if not, why not.
As noted in the answer to question 1 above, the Code applies to lobbyists who conduct lobbying activities on behalf of a third
party client.
The department understands that Ms Bishop was appointed as Greensill Capital’s Asia Pacific chair in December 2019 and as
a ‘special adviser’ to the company in January 2020. Based on available information about Ms Bishop’s roles with or on behalf
of Greensill Capital, the department has not formed the view that Ms Bishop’s activities prior to 10 April 2020, when her
registration under the Code was lodged, were subject to the Code.
8. Was the then Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, in contravention of the Lobbying Code of Conduct or the Ministerial
Code of Conduct by accepting a meeting with Greensill CEO, Lex Greensill, facilitated by a third party (Julie Bishop &
Partners) who was not registered as a lobbyist.
See the answer to question 7 above.
9. On 16 January 2020, Greensill officially announced Ms Julie Bishop had been appointed as a “Senior Adviser via her
consulting firm Julie Bishop & Partners”. According to the Attorney-General’s registrar, Julie Bishop & Partners was
registered as a registered lobbyist on 14 April 2020. As at 21 April 2021, Greensill Capital is a listed client of Julie Bishop
and Partners. Ms Bishop arranged a meeting with then Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, Greensill CEO, Lex
Greensill, and Mr David Cameron during the World Economic Forum between 21 January and 24 January 2020. Was
Julie Bishop & Partners in contravention of the Lobbyist Code of Conduct:
a.
if so, is the Attorney-General’s Department pursuing penalties for breach of the Code; and b. if not, why not.
b.
if not, why not.
See the answer to question 7 above.
10. What penalties are available for breaches of the Lobbyist Code of Conduct.
A lobbyist may be removed from the Register for non-compliance under circumstances set out in clauses 10.3 – 10.5.
Breaches of the Code by Government representatives may be subject to other frameworks governing the conduct of the
Government representative.
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
4 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
5 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
6 of 26
Page 80
Senate
Tuesday, 1 June 2021
It's the same approach that APRA has been using for their Heatmap methodology, and it's also the same approach
the Productivity Commission used. Within the industry, there's a fair degree of familiarity.
Senator McKENZIE: With the formula itself?
Mr Dolman: That's correct.
Senator McKENZIE: Can anyone in this room explain it to me?
Senator Hume: Yes, I can explain it to you, Senator.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you, Minister.
Senator Hume: A superannuation fund chooses its own asset allocation.
Senator McKENZIE: Yes.
Senator Hume: It's based on their own asset allocation and an index for each one of those asset classes. The
formula describes whether that fund has underperformed by 50 basis points on a rolling eight-year average—
Senator McKENZIE: I understand the purpose of the formula. I understand that what gets spat out at the
other end will give us the answer to that primary fundamental question. I was actually wanting more of a
description of the formula itself.
Senator Hume: Sorry, I should actually add—
Senator McKENZIE: You've talked about how these sorts of parameters are used by the Productivity
Commission.
CHAIR: Senator McKenzie, just let the minister finish.
Senator Hume: I should actually add that that formula, while it was in the budget document, is not the one
that's in the regulations.
Senator McKENZIE: Okay.
Ms Quinn: One of the reasons why it looks complicated is, as the minister said, there are different asset
classes with different indexes.
Senator McKENZIE: Yes, which is the sum of asset classes—
Ms Quinn: So you have to weigh them up and add them up and then average them over time. So there are two
dimensions of complexity. That's why it looks complicated.
Senator McKENZIE: Yes. We've said that the Productivity Commission uses the Heatmap methodology.
Ms Quinn: They did use this formulation, and it's APRA's Heatmap that they've been publishing, and it's
based on that methodology.
Senator McKENZIE: Is there a reason that this methodology was chosen over the benchmark that, say, the
Future Fund would use?
Ms Quinn: The APRA methodology would have tried to capture all the different types of superannuation
funds and the different asset classes they invest in over time, so there's always a trade-off between diversity and
simplicity in this world. APRA, I know, has consulted extensively on the Heatmap over consecutive years for
different purposes, so some of the discussions around those were about exactly how you measure every little bit
and how you put it together as well, in terms of weighing it up and when the weights shift and those sorts of
complexities. I'm not sure exactly. I haven't been involved in the discussions between the Heatmap and the Future
Fund, but it's likely that it goes to having something that captures the performance of different types of entities
and being able to compare them over time.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you.
Senator CHISHOLM: I have some questions about Greensill Capital. Documents released by Treasury under
FOI show the now-collapsed supply chain finance group Greensill Capital organised a conference call on 2 April
2020 with James Kelly, head of Treasury's Financial System Division; with adviser Aiden Storer; and with the
department's macroeconomic adviser, Ian Beckett. I was just wondering who organised this teleconference
between Treasury officials and Greensill Capital.
Ms Quinn: While my colleague is checking some background, I just want to correct that: Ian Beckett at the
time was working in the Financial System Division, and he was moved as part of our reallocation of resources in
response to COVID. So he was also in the Financial System Division at the time of the meeting.
Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks.
Mr Kelly: Senator, sorry. I didn't hear the precise question you asked at the end.
ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
7 of 26
Tuesday, 1 June 2021
Senate
Page 81
Senator CHISHOLM: I was basically just asking who organised the teleconference meeting between
Treasury officials and Greensill Capital.
Mr Kelly: The meetings that were referred to in the documents released under FOI followed inquiries of the
department, and the calls were organised following initial calls. One thing I should note, just for the record, is
that, while on the documents released I am shown as an attendee at the meeting, I was on the invite list but I did
not attend that call.
Ms Quinn: Just to clarify, looking at the FOI documents as released, it's not a Treasury system that the calls
are registered on. The dial-in details and things like that suggest that it was organised by the other party.
Senator CHISHOLM: Okay. Who did the suggestion to meet with Greensill Capital come from?
Ms Quinn: Greensill Capital approached Treasury about the policy that Treasury was considering at the time,
so the initial approach came from Greensill.
Senator CHISHOLM: And who was it from Greensill?
Ms Quinn: I understood it was Julie Bishop.
Senator CHISHOLM: So who did she approach at Treasury?
Ms Quinn: She approached the Treasurer's office, and then it was directed to Treasury. I certainly had a
discussion with her about setting up a meeting.
Senator CHISHOLM: You had a discussion directly with Ms Bishop, about setting up a meeting?
Ms Quinn: Yes.
Senator CHISHOLM: So it started at the Treasurer's office and then filtered down? Okay. Was Ms Bishop
on the teleconference?
Ms Quinn: She was on one of the teleconferences: the initial teleconference that I was on.
Senator CHISHOLM: How many teleconferences with Greensill Capital were there all up?
Ms Quinn: I'm not sure. I had one, which was about getting preliminary information about what they were
interested in discussing, and then it was allocated to people more closely working on that policy. I think there was
at least one more, but I don't know if there were more than that. I am happy to take it on notice.
Senator CHISHOLM: Okay. Is there no-one there who can advise us of how many there were?
Ms Quinn: I don't think so.
Mr Kelly: My understanding is that there was one call involving Mr Beckett with Greensill. That would have
been in addition to the one you mentioned. But we can take that on notice.
Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks. On that first call, who was present on the conference call?
Ms Quinn: I, Ms Bishop and a member of Greensill Australia.
Senator CHISHOLM: Who was that person from Greensill Australia?
Ms Quinn: I would have to check. I honestly can't remember.
Senator CHISHOLM: Do you know if Lex Greensill was a party to any of the calls?
Ms Quinn: Not the call I was on.
Mr Kelly: I don't think Lex Greensill was a party to any of the calls with Treasury.
Senator CHISHOLM: What was discussed on the call that you were a part of, Ms Quinn?
Ms Quinn: The purpose of the call, from my perspective, was to find out what they were interested in talking
to Treasury about further. They were interested in the parameters around the small and medium enterprise
guarantee and who would or wouldn't be able to avail themselves of that policy under the rules. So the purpose
was to listen to what they were interested in and then triage and provide a pass-through to someone who was
dealing with that policy. So that was my intent. My understanding was that the follow-up was to hear more about
Greensill's business model, what credit they were providing and what the parameters of their business were, to see
whether they were eligible to be part of the scheme, which they were not. They weren't a party to it.
Senator CHISHOLM: So, basically, it was to see whether the product they offer was applicable to the
scheme?
Ms Quinn: Correct.
Senator CHISHOLM: Did you meet with or have a discussion with any other companies that were pitching
similar products or ideas?
ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
8 of 26
Page 82
Senate
Tuesday, 1 June 2021
Ms Quinn: I didn't personally, but I believe the team did.
Mr Kelly: During the COVID crisis, we would have discussions with people interested in providing, say,
small-business finance. We were certainly interested in the trade credit market and also the related market of trade
credit insurance. Part of the inquiries relating to Greensill were about not just product but their financing of the
products. That took us into the space of structured finance support funds. Greensill provides trade credit. It
arranges funding for that. So the call with Mr Beckett was essentially about the structured finance support funds.
Senator CHISHOLM: What was the policy, Ms Quinn, that you were discussing with Greensill?
Ms Quinn: I was asking them what they wanted to talk about, but it was the small and medium enterprise
guarantee.
Senator CHISHOLM: Specifically to that, you didn't talk with any other companies or people putting forth
products around that policy?
Ms Quinn: I didn't personally, no. But there was a whole set of engagement with the industry across the board
about rules and regulations to do with the small and medium enterprise guarantee. So there were definitely
discussions with other parties but not me personally.
Senator CHISHOLM: I suppose it goes to, though, the fact Ms Bishop was involved and you met with this
company but any other engagement with other companies was left to other people?
Ms Quinn: It's just the way it worked. I had an initial conversation with them. I had initial conversations with
an awful lot of people who were interested in what policy positions were. One of the roles I was playing at that
time was triaging between stakeholders and allocating them to parts of the department that could follow up
further.
CHAIR: My guess is that at that time you would have had a lot of businesses coming to government with a
whole range of proposals. Did anything come out of the approach from Greensill, from a government perspective?
Ms Quinn: They were not members of the small and medium enterprise guarantee, no.
Senator CHISHOLM: So how come you met with this company and not others?
Ms Quinn: It was just the way it worked on the scheduling. I was actually in the Macroeconomic Group at the
time, and I was working closely with the business liaison unit and various other parties. One of my roles at the
time was to engage with stakeholders and help triage their connections to the department.
Senator CHISHOLM: Can you provide me with a list of what other companies pitched or put forward
suggestions regarding the small and medium enterprise guarantee and who met with them from the department?
Ms Quinn: I am happy to take that on notice.
Senator CHISHOLM: At the time Treasury had engagement with Greensill Capital, an audit from the
Association of German Banks had registered complaints about the Greensill bank with Germany's financial
watchdog. Germany's financial watchdog warned of an imminent risk that the Greensill bank would become over
indebted as it imposed a moratorium on the lender making disposals or payments. Is it common that Treasury
accepts meetings with organisations whose products have been flagged as being an imminent risk?
Ms Quinn: We accept meetings with all sorts of businesses, depending on what the circumstances are. We
wouldn't have being aware of the information you just provided at the time. We were responding to inquiries
across the board from all sorts of industries and triaging them to see whether there was assistance that they might
be available for.
Senator CHISHOLM: Just in relation to the contact from the minister, to clarify, that was Minister
Frydenberg's office that contacted you about the meeting?
Ms Quinn: Yes, I had discussions with Minister Frydenberg's office.
Senator CHISHOLM: Can you provide a copy of the information that Greensill Capital gave to Treasury
officials in preparation for that meeting?
Ms Quinn: There may be some issues with commercial-in-confidence information, but we're happy to take it
on notice.
Senator CHISHOLM: If it was information provided by them, I don't see how that would be commercial in
confidence.
Ms Quinn: Parties often provide information to us as part of a discussion. I didn't receive anything in advance
of the meeting that I had. There were follow-up discussions, but the initial discussion was to find out what their
inquiry was and what they were interested in.
ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
9 of 26
Tuesday, 1 June 2021
Senate
Page 83
Senator CHISHOLM: Following the conference call on 2 April 2020, did you have any further interactions
with Julie Bishop regarding Greensill Capital?
Ms Quinn: Not that I'm aware of. I certainly didn't.
Mr Kelly: And there were no further follow-ups following that call.
Senator CHISHOLM: And Greensill Capital?
Ms Quinn: I didn't, no. I did the initial triage discussion. As Mr Kelly has said, there was an additional
discussion with Ian Beckett and others. But, as I understand it, there were those two discussions.
CHAIR: And nothing came of it?
Ms Quinn: And they didn't fit in within the rules of the scheme.
Senator CHISHOLM: So what exactly did Greensill Capital pitch to Treasury that they thought could have
been of use?
Ms Quinn: They were asking for clarity around the scheme. They were interested in understanding more
about the scheme and if their product would fit into the scheme or not.
Senator CHISHOLM: What product was that specifically from Greensill?
Ms Quinn: I didn't get into details.
Mr Kelly: It would have been a trade credit product.
Senator CHISHOLM: So that would have applied to small business?
Mr Kelly: They provide trade credit or factoring, so it's a kind of financing. It's financing associated with the
sale of goods and services from one party to another, which was their core business.
Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks, Chair. I do have some other questions for this group on another issue.
CHAIR: How long do you think they'll take? Otherwise I'll just—
Senator CHISHOLM: I'm happy to have a break.
Senator CANAVAN: I have some questions about the announcement in the budget on the change to the
National Access Regime. I believe there was a review announced about this on 16 February. When did
consultation finish for the review of the National Access Regime?
Mr Jeremenko: The consultation closed 19 April.
Senator CANAVAN: I've had a look at the consultation paper that was prepared for it. Has there been a final
report drafted or provided to the Treasurer?
Mr Jeremenko: In terms of the decision that was announced in the budget, that is the extent of the further
product, if you like.
Senator CANAVAN: So there was no final report or anything like that?
Mr Jeremenko: It was a consultation on aspects that would improve the timeliness of the processes
surrounding the National Access Regime. As part of the decision-making, a regulation impact statement was
prepared as well.
Senator CANAVAN: Consultation closed on 19 April. When was the decision made to progress reforms to
the National Access Regime of the nature outlined in the budget papers?
Mr Jeremenko: It was certainly made after 19 April and in the course of finalising the decisions in the budget
context.
Senator CANAVAN: Could you take on notice the specific date that the Treasurer made that decision?
Mr Jeremenko: Happy to do that.
Senator CANAVAN: Did you or other people from Treasury provide advice to the Treasurer around the
consultation?
Mr Jeremenko: Yes, that's a normal course of events. We will summarise the issues raised in the consultation
and provide advice to the Treasurer.
Senator CANAVAN: Did you or others from Treasury seek the views of the ACCC about the proposed
changes?
Ms Quinn: Yes, and they provided a submission.
Senator CANAVAN: Were the ACCC consulted on the specific changes that had been proposed in the budget
papers?
ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
10 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
11 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
12 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
13 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
14 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
15 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
16 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
17 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
18 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
19 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
20 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
21 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
22 of 26
Attorney-General's Department
T: 02 6141 2666 |
E: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxx.xx
The information contained in this email is intended as guidance only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be
relied upon as such. If you require legal advice, you should consult an independent legal adviser.
OFFICIAL
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and
delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not
constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail
or attachments.
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
23 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
24 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
25 of 26
Attorney-General's Department documents released under FOI21/117
26 of 26
