#david pocock

Silver lining:

Running where: ACT for the Senate

Prior reviews: federal 2022

What I said before: “Normally, individuals running on a ‘don’t ya know me and what I stand for?’ platform tack on something so that they are the Jacqui Lambie Network or the Rex Patrick Team or Katter’s Australian Party. David Pocock, however, has had an inspired moment and simply registered his party’s name as his personal name. This isn’t the David Pocock Group, Network, or Team. This is David Pocock.” (federal 2022)

What I think this year: Pocock has been a pretty decent Senator. He had a shaky first few months as he learnt how it all works, but once he figured out whose advice to take, whose to ignore, and what were the signs of a self-interested chancer in the setting of parliamentary lobbying, he got to work in a left-leaning way on issues affecting Canberrans and the nation alike. And, given that his victory at the 2022 election denied the Liberals a seat, his presence is all the more welcome—our parliament is better for Pocock ousting Zed Seselja.

Word on the street is that Pocock has done so well to cement his position in Canberra that he might even outpoll Labor. I will believe that when I see it, but in the contest with the Liberals for his seat, he’s the favourite to retain it. I have seen some speculation that Labor’s vote could drop low enough that Pocock scoops the left-leaning vote while the Liberals do enough to win the second seat ahead of Labor, but I don’t see this as likely. The fact that under Dutton the Liberals have taken aim at the public service and work-from-home policies makes me suspect they might register their worst ever result in Canberra.

Pocock’s website touts his “Wins”, including his ongoing goals. I like he opens with stats that he has given 617 parliamentary speeches, attended 167 ministerial meetings, considered 349 items of legislation, and negotiated 221 amendments. Canberrans, of all people, are most likely to appreciate this kind of info. He then sets out his main issues, and the left-leaning voter will find a lot to like in what he promotes that he is “still fighting for”. Not much leaps out at me as unappealing; he supports 4-year fixed-term parliaments, and while I think parliament should have fixed terms, I have seen no evidence that 4-year terms result in better governance than 3-year terms (and given Australia’s lengthy experience with both at state level, this evidence should be easy to produce if it exists). I prefer not to make politicians less accountable to electors. But this doesn’t seem to be something for which Pocock is fighting especially hard. His leading goal for political reform is to have the ACT’s Senate representation expanded from two to four Senators, which I agree is long overdue.

Pocock has been out the gates campaigning effectively for re-election and he has been busy releasing policies. Alongside climate action, for which he is well known, and action on cost-of-living issues, this year he has a strong focus on health, including more investment in the ACT’s healthcare system, better access to bulk billing GPs, and subsidies for longer appointments so that people with complex conditions don’t have to pay so much. I really like that he is pushing to overturn the ban on gay men in monogamous relationships from donating blood. It is an outdated policy that is no longer necessary for safety and repeal would bring Australia into line with other comparable countries and improve our blood supply.

On the housing front, he emphasises the need for much more investment in public and social housing, which should please many left-wing voters, and I’m happy to read that “the Territory must do more to relax zoning and other rules that restrict permissibility of ‘missing middle’ townhouse and medium-rise apartment buildings. More medium-density housing must be allowed … [and] The ACT Government has to find ways to speed up the development assessment process.” Build! Additionally, Pocock promotes “reform” of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. This would be welcome but other parties have stronger positions. I suspect he is right, though, that to make such reforms palatable—especially as this is such a hot-button issue among Australia’s chattering classes—provisions for existing investments will need to be grandfathered in to any reforms.

All in all, I think Pocock is a very good option for left-wing voters in the ACT, and I would unhesitatingly rank him above Labor. I would possibly (probably?) put him above the Greens too. I’m not an ACT voter though, so I don’t have to decide that one for myself.

Recommendation: Give David Pocock a good preference.