2 February 2023

Big spender: What it took to get David Pocock into the Senate

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
David Pocock and Zed Seselja

David Pocock and Zed Seselja meet up at a Senate candidate debate during the campaign. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

The David Pocock campaign outspent all its rivals to get the former Wallaby captain into the Senate at last year’s Federal election, buoyed by big donations from some of Australia’s wealthiest people.

The Australian Electoral Commission has published financial disclosure returns for the election showing the Pocock campaign spent nearly $1.8 million to oust Liberal Zed Seselja from the Senate, compared with the Liberals at $1.4 million and a wary Labor at $1.2 million.

The Pocock campaign received $1,687,671 in cash and kind from 768 donors.

READ ALSO Tudge tells royal commission that Westminster doesn’t mean he was responsible for Robodebt’s illegality

Senator Pocock ran as the David Pocock Party so his name would be above the line on the ballot paper where most Canberrans vote.

The biggest donation of $856,382 came from the Climate 200 group followed by $224,000 from sharemarket trader Robert Keldoulis, $50,000 each from Atlassian’s Mike Cannon-Brookes through his Boundless Earth organisation, and Keep them Honest, a private company owned by investment managers Fred Woollard and Therese Cochrane.

Then came $30,000 donations from Perth mining industry software entrepreneur Norman Pater and investor James Taylor.

Investment manager David Paradice gave $25,000, businessman and environmentalist Robert Purves $20,000 and Canberran Sam Holden $15,000.

Senator Pocock’s press secretary Fiona Scott provided $78,375 in kind as services.

Despite being a beneficiary of the current donations system, Senator Pocock said he would pursue donation reform alongside other electoral changes such as more equitable representation for the Territories and the introduction of federal truth in political advertising laws.

Senator Pocock said donations were necessary to run a campaign, but he had put guidelines in place for campaign donations and to vet donors.

“When you look at the amount of money spent by the major parties, and who they are accepting donations from, I think it highlights the urgent need for reform,” Senator Pocock said.

“We know that companies seeking to buy influence is not good for our democracy.

“Today we see that the major parties once again accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations from fossil fuel companies, developers, banks, alcohol and gambling companies and their representatives – people with clear vested interests in key national policy debates.

“States and territories already have far stricter laws around political donations and people want this addressed at a federal level.”

Senator Pocock also said Australia needed a more equitable system to allow a broader range of people to competitively run for election and represent their communities.

READ ALSO Time to have a say on ACT’s Assembly electoral boundaries

The Liberal Party’s ACT Division did not hide its chagrin at the Pocock spend in a letter to members seeking donations.

“Today, the true cost of our opponents’ 2022 election campaigns was revealed,” ACT director Kieran Douglas said.

“Climate 200 donated half of the $1.8 million David Pocock spent on his election campaign, in addition to receiving donations from Keep Them Honest, whose directors took part in a $45 million takeover bid for an oil and gas company.

“Labor can always rely on millions of dollars in donations from unions and will always put the interests of union bosses ahead of you and our economy.

“Despite large campaign spends against us, we continue to rebuild ahead of the next election.”

The Liberals received just over $1 million for the campaign, mainly to defend Mr Seselja’s Senate seat.

Labor received $1.4 million, including $317,000 from its investment vehicle, the 1973 Foundation.

Canberra lawyer Kim Rubenstein also ran as a party and spent almost $420,000 on her Senate campaign from donations worth nearly $473,000, including $84,000 from Climate 200.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Capital Retro10:41 pm 04 Feb 23

Australia is on the ropes. It’s impossible for any long term planning to be made with only 3 year election terms and factional parties needing support of ratbag idealists with purely self- interest agendas, to govern.

The only way forward is for one of the major two parties to have absolute majorities in both houses so crucial decisions can be put in place to ensure our creditors roll over our huge sovereign debt.

We are heading into a recession, currency collapse and unprecedented hard times and what are we doing? Playing around with a meaningless “voice” and other social engineering agendas.

As long as there is a new restaurant to check out and we have our tickets to see Beyonce (don’t know its other name), nothing else matters.

Still waiting for a new stadium and all the amazing infrastructure he was going to ensure got funded.

LOL at the gullible.

$1.8mil to get rid of Zed? Worth Every. Single. Cent.

HiddenDragon6:48 pm 02 Feb 23

Those campaign spend figures are hardly surprising – in the month or two prior to election day, you could not watch free-to-air TV in Canberra without seeing a very high rotation advert which apparently assumed that an eyeful of the now senator’s thighs was a compelling reason to vote for him.

Clearly it worked, even if buyer’s remorse is kicking in now for some whose heads were turned.

Worth it to get rid of Zed – I am happy with Pocock.

A lot of money spent on a lackey for the Greens

Better than being hostage to a Senator lackey to a minority religious zealots? I’ll take that trade any day, I voted to get Zed out and I’m proud to have done so.

Any amount spent on ridding us of Zed was well worth it.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.