You wouldn't think that poker machines and ethanol have much in common. But the actions of the O'Farrell government in recent weeks have managed to tie them together quite neatly.

The Minister for Hospitality, George Souris, quietly put through a regulation last month that did Clubs NSW a big favour.

The regulation made it easier for registered clubs that are established adjacent to new housing release areas to get approval for up to 150 poker machines from the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority.

Then the ethanol story broke, revealing that despite advice that banning regular unleaded petrol from July 1 would likely drive up petrol prices - and possibly be open to legal challenge - the O'Farrell cabinet decided to proceed with the policy.

What is the common thread? The lobbying of government ministers and how starkly it has been shown to influence the decisions of this government, aided by a complete lack of transparency around the process.

In the case of the poker machine decision it was revealed that two directors of the Eastern Suburbs Leagues Club, which would directly benefit from the regulation - Nick Politis and Luke Ricketson - had met with Souris in his Governor Macquarie Tower office.

The pair had a face-to-face meeting with the minister shortly after Clubs NSW wrote to him highlighting the need for a rule change to help the Eastern Suburbs Leagues Club.

In the case of the ethanol decision it was subsequently disclosed by the government that representatives of the ethanol producer Manildra had met with no fewer than four ministers over the unleaded issue before cabinet made its original decision.

That's not to say business people and other interest groups do not have a right to lobby ministers. Of course they do - that's one way government gets to know about issues that affect them and possible remedies.

The problem is this: the public is kept in the dark about these high-level meetings. It takes a controversy - or a cabinet leak, as was the case with ethanol - to bring them into the open.

The remedy is a register of meetings held by ministers that makes public the date, the participants and the issue that was discussed.

The argument against this type of register is that it would risk exposing commercially sensitive information that businesses would naturally prefer to keep quiet.

But guess what? A register approximating this already exists for lobbyists. It is the Lobbyist Contact Register on the Department of Planning website. And it doesn't appear to have blown any business deals to date.

The catch is that the register records only meetings with the department, and not the minister. As well, it only captures meetings featuring lobbyists as they are defined under the state government's Lobbyist Code of Conduct. And that is a very narrow definition indeed - in NSW you are classified as a lobbyist only if you are a separate corporate entity working on behalf of a client, or ''third party''.

So even if this type of register was rolled out across all departments, most of the meetings cited above would not have been disclosed. The meetings were with ministers and the ''lobbyists'' were employed directly by the corporation whose interests they were pushing and therefore, according to the definition, not lobbyists at all.

If the O'Farrell government is committed to transparency it might consider two changes as a matter of priority: alter the definition of a lobbyist to include any private sector interest pushing for government action; and introduce a publicly available lobbyist contact register for every department and its minister.

Surely the government has nothing to hide.

The Power Of A Word In The Ministerial Ear