«These are things that should have been done more precisely.«said the Minister of Housing, Carlos Monteswhen addressing this Sunday the controversy that has been generated by the meetings held by various authorities of the Government cabinet and parliamentarians at the home of the renowned lobbyist Pablo Zalaquett (UDI).
In the opinion of the Secretary of State, although this type of meeting could have been held in a better way, it is important to highlight that «Conversation is necessary between all sectors«.
«With businessmen it is important to know the issues that are worrying them and at the same time make them aware of the issues that concern the government., that is part of the permanent conversations, it has always been like that. When there is no conversation between the different sectors, it means that the conversation is broken, and that is bad,» Montes analyzed.
The authority also explained that «there are different ways of understanding lobbying, (so) the law must be reviewed. If you talk to a businessman on the phone, it is not lobbying (…) There are a number of issues that need to be clarified.«.
«The relationship between the business world and the political world must be more transparent every day.and I believe that – in that sense – here there may be a weakness or imperfection in the law itself that allows there to be conversations of this type and not be recorded,» said the head of Housing.
It is worth remembering that in the midst of the controversy and after a call for attention from President Gabriel Boricfour ministers – who participated in meetings at Zalaquett’s house – decided to correct their criteria and registered their meetings on the Lobby platform: Jeanette Jara (Work and Social Security), Alberto van Klaveren (Foreign Relations), Esteban Valenzuela (Agriculture) and Nicolás Grau (Economy).
For her part, the Minister of the Interior, Carolina Toháalso carried out a new evaluation of his encounters in that home, reiterating that «There are none of the requirements, lobby elements, that’s why we are not going to register them»something that has received questions.
OFFICIALISM VALUES ATTITUDE OF MINISTERS
From the ruling party, meanwhile, They have appreciated the attitude of the ministers to make the meetings transparenteven though the deadline to do so has already expired.
«I think it’s very good because it achieves the purpose of decompressing. Minister Tohá made a long and public explanation prior to that,» said the PC helmsman. Lautaro Carmonawho pointed out that that is «the way to not continue building a ghost, a speculation, on a topic as delicate as the issue of transparency«.
While the president of the RD, Diego Velapointed out that «it is good to meet with the different actors, but it is also good for Chileans to know precisely what interests are present, and there I believe that the challenge we have is to move forward in this matter: legislation that exceeds the standard we currently have with Lobby Law 2.0«.
DOUBTS IN THE OPPOSITION
In the opposition – which has parliamentarians who were also part of the noisy meetings – there are two analyzes of the situation: while on the one hand they reiterate that there was no lobby, on the other they accuse that In some cases there were interveners regulated as influential actors in certain matters.
«If one goes to the law, what happened in Pablo Zalaquett’s house is not a lobby. It was not a dinner (…) All the people were sitting, I arrived a little late and Zalaquett says ‘this is Congressman Guillermo Ramírez, in honor of the time let’s leave’: I sat down, gave my talk and left«said Deputy Ramírez (UDI) in the program TVN National State.
For his part, the deputy RN Diego Schalper assured that «Giving a talk is not the same as being in a meeting where interests are managedTherefore, the interveners seem to me to be relevant.»
«A parliamentarian who gives a talk to a minister of labor meeting with entities regulated by the ministry is not the same as a minister of economy with entities regulated by the ministry,» the parliamentarian analyzed, also stating that since they are things different it seems to him that «You have to see each of the things in particular by resorting to the content of the law itself.«.
On the other side of the so-called lobby case, are the payments received by the vice president of the PPD, Natalia Piergentiliwhich were revealed along with his participation in a talk by the media CIPER. His continuity in office will be reviewed tomorrow at the party’s board meeting..