ACT independent senator David Pocock was all over the airwaves on Tuesday as pressure built on him to support Labor’s industrial relations reforms.
With the Greens on board, Labor needs only one of the remaining six cross-benchers to support the changes, but it is getting no takers, with Jacqui Lambie and colleague Tammy Tyrrell particularly adamant in their opposition. Pocock wants the bill to be split and its more contentious provisions relating to industry-wide bargaining delayed. Labor, however, wants the legislation passed by the time parliament adjourns on December 1.
This stance has earned him some pretty ripe invective from Labor’s remaining class warriors. Former senator Doug Cameron has Pocock dancing with Rupert the horned and cloven-hoofed one:
So @DavidPocock claims he wants to pass “really good” industrial legislation.
Unfortunately some like his mate @JacquiLambie have nailed their flag to Liberal, Murdoch and business anti union rhetoric.
Stop putting greed, profits and ideology before workers living standards!— Doug Cameron (@DougCameron51) November 6, 2022
Some people might argue that getting stick from such superannuated socialist tribunes means he is on the right track. Not every MWM reader would agree, of course.
Where Pocock is definitely rowing a lonely boat is in his push to increase the ACT’s Senate representation from two to six. Pocock also wants the ACT senators to receive six-year terms instead of the current three.
Pocock is already a dedicated champion of equal rights for the two territories. The ACT, like the Northern Territory, is subject to Commonwealth veto on such matters as voluntary euthanasia and drug reform.
But more senators for his relatively privileged patch seems like an overindulgence.
Pocock’s argument rests on the fact that the ACT is under-represented in the Senate in comparison to South Australia and Tasmania. True, but that is a function of every state at Federation in 1901 being entitled to the same number of senators.
The two territories were not granted senators until 1975, when they received two each. “It did ensure that the two Territories were represented in each party room, but not in anywhere near the levels of other small jurisdictions,” Pocock told local news site riotact.
The site adds:
Since then, the ACT’s population has doubled, the number of state senators has increased from 10 to 12, and the ACT is under-represented in the Senate compared to the two smallest states of Tasmania and South Australia.
True again, but going by its representation in the joint House and Senate, it’s hard to argue the ACT is getting a raw deal. The ACT has an estimated 467,000 people, or 1.79% of Australia’s estimated 26 million population. But that 1.79% receives 2.63% of the Senate places and 2.2% of the Reps and Senate combined (five representatives in the joint parliament of 227). Don’t get greedy, Dave.
The most laudable aspect of Pocock’s proposal is that Canberrans would be represented by a wider range of views. On current votes, Labor would return two or three of the six senators, the Coalition one or two, Pocock one and the Greens possibly one. Even one lonely Coalition senator would better reflect the make-up of the ACT electorate. With the defeat of Liberal Zed Seselja in May, there is not a single conservative representative of the ACT in federal parliament.
It can’t be healthy that there is not a single right-of-centre representative for half a million people. Even though the ACT is a progressive stronghold, it still gives the conservatives a third of the vote (on 2PP terms). The Legislative Assembly, which combines state and local government functions, has been in the hands of Labor, sometimes with the Greens, for 21 years. Dominance by one side, for so long, breeds complacency.
Amendments to the IR legislation were being debated in the House at press time.
Mark Sawyer is a journalist with extensive experience in print and digital media in Sydney, Melbourne and rural Australia.