A new tranche of secret documents has revealed the extent to which a former top figure in the Albanese government directly lobbied the department he used to work for, just months after leaving his role as chief of staff to a minister.
SkyNews.com.au recently reported that Nick Martin, former chief of staff to Health Minister Mark Butler, quickly gained access to his former boss and senior health bureaucrats after starting a lobbying role at Ramsay Health Care.
Newly released emails, obtained under freedom of information laws, show Martin leveraging his close relationship with the minister to secure meetings with department officials. In one message to the Private Hospitals Policy Section Director, he wrote: 'I was previously Minister Butler's Chief of Staff and have now started a new role at Ramsay Health Care.'
In another email inviting the Assistant Secretary of Private Health Industry for a meeting, he stated: 'As you can tell from the new email and email signature, I've started a new role.'
These revelations have prompted renewed calls for tougher lobbying regulations, greater transparency regarding political access, and stricter restrictions on ministerial staff transitioning directly into influence roles.
After leaving the minister's office, Martin appeared to use these meetings to present the private hospital giant's views on 'reform priorities,' having worked within government during a period of major hospital reform. In an email to the Assistant Secretary, he wrote: 'I would just like to brief you on the reform priorities for Ramsay ahead of the CEO Forum.'
While serving under Butler, Martin's office was heavily involved in health sector reforms described by the Albanese government as the biggest shake-up in decades. Butler recently approved a 4.4% increase in average private health insurance premiums from April 1, the highest rise in almost a decade.
The documents reveal Martin secured meetings with senior officials within weeks of leaving politics. In November 2025, he emailed the department shortly after starting his new role, introducing himself by referencing his previous position. Departmental officials responded warmly, with one congratulating him and arranging a meeting with First Assistant Secretary Ross Hawkins.
Martin later arranged a coffee meeting with Hawkins in Woden before heading to a one o'clock meeting with 'the boss.' Hawkins told Martin he was 'more than happy to grab a coffee' and discussed bringing him to 'the boss's office,' asking: 'Do you need a park?'
The correspondence also shows Martin sought to influence the shape and timing of major health discussions affecting the private hospital sector. By February 2026, senior health bureaucrats were proactively reaching out to him to organise meetings. Assistant Secretary Brian Kelleher wrote: 'A belated Happy New Year and congratulations on the new role. When you are in Canberra next and when convenient I am keen to catch up.'
Martin quickly organised a meeting inside the department, replying: 'Lovely to hear from you. I'm in Canberra this week. Are you free Thursday around 1pm?'
In March, Martin again contacted senior bureaucrats seeking a 'catch up' ahead of the Private Hospital CEO Forum. He wrote: 'I would just like to brief you on the reform priorities for Ramsay ahead of the CEO Forum.' In another email, he offered to discuss 'agenda / reform priorities' and sought a delay to the CEO Forum to better suit Ramsay Health Care's schedule.
Health Minister Mark Butler declined to comment. Nick Martin and his lawyer did not respond to questions. There is no suggestion that the minister, Martin, Kelleher, or Hawkins have acted inappropriately.
During Martin's tenure as chief of staff, Butler established a Private Hospital CEO Forum, which included Ramsay Health Care. The forum remains actively involved in progressing private hospital reform, according to the Department of Health.
Typically, ministerial staff are prohibited from becoming registered lobbyists for 12 months on matters they dealt with while in government. However, Martin's case exposes a loophole where staffers can work internally for a large corporation without falling under the lobbying code of conduct, without breaching the law or regulations.
Independent Senator David Pocock said the case highlights the need for long-flagged reforms to lobbying transparency and cooling-off period rules. 'I've long been campaigning for more transparency around sponsored passes and ministerial diaries. We see other jurisdictions publishing theirs and it seems the bare minimum transparency,' he said.
'Lobbying has a role in our democracy, but there should be so much more transparency around who has privileged access to Parliament House and the people in it, as well as who gave it to them.'
Pocock also called for closing the distinction between in-house and third-party lobbyists. 'This again demonstrates how urgently we need reform to align in-house lobbyist rules with third party lobbyist rules and to tighten up how things operate to ensure things like appropriate cooling off periods apply. Action on these changes are well overdue,' he said.
His comments come after he previously described Australia's lobbying framework as 'totally broken' and called for stronger transparency requirements and cooling-off periods for former political insiders.
Independent Fowler MP Dai Le told SkyNews.com.au that senior political advisers should not be allowed to move directly into corporate government relations jobs. 'There needs to be a cooling off period before a former ministerial staffer be allowed to move directly into in-house government relations or lobbying roles,' she said.
'Especially if they move from the exact portfolio they just worked on, then turn around and lobby the minister they used to work for. That's a clear conflict of interest.'
Le said the case exposes major flaws in federal lobbying laws, particularly the exemption granted to in-house lobbyists which 'undermines' the point of the law. 'If the goal is transparency, a rule that exempts most of the influencing isn't really a rule. If you're paid to influence government, you should be on the register and bound by the Code, full stop.'
Under the Commonwealth Lobbying Code of Conduct, former ministers, ministerial advisers, and senior public servants are restricted from lobbying on matters they had official dealings with during their final year in government. However, the code only applies to third-party lobbyists representing clients and does not cover in-house government relations staff employed directly by corporations, such as Martin.
Le argued anyone 'paid to influence government' should be bound by the lobbying code and made to enrol on the lobbyist register. 'Every MP is held to a register of interests and a code of conduct. The people with quiet, regular access to ministers should be held to no less. I think many Australian workers already feel the system works best for those with the right connections, that trust is exactly what's at stake.'
Pocock previously called for 'very stringent cooling-off periods' in response to the SkyNews.com.au investigation. 'Well, I've been saying since I was elected to the parliament that our lobbying rules are totally broken. They're actually a bit of a joke,' he said.
'We have 2,200 people with access-all-areas passes to the Parliament. We have no idea who they are, who gave them that access, what they're doing. It doesn't cut it. These are incredibly well-paid jobs and I think there should at least be some very stringent cooling off periods and at a base level, far more transparency. You know, it seems we only hear about these sorts of situations when journalists do some digging.'
According to Transparency International Australia, federal lobbying regulations lag behind those of all states on key measures of transparency. Based on 10 key indicators and scores out of 100, the federal system scored just 17 in terms of lobbying transparency, integrity and enforcement.
'Not a single lobbyist has been sanctioned in almost three years, despite 14 breaches. That's not a system with integrity, it's a system on paper,' Le said.
She argued transparency measures should include a single register covering both in-house and third-party lobbyists, publicly disclosed ministerial diaries, and tougher enforcement powers.
