Power-broker Pocock to press case for shared stadium and convention centre

I think you’ll find Albo was referring to forming a coalition with the Greens in the event of a minority (in the Reps) government, kenbehrens. Given that no government has had a majority in the Senate since the Howard days (2005-2007), it’s impossible to pass legislation without the support of some non-government Senators. As you say most legislation is passed with bi-partisan support, but he will need Greens plus another vote to get anything through that the Coalition doesn’t like.

Chewy14, Pocock has the advantage of being one of the two cross bench Senators, out of the total of 6 not 5, who are not aligned. The other 4 are 2 x One Nation and 2 x Jacqui Lambie Network. Given the other non-aligned Senator is from Clive Palmer’s UAP, and it’s highly unlikely the government will negotiate with him, Pocock has the advantage of being a left-minded single entity – much easier to deal with. So it is likely that the government may actually court his vote more than you think.

Just Saying,
I said 5 “other” cross bench Senators. Plus Pocock is 6.

And the claims about being a left wing single entity don’t wash.

There are two Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party senators, one being Pauline herself.

Two Jacquie Lambie Network senators from Tasmania, one being Jaquie Lambie herself.

Both of these parties and their senators have shown fractured loyalties over time and a propensity to do deals when it suits them. Both of them are led by the founder of their parties.

The UAP senator is likely to be extremely unpredictable also.

Pocock stood on a platform of government integrity and claims he only wants to see legislation enacted that’s in the best interests of Australia.

So as I said, if the legislation is progressive in nature, why would they need to “court” Pocock? From his own statements, he would support such legislation anyway.

And if it relates to other legislation not within Pocock’s normal ideological standpoint, what makes him more likely to do deals than the others? From history and their words and actions, the others seemingly are far more ready to cut deals.

The Government may more readily “rely” on Pocock’s vote but that’s only because a lot of their likely lilegislation will fit his and the Greens world-view anyway.

Chewy14, thank you for your opinion. I’ve expressed mine.

Chewy, you say yourself that the government will seek the votes where it can. From their point of view, why would Pocock not be a vote of interest, especially if his desires in negotiation might be less loony than some others may devise? There is a swathe of legislation which is not at the beating heart of Green/Left (capitalisation deliberate) politics but on which there are considerations where a cross-bench member might attempt a rational view, and the government attempt to engage it. Pocock is left of centre. I expect that his record will ultimately be one more in tune with that of the government, but for many cases there is no reason to predict his will be auto-pilot vote.
Perhaps not “more likely to do deals” but “less likely to make absurd demands in a deal” so a better option for discussions.

Phydeaux,
I very much think that Pocock will be a vote of interest. Obviously with his support they can more easily get legislation passed and the agenda is broad.

But I dont think that means he’s “more than likely” going to be the other vote.

Particularly due to his stated stance on government integrity and claims around only enacting legislation that benefits All Australians. A stance which would seemingly mean he’s actually less likely to compromise than others who have willingly shown their vote is up for purchase.

Unless of course those statements were just a part of the theatre of an election campaign and reality will be different.

I also don’t know if calls for stadiums and convention centres are less or more absurd than the other senators.

Jacquie Lambie got hospital funding and forgiven housing debt for example. Selfishly as an ACT resident, hopefully Pocock’s “integrity” doesn’t stand in the way of him doing the same.

Chewy, it seems we agree he is a likely other vote with difference around how likely he will be to be approached on otherwise neutral issues (not in his web page list).
For the rest, what he might properly do in case of such approach, please read my reply to Guy Be today, way above. Some definition is needed, unhindered by prior political position.

Phydeaux

On Pocock’s website, he clearly states he is against pork barrelling and the way that both sides of politics have misued funds, with projects not delivered on a “needs” basis.

Infrastructure funding has specific guidelines and assessment methodologies. There are both federal and local departments set up to manage the process. And whilst there is some wiggle room around the metrics used and how benefits can be assessed, it is a fairly standardised process.

So to your specific definition points:

Advocacy: I see this as a key role of a politician and Pocock should be very vocal in this space.

But for the types of projects mentioned, this is simply to highlight a need that could be met, to get a project “in the front door” for rigprous assessment. It’s not to promise outcomes or bypass that assessment.

Negotiation: Once again, a key role for a politician But only in regards to balancing competing needs and trading off/prioritising what is most important for constituents within a set quantum of funding. It’s not for changing the fundamentals of the assessments themselves, which would begin to fall into your areas of coercion or extortion.

So I’m fine for Pocock to advocate and negotiate within reason but his statements clearly identify that he thinks his priority projects should hold value outside of the standardised process, that somehow the ACT has not been receiving our “fair share” despite the metrics he uses being easily proven to hold no value in the argument.

Which is fundamentally identical to what the previous government did, to which Pocock has stated his opposition to.

So at best you could say he’s guilty of over egging the pudding in his election promises and policy position.

Chewy, a couple of things. You are flailing at things I neither said nor supported. Please re-read my reply to Guy Be where I was quite explicit about actions within guidelines. That, however, is less limiting than you seem to imagine. I noted (and you make no reference to) the fact that independent evaluation of, for example, infrastructure projects does not entitle all or any of them to funding. That remains a politico/economic evaluation and one which remains legitimately negotiable (within the approvable set, as I said). I said nothing about changing assessments (are you imagining ranking within the set, if done, is absolute?), nor most of the rest of your straw-strewn path to an apparently personal political conclusion.
If his priorities do not meet your desires, vote against him (again?). I did that against Seselja. It finally worked, thanks to many other people.
Politicians over-egging promises? Mercy!

Phydeaux,

You are mistaking my comments. This has zero to do with my political position or voting. Well unless you call having a significant dislike of hypocrisy a political position. I also don’t like when people try to claim certain politicians behaviour is more noble or principled that others when their behaviour is similar (not saying that you are doing this).

Pocock was also preferenced above Seselja in my senate vote if it means anything.

Now to the points you’ve raised.

“That, however, is less limiting than you seem to imagine.”

I disagree, it’s actually very limiting when applied correctly within objective assessment frameworks.

But we do need to make decisions on how limiting it should be, where does the line between political freedom meet corruption?

For example, certain politicians have convinced the electorate over time that their subjective opinion of what the community needs and values should be able to alter the assessments to implement their own preferred direction. That the very notion of being elected means they have that freedom.

In fact the previous deputy PM wrote an article outlining just that recently around how an integrity commission would stifle “political vision”.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-anti-corruption-body-will-manacle-political-vision-barnaby-joyce-20220606-p5arb6.html

“I noted (and you make no reference to) the fact that independent evaluation of, for example, infrastructure projects does not entitle all or any of them to funding.”

Of course it does not guarantee anything but when money is allocated, it should be based on the independent assessments and rankings, otherwise it is an admission that the system does allow politicians and political factors to add a level of subjectivity to the assessments. Which is actually fine as long as we acknowledge and accept that fact, rather than trying to spin it depending our own ideological bent.

So when Pocock claims that he is against pork barrelling and supportive of needs based funding for example, that rings extremely hollow when he then promotes stadiums and convention centres as priority infrastructure despite either negative or non existent evaluations. How is that fundamentally different from the behaviour of the previous government with regards to sports grants or carparks?

I expect him to advocate for his constituents but I dont like it when certain people base their opinion of what exactly pork barrelling or corruption is depending on whether they support the politician or the specific spending (once again not saying this is you).

For example, I’d personally love a new stadium but I recognise that it currently doesn’t remotely stack up.

Chewy, I am generally fine with that with a couple differences and one note. Taking your latter few paragraphs, I supported Pocock’s right to advocate for anything he said he would or anything novel he chooses. I specifically denied his right to turn that into a project not approvable, for which there is no adequate business case, so your third- and second-last paragraphs must be talking to someone else.
Not all projects are assessed in a class nor necessarily ranked beyond approvable or not. Outcomes may depend on where you want to go strategically, beyond internal (class) comparisons. That comment covers most of your earlier paragraphs. The point of the integrity push is to advance change for total socio-economic benefit ( which will inevitably have local effects), not for personal, political or sectoral benefit. Those are the guides within which politicians (should) act. Negotiating novel outcomes is not inherently wrong.
Sorry for mistaking your motivation as political.