David Pocock
Independent Senator for ACT
Currently sitting
Photo: Magee425, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Seat and party history (1)
- Independent - ACT (Senate) - 21 May 2022 to present
- Seat and party records: OpenAustralia member data.
Contact
Office: (02) 6247 6444
Shop 1, 25 Ernest Cavanagh Street, Gungahlin ACT 2912
Office details: Parliament of Australia, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Contact details on aph.gov.au Profile on OpenAustraliaThese counts cover what is on this site only. They do not measure electorate work or committee work.
Compared with other members
David Pocock compared with all 76 sitting senators.
Questions asked in Question Time
Higher than 99% of senators- This member
- 31
- Average
- 10.4
- Median
- 10
Debates spoken in
Higher than 97% of senators- This member
- 129
- Average
- 44.8
- Median
- 40
Votes cast
Higher than 83% of senators- This member
- 1024
- Average
- 743.0
- Median
- 730
Share of divisions voted in
Higher than 78% of senators- This member
- 91%
- Average
- 69%
- Median
- 69%
Read these with care
- The median is the middle member: half did more, half did less. It is less affected by a few very active members than the average.
- Ministers answer questions rather than ask them, and the presiding officers rarely vote, so their patterns differ.
- Government backbenchers are often given arranged "Dorothy Dixer" questions, which raises their question counts.
- Votes only record ayes and noes, so a missed vote cannot be told apart from a pair (an agreed absence).
- Counts cover only what is on this site, and do not measure electorate or committee work. New members have less history.
Question Time
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked whether the government had consulted on an opt-out option for copyright material used in AI training and if it was considering a statutory data training authorisation model.
Background: Reports indicated OpenAI would not invest in domestic AI training if copyright laws were not watered down, raising concerns about rights holder protections.
Answer from Don Farrell
The minister stated that the government was interested in maximizing AI benefits while protecting Australian creatives and media. He confirmed that the government sought to attract frontier AI investment while setting terms that included control and payment for copyright owners regarding the use of their material. The minister affirmed that strong protections for Australian artists and media would remain a core part of the government's approach to artificial intelligence.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked if the distribution of funds constituted pork-barrelling. He later asked for the rationale for departing from Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles, which require merit-based processes, and questioned the difference between election commitments and pork-barrelling.
Background: An analysis showed that 73 per cent of the $560 million Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program went to notionally Labor-held seats.
Answer from Katy Gallagher
The minister stated that the funds were delivered election commitments, not pork-barrelling. She explained that the grants were administered through a closed, non-competitive round, which is permitted under the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles. She asserted that the government had been clear about this process beforehand and that commitments were made across various seat types, not just marginal ones.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked how long the bird flu risk list had existed and challenged the government's commitment to preventing extinctions given alleged nine per cent real-term cuts to on-ground nature programs.
Background: A risk assessment document identified nearly 380 species at high to extreme risk from H5 bird flu, with conservation groups claiming budget cuts undermined preparedness.
Answer from Murray Watt
The minister rejected claims of funding cuts, highlighting extensions to the Saving Native Species program and Natural Heritage Trust funding. He noted that $47 million of the $113 million bird flu preparedness budget was allocated to wildlife resilience. He stated the government had an open mind on further funding but defended investments in manufacturing and jobs.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked if Australia was doomed to repeat mining boom mistakes by failing to capture tax benefits from AI investments. He asked if the government would mandate sovereign Australian capability in procurement to ensure local companies benefit from the AI value chain.
Background: The Assistant Minister for Science had given a speech on AI economic benefits without mentioning tax contributions from multinational tech companies.
Answer from Tim Ayres
The minister stated that all firms investing in Australia must pay their fair share of tax, noting Australia's leadership in OECD multinational tax discussions. He emphasized the government's focus on legislating AI standards for data centres to ensure they support the national electricity grid and economic resilience. He affirmed the goal of capturing as much AI training investment and technology stack development as possible within Australia, from critical minerals to chip manufacturing.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked whether the government was satisfied it had kept its word in getting those who served Australia to safety. He sought a commitment to bring every certified LEE home and a timeline for their arrival.
Background: The question concerned the status of Afghan locally engaged employees (LEEs) who assisted Australian Defence Force personnel, noting that key resettlement programs had closed.
Answer from Penny Wong
The minister stated that the government had certified more than 660 applications from Afghan LEEs, more than all previous foreign ministers combined. As of 27 July 2026, 2,059 Afghan LEEs had been certified and over 5,700 had arrived in Australia. She noted that over 40 per cent of offshore humanitarian visa grants in the last four years were to Afghan nationals. She explained that LEEs are processed under the wider humanitarian program and that the government had acted on recommendations to process the backlog left by the previous administration.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked why there was no detailed funding profile for NCRIS in the budget and if the government could guarantee funding post-2028-29. He later asked about the delay in implementing recommendations from the Strategic Examination of Research and Development.
Background: The member noted the absence of a detailed funding profile for NCRIS in the budget and asked about the 2028-29 funding cliff.
Answer from Tim Ayres
The minister stated that the government assessed research infrastructure requirements as part of normal budget processes. He highlighted an additional $387.4 million for the CSIRO in the budget, on top of existing funding. Regarding the Strategic Examination report, he stated that a substantial part had been dealt with in the budget and that the government was delivering substantial funding rather than just talking. He noted the establishment of the National Resilience and Science Council, which would be legislated to direct research and development efforts.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked how the government could support 'same job, same pay' while allowing Carnival Cruise Line workers to be paid significantly less in Australian waters due to an exemption. He further asked why the government granted this exemption and whether it would commit to not renewing it to ensure award rates are paid.
Background: The senator met with former Carnival Cruise crew members who said they received $2.50 hourly, significantly under Australian minimum wage rates, because of a ministerial exemption from the coastal trading act.
Answer from Don Farrell
The minister stated that the government supported 'same job, same pay' and that the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 provided standards for seafarer welfare. He noted that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) enforced these standards with a zero-tolerance approach to breaches, including wage issues. However, he clarified that he was not the minister in charge of these specific issues and would convey the question to Minister King for a prompt response. He repeated this position for the supplementary questions, stating he was not familiar with the specific exemption details but would seek a response from Minister King.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked why the government treated death or divorce as a change in ownership that removed grandfathering protections. He questioned whether this disadvantaged women, who often have less superannuation and outlive men.
Background: Proposed tax reforms removed grandfathering for asset transfers due to death or divorce.
Answer from Katy Gallagher
The minister stated that the changes aimed to make the tax system fairer and simpler, aligning asset tax with income tax. She explained that grandfathering applied to assets owned at budget night, while new acquisitions followed new rules. She noted that the Women's Budget Statement addressed gender impacts and that the government sought to protect existing investments.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked how many people were currently waiting for a Support at Home package and how many were waiting for an assessment. He further asked how many new Support at Home packages were funded in the budget, given the large number of Australians waiting for care.
Background: The member asked for current figures on people waiting for Support at Home packages and assessments, noting that over 200,000 older Australians were waiting for care.
Answer from Jenny McAllister
The minister stated that as at 31 December, 94,963 people were waiting for a Support at Home place and 103,527 were waiting for an assessment. She explained that the government had invested over $4.3 billion in the new Support at Home program. In response to the supplementary, she confirmed that the budget would deliver an additional 32,000 Support at Home places in 2026-27, bringing the total to more than 420,000 places. She also noted that the budget included $3.7 billion for more aged-care beds and better care, including 5,000 additional beds annually.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked if mandatory offsetting rules confirmed that voluntary expectations were insufficient. He further inquired about the trade-offs between data centre development and housing construction, and the lack of clear guardrails.
Background: The question addressed reports that the government might require data centres to offset their power usage, questioning the sufficiency of voluntary expectations.
Answer from Tim Ayres
The minister denied that voluntary expectations were insufficient, stating they were being operationalized through state planning approvals. He emphasized the need for data centre developers to invest in additional electricity generation and transmission to lower prices. The minister highlighted the government's commitment to securing tech investment in Australia's national interest while ensuring cooperation with states to manage energy impacts.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked what modelling the government had commissioned regarding the fiscal and labour market impacts of AI, and when it would be made public. Supplementary questions asked if the government would commit to taxing tech companies like Microsoft to address unemployment risks, and whether Treasury had modelled the projected reduction in income tax from AI impacts.
Background: Warnings were issued that AI could lead to significant job losses, and concerns were raised about tech companies capturing productivity gains.
Answer from Tim Ayres
The minister referred to a publicly released report from Jobs and Skills Australia and the National AI Plan, which aimed to spread benefits across regions. He mentioned data centre expectations and commitments from proponents regarding energy additionality. In response to the supplementary questions, he stated he had not heard the specific figure of 600,000 job losses. He emphasized the importance of securing sovereign AI capacity and ensuring Australia remained competitive, rather than focusing on specific tax modelling for tech companies.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked if the government could meet its environmental commitments without substantially increasing funding for nature, including the Saving Native Species program. He highlighted that only 0.1 per cent of the federal budget was spent on nature protection in 2025, while $26 billion in subsidies flowed to harmful activities.
Background: Critics noted low federal spending on nature protection compared to subsidies for harmful activities.
Answer from Murray Watt
The minister stated that the government had committed substantial funding to native species preservation over the last four years, citing examples like the Lord Howe Island stick insect. He noted that the Saving Native Species program was funded for four years, expiring on 30 June 2026, and that future funding would be considered in the upcoming budget. He defended the government's record on environmental law reforms and biodiversity protection.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked how the voluntary expectations for data centres would be enforced, given that legislation was required for other tech regulations. He asked how the government would ensure big tech companies complied with commitments on water, energy, and jobs.
Background: The government released voluntary national expectations for data centres.
Answer from Tim Ayres
The minister explained that enforcement relied on federal support being conditional on alignment with the expectations. He stated that proposals not meeting the expectations would not receive federal support. He noted that state and territory planning approvals would embed these principles, and that the government was working with states to ensure no race to the bottom occurred. He emphasized that the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute would also play a role in ensuring investments delivered for Australians.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked why the Prime Minister was holding back the response to the Murphy report, which unanimously recommended phasing in a ban on gambling ads. He later asked if the government would ban gambling advertising this term, citing concerns from children.
Background: One thousand days had passed since the Murphy report recommended a phased ban on gambling ads, but the government had not responded to the report.
Answer from Penny Wong
The minister disputed the assertion that no action had been taken, listing measures such as banning credit cards for online wagering, mandatory preverification, monthly win/loss statements, and the National Self-exclusion Register. She stated that the government had taken more action than any previous government since Federation. She declined to answer the second supplementary directly, citing interruptions and the personal nature of the questions, and stated she would talk to the senator later.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked how much funding would be invested in Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) in the ACT. He further asked if there would be a net increase in support given reported cuts to the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre and how the government was ensuring funds reached the ground.
Background: The member referenced the new standalone plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, backed by $218.3 million, and raised concerns about funding cuts to specific ACT services.
Answer from Katy Gallagher
The minister stated that the majority of the $218.3 million would be provided to ACCOs to deliver community-led services, aligning with the plan's principles. Regarding the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre, she noted that funding decisions were largely a matter for the ACT government, though the Commonwealth was providing additional resources. She confirmed engagement with the ACT government to ensure funding for services like DVCS was maintained.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked whether President Herzog had visited ASIO headquarters or other intelligence facilities during his trip. He pressed for confirmation that no such visit occurred.
Background: Questions arose regarding the itinerary of Israeli President Isaac Herzog during his recent visit to Australia, specifically concerning visits to security agencies.
Answer from Penny Wong
The minister stated that she was cautious about commenting on specific security entities. She declined to answer the question directly, citing the sensitivity of the matter, and indicated she would provide further information on notice if possible.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked if the government would commit to reforms limiting negative gearing and using capital gains tax discounts to incentivise new housing supply.
Background: ACOSS analysis showed the government spent more on tax breaks for investors than on social housing and homelessness services.
Answer from Katy Gallagher
The minister stated that tax and housing policies had not changed. She highlighted investments in 5,000 social and affordable homes, with 25,000 more in planning or construction, and the Housing Australia Future Fund. In response to supplementary questions about youth homelessness, she contrasted the current government's investment with the previous government's record of building only 373 homes in nine years. She emphasised the government's focus on driving housing supply.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked for an update on the status of the funding request for security upgrades at the National Jewish Memorial Centre.
Background: The member had written to the Minister for Home Affairs on December 7, 2025, seeking urgent funding for critical security upgrades at the National Jewish Memorial Centre, estimated at over $100,000.
Answer from Murray Watt
The minister noted that the Prime Minister had announced $102 million in measures to support the Jewish community since the Bondi attack. He stated that Senator Gallagher had been working closely with the organisation and that a grant opportunity for additional security funding was being prioritised. The minister explained that previous funding decisions were made at arm's length and that the organisation was advised to undertake a full site risk assessment to strengthen its application. He confirmed that the Executive Council of Australian Jewry would administer the funding when available.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked for an outline of the steps the Australian government had taken and was contemplating in response to the crisis in Iran.
Background: The question addressed the brutal crackdown on protests in Iran, including killings, arbitrary arrests, and telecommunications blackouts, expressing concern from the Iranian community in Australia.
Answer from Penny Wong
The minister condemned the Iranian government's violent crackdown and called for an end to repressive measures. She stated that Australia had imposed sanctions on approximately 200 Iran-linked people and entities, including nearly 100 linked to the IRGC. The minister noted that Australia had co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution for an independent investigation into human rights violations. She affirmed that the Department of Home Affairs was engaging with the Iranian diaspora community regarding the telecommunications blackout and distress caused by the situation.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked when the government would introduce legislation to ban gambling advertising over three years, as recommended by the Murphy report.
Background: The Murphy report recommended a phased ban on gambling advertising, but no legislation had been introduced despite other bills passing.
Answer from Don Farrell
The minister highlighted existing harm reduction measures, including the BetStop self-exclusion registry and the ban on credit card use for online wagering. He stated that the government was engaging with stakeholders, including broadcasters and sporting codes, to develop further solutions. He did not provide a specific date for introducing advertising ban legislation, emphasising ongoing consultation.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked why the Australian National University was not allocated additional Commonwealth supported places for medical students, despite the severe shortage of GPs in the territory.
Background: The ACT faces significant GP shortages and low bulk-billing rates, yet missed out on additional Commonwealth supported places for its medical school.
Answer from Jenny McAllister
The minister noted that an expression of interest was open for three new bulk-billed GP clinics in Canberra. She explained that the allocation of Commonwealth supported places relied on advice from a selection advisory committee and was a competitive process. She stated that a further 50 places would be allocated in a second grant round opening in 2026.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked how many jobs would be lost from the Australian Public Service due to the five per cent budget cut requirement and whether this constituted an austerity measure.
Background: Reports indicated that federal departments were required to cut five per cent of their annual budgets.
Answer from Katy Gallagher
The minister denied that the measure was an austerity cut, describing it as fiscal discipline to ensure agencies prioritized spending. She stated that the Australian Security Liaison (ASL) would not be reduced and that national institutions were exempt from the efficiency dividend. She offered to table correspondence during estimates to provide transparency on the specific requirements.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked whether it was correct that draft industry codes for the Scams Prevention Framework had not yet been released for consultation, and requested a timeline for their release.
Background: The question noted that over 108,000 scams were reported in the first half of the year and that the Scams Prevention Framework had passed parliament in February.
Answer from Katy Gallagher
The minister confirmed that the framework had passed and imposed mandatory obligations on banks, telcos, and digital platforms. She stated that Treasury was working on codes for banking, telecommunications, and digital services but did not have a specific release date available. The minister offered to have the Assistant Treasurer provide further details directly to the senator.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked what could be done for families unable to secure aged care placements. He also asked if residential facilities would be required to accept difficult cases under the new act and whether means testing for Support at Home would disadvantage First Nations people receiving stolen generations compensation.
Background: A family in Canberra struggled to find residential care for a father with dementia. The member also raised concerns about means testing for Support at Home affecting First Nations elders.
Answer from Jenny McAllister
The minister declined to comment on the specific case but highlighted the new Aged Care Act starting 1 November, which aimed to ensure sustainable funding and expansion of residential care. She referred the specific case to the Minister for Aged Care. Regarding First Nations elders, she stated that means testing relied on social security law definitions and that the Minister for Aged Care was considering the effects of co-contributions on First Nations Australians.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked how many GP practices in the ACT had signed up to MyMedicare to bulk-bill all services. He questioned the government's progress in improving access.
Background: Concerns were raised about the low bulk-billing rates in the ACT and the closure of community healthcare centres.
Answer from Jenny McAllister
The minister highlighted investments in new GP practices and attraction initiatives in the ACT. She did not provide a specific number of practices that had signed up. She emphasized the government's commitment to restoring bulk-billing.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked when the National Housing and Homelessness Plan would be released. He questioned the government's progress on this commitment.
Background: The National Housing and Homelessness Plan had not been released despite promises and previous inquiries.
Answer from Tim Ayres
The minister stated that the minister was working hard on the process and that consultation was ongoing. He highlighted other housing investments, including funding for first home buyers. He did not provide a specific release date.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked what mechanisms were in place to ensure Australians benefited fairly from the critical minerals boom, drawing parallels to the perceived lack of benefit from gas exports. He followed up by asking for a plan to ensure Australians benefit from critical minerals, noting that one in seven Australians live in poverty and that petroleum resource rent tax has declined. Finally, he asked why the government did not have a plan to effectively tax critical minerals, comparing Australia to Norway's sovereign wealth fund.
Background: The signing of an $8.5 billion critical minerals deal with the United States.
Answer from Tim Ayres
The minister stated that the focus was on onshore processing and production to create jobs and investment in regional communities, rather than just exporting ore. He highlighted that the resources sector contributed $48.5 billion in company tax during the 2023-24 financial year, with seven of the top 10 corporate taxpayers being from the resources sector. He noted that the government had changed the petroleum resource rent tax to ensure companies pay tax sooner and was working on gas market settings to support industry. He did not propose a new sovereign wealth fund or specific tax mechanism for critical minerals beyond existing company tax frameworks.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked why the Commonwealth contribution to ACT hospitals was lower than the federal coalition government's previous levels, despite promises of a 45 per cent contribution by 2035. He sought a guarantee that the contribution would reach 42.5 per cent by 2030 and asked why ACT ratepayers were funding delays in Commonwealth programs like the NDIS and aged care.
Background: The ACT Health Minister stated that the Commonwealth contribution to ACT hospitals was 35 per cent, below the promised 45 per cent by 2035. ACT ratepayers were facing a new levy to cover the gap.
Answer from Jenny McAllister
The minister stated that Commonwealth funding to the ACT hospital system had increased by 16 per cent in the current financial year, totaling $629 million. She rejected the claim that the ACT was being short-changed, emphasizing the collaborative nature of the National Health Reform Agreement. Regarding NDIS and aged care transitions, the minister noted that average waiting times for NDIS participants had reduced from 39 days in December 2022 to 17 days in January 2025, attributing this to operational changes.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked how many households earning $200,000 or more would receive the $150 energy bill rebate.
Background: The government is providing energy bill relief to households.
Answer from Jenny McAllister
The minister confirmed that the energy bill relief applies to all households, regardless of income level. She stated that the government's approach is to support all families under pressure. She also highlighted other measures, including investments in solar and batteries for social housing and lending through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. She rejected the notion that immediate relief and long-term structural reforms are mutually exclusive.
Question from David Pocock
The senator asked why the government had not released the promised national housing plan or supported legislation for one, despite public support. He also questioned whether measuring unmet social housing need is essential for an effective plan.
Background: Research indicated high levels of housing stress, and the national housing and homelessness plan had not yet been released.
Answer from Don Farrell
The minister stated the government is consulting stakeholders to ensure the plan is correct and has not been inactive. He highlighted the largest Commonwealth investment in social and affordable housing in over a decade, with 40,000 new homes to be delivered under the Housing Australia Future Fund and National Housing Accord. He noted that homelessness funding has doubled to $400 million annually under the national agreement. He dismissed the link between housing delays and political motivations, stating the minister is working with states and territories to achieve the best results.
Question from David Pocock
The member asked for the reasons behind the recommendation for a digital duty of care and whether the government was still committed to legislating it promptly.
Background: A review of online safety laws recommended a digital duty of care, but reports suggested no timeline for legislation.
Answer from Malarndirri McCarthy
The minister confirmed the government's commitment to keeping Australians safe online, noting that penalties for breaches had been increased from less than $1 million to $50 million. She stated that a digital duty of care would be legislated to place the onus on platforms, alongside other measures such as a minimum age for social media and laws against deepfakes. In response to supplementary questions about the lack of a timeline, she asserted that the government was not sitting idle and was working through recommendations to balance safety with free speech. She clarified that the government was not contemplating changes to allow the eSafety Commissioner to remove content overseas.
Other Parliamentary Activity
-
Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 17 September 2026 · Second Reading
Opened this debate
-
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 17 September 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Australian Parliament
Senate · Thursday 17 September 2026 · General Debate
Opened this debate
-
Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Wednesday 16 September 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Tuesday 15 September 2026 · Second Reading
Opened this debate
-
Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026; First Reading
Senate · Tuesday 15 September 2026 · First Reading
Contributed to this debate
-
Artificial Intelligence
Senate · Tuesday 15 September 2026 · Take Note Debate
Opened this debate
-
Artificial Intelligence
Senate · Monday 14 September 2026 · General Debate
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Statute Update Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 10 September 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 10 September 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 10 September 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
Veterans: Health Care
Senate · Tuesday 8 September 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program
Senate · Tuesday 8 September 2026 · Take Note Debate
Opened this debate
-
Defence Properties
Senate · Tuesday 8 September 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Monday 7 September 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Climate Change
Senate · Monday 7 September 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 20 August 2026 · Second Reading
Opened this debate
-
Veterans: Women's Health
Senate · Wednesday 19 August 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Wednesday 19 August 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate
Senate · Wednesday 19 August 2026 · Limitation of Debate
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026; In Committee
Senate · Wednesday 19 August 2026 · In Committee
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
Avian Influenza
Senate · Wednesday 19 August 2026 · Take Note Debate
Opened this debate
-
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate
Senate · Tuesday 18 August 2026 · Limitation of Debate
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Tuesday 18 August 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate
-
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026; In Committee
Senate · Tuesday 18 August 2026 · In Committee
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
Freedom of Information
Senate · Tuesday 18 August 2026 · Take Note Debate
Contributed to this debate
-
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Monday 17 August 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
Human Rights
Senate · Monday 17 August 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 13 August 2026 · Second Reading
Opened this debate
-
Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026; First Reading
Senate · Thursday 13 August 2026 · First Reading
Contributed to this debate
-
Gas Industry: Taxation
Senate · Wednesday 12 August 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025; Consideration of House of Representatives Message
Senate · Thursday 2 July 2026 · Consideration of House of Representatives Message
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
Commonwealth Land (Affordable Housing) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 2 July 2026 · Second Reading
Opened this debate
-
Commonwealth Land (Affordable Housing) Bill 2026; First Reading
Senate · Thursday 2 July 2026 · First Reading
Contributed to this debate
-
Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 2 July 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy
Senate · Wednesday 1 July 2026 · Take Note Debate
Opened this debate
-
Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025; Second Reading
Senate · Wednesday 1 July 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Workplace Relations: Maritime Industry
Senate · Tuesday 30 June 2026 · Take Note Debate
Opened this debate
-
Senior Australians
Senate · Tuesday 30 June 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
Data Centres
Senate · Tuesday 30 June 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027; Limitation of Debate
Senate · Monday 29 June 2026 · Limitation of Debate
Contributed to this debate
-
Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate
Senate · Thursday 25 June 2026 · Limitation of Debate
Opened this debate
-
Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026; In Committee
Senate · Thursday 25 June 2026 · In Committee
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025; Second Reading
Senate · Thursday 25 June 2026 · Second Reading
Opened this debate
-
Budget
Senate · Wednesday 24 June 2026 · Take Note Debate
Opened this debate
-
Forestry Industry
Senate · Tuesday 23 June 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: support
-
Artificial Intelligence
Senate · Tuesday 23 June 2026 · Take Note Debate
Opened this debate
-
Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading
Senate · Monday 22 June 2026 · Second Reading
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
-
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Senate · Monday 22 June 2026 · General Debate
Contributed to this debate · Position: oppose
-
Gas Industry: Taxation
Senate · Monday 22 June 2026 · Matter of Public Importance
Contributed to this debate · Position: mixed
- Votes recorded
- 1024
- Aye votes (65.2%)
- 668
- No votes (34.8%)
- 356
Showing the latest 50 votes.
-
Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026; Second Read
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 21, Noes 32 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026; Second Read
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 13, Noes 23 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026; Second Read
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 13, Noes 23 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures...
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 30, Noes 24 · Passed
VOTED NO -
Corruption in the Construction Industry Select Committee; Appointment
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 23, Noes 31 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee; Reference
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 34, Noes 21 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 23, Noes 32 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Selection of Bills Committee; Report
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 12, Noes 28 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare With...
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 33, Noes 19 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare With...
17 Sep 2026 · Ayes 34, Noes 19 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Personal Information and Privacy; Order for the Production of Documents
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 30, Noes 19 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Maritime Industry; Order for the Production of Documents
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 16, Noes 23 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Climate Change; Order for the Production of Documents
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 16, Noes 23 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Census; Order for the Production of Documents
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 23, Noes 30 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
ASECA Judicial Seminar; Order for the Production of Documents
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 12, Noes 28 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Middle East; Order for the Production of Documents
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 13, Noes 27 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
North to East Australia Pipeline; Order for the Production of Documents
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 18, Noes 25 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Artificial Intelligence Joint Select Committee; Appointment
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 17, Noes 25 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Artificial Intelligence Joint Select Committee; Appointment
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 17, Noes 26 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Improved Native Forest Management; Order for the Production of Documents
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 26, Noes 31 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Reference
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 27, Noes 31 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Middle East
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 32, Noes 20 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 20...
16 Sep 2026 · Ayes 6, Noes 34 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Australian Federal Police; Order for the Production of Documents
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 31, Noes 19 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Trade Unions; Order for the Production of Documents
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 33, Noes 20 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Consideration of Legislation
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 22, Noes 32 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Cybersafety Legislation; Order for the Production of Documents
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 34, Noes 19 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Executive Remuneration; Order for the Production of Documents
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 17, Noes 26 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Waste Management and Recycling; Order for the Production of Documents
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 34, Noes 19 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 21, Noes 33 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026; First Reading
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 39, Noes 14 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Artificial Intelligence
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 35, Noes 20 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account)...
15 Sep 2026 · Ayes 25, Noes 36 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Reference
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 25, Noes 31 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Water
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 16, Noes 24 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Digital Seller Underperformance Policy; Order for the Production of Documents
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 32, Noes 18 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Health Care; Order for the Production of Documents
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 23, Noes 28 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Intergenerational Trust Fund for the People of the Republic of Nauru; Order f...
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 35, Noes 19 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Reference
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 35, Noes 19 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account)...
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 24, Noes 35 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account)...
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 12, Noes 25 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026; Th...
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 31, Noes 18 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026; Se...
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 31, Noes 18 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026; In Committee
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 21, Noes 32 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026; In Committee
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 31, Noes 22 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Consideration of Legislation
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 19, Noes 33 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Artificial Intelligence
14 Sep 2026 · Ayes 14, Noes 24 · Failed
VOTED AYE -
Carbon Farming Initiative--Improved Forest Management in Multiple-use Public ...
10 Sep 2026 · Ayes 27, Noes 34 · Failed
VOTED NO -
Statute Update Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate
10 Sep 2026 · Ayes 35, Noes 20 · Passed
VOTED AYE -
Statute Update Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate
10 Sep 2026 · Ayes 22, Noes 32 · Failed
VOTED NO
About this page
This page tracks David Pocock's parliamentary activity: questions asked and answered in Question Time, debates spoken in, and votes in divisions. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; each one links to the official record.