16 October 2025

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Or footy sponsorship. Or election funding ...

| By David Murtagh
Join the conversation
46
David Pocock with three others

David Pocock in August in his role as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Clean Investment. Photo: David Pocock Instagram.

It is beyond absurd that David Pocock – a member of parliament and a former Wallabies captain, no less – was kicked out of a football competition because he raised legitimate questions about the gambling lobby sponsoring it on the grounds of Parliament House.

It is also absurd that a footy comp, comprising parliamentarians paid a base salary of more than $211,000 a year (before we get into the endless list of perks they all enjoy – and some enjoy way too much) can’t put their hands into their own pockets to fork out for whatever the sponsorship money was used for.

If you want your young’un to play rugby league in the ACT, as an example, expect to pay to register the player and pay for jerseys and probably burn yourself cooking a sausage or two at home games or at Bunnings so the club can keep the lights on and maybe pay for the cost of a jersey for a player from a family doing it tough (probably because of dumb-arse policies initiated by idiots getting paid too much to play football on manicured lawns while being sponsored by gambling lobbyists).

Of course, you’re expected to pay, because TINSTAAFL. Unless you write the laws, that is. Then you can sell access. Free lunch tends to come with an entree, main, dessert and a squiz at the wine list.

So, is that what’s most galling about this latest episode on the Hill? That apparently our leaders can be bought and bought so damn cheaply?

No. Not really.

READ ALSO Chalmers backflips on proposed super changes as he strives for greater fairness

If you’ve been paying attention for more than five minutes, you’ll know that we were sold out long ago. The fundraising for the next election starts when the last red or blue balloon is popped on election night, and Barnaby is wheeled to the flower pot.

We know our concerns are the last thing on our elected leaders’ minds. If they are at all.

So no. That’s not galling. That’s expected.

What’s galling is Pocock’s endless whining and moralising. Not that he’s not allowed to play with his ‘friends’ – no doubt they’ll enjoy some peace and quiet. It’s his whinging. About everything. And always.

And the hypocrisy.

He’s got the hide to complain about lobbyists – not just in this instance but in all instances. Be it gambling or anything else he doesn’t like – such as ‘fossil fuels’ (used to make rugby balls, just saying).

If you can stand Pocock’s peacocking, go to his Instagram feed. It’s relentless. Let’s start with his campaign against lobbyists.

Yes, Senator, your election had more volunteers than you could allocate jobs to, but what about your donors? Not the little ones, let’s talk about the ones that matter.

In 2022, your biggest donor was Climate 200.

According to disclosures, for that election, the David Pocock party received $1.7 million in donations, both cash and in-kind, from 768 donors.

Of that, Climate 200’s total cash and in-kind contribution to Senator Pocock’s campaign amounted to $856,382 – $648,546 in cash and $207,836 in-kind support.

In the same disclosure in February 2023, Pocock noted some of his achievements. See if you can detect a theme.

“Last year was the start of ramping up Australia’s climate ambition. My team and I negotiated changes to the Climate Change Act to include an assessment of the climate risk in the annual statement on climate change, measures that increase the transparency of the advice given to government, a requirement for public consultation including with the scientific community when the Climate Change Authority is advising the minister on the annual statement on climate change, and a change to the Australian Renewable Energy Act to allow funding of technologies that will reduce emissions such as electric vehicle chargers.”

So Climate 200, which created and fed Pocock, and the Teals (but the Teals are certainly not a party, and how dare you think such things!), got a lot for its money, especially its public face and convenor, Simon Holmes à Court, who happens to be a major investor in wind farms and solar.

It should also be noted that Pocock is a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Clean Investment (guess what their goal is …)

The following two biggest donors to Pocock were Boundless Earth ($50,000), a charity founded by tech billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes, and financial trader Rob Keldoulis ($224,000).

Cannon-Brookes is a massive investor in renewables and renewable technology, and Keldoulis runs VivCourt, a share trading company.

Both were also major backers of Climate 200 in the 2022 election cycle (Boundless Earth, $1,115,000; and Kledoulis $1,102,000). Does that mean Pocock was double-dipping?

It must also be noted that for the 2025 campaign, the disclosures of which have yet to be made public, Pocock distanced himself from Climate 200. Truth be told, he has no need for them now, being able to run on his record – and the fact that the Liberals were vanquished meant he could stand on his own two feet as a true ‘independent’.

However, his advocacy for ‘climate action’ continues to align (and therefore benefit) the backers of Climate 200. It was a wise investment.

Is it all that different from what the gambling and mining companies do with eeeeevil lobbying, and sponsorship of a football comp? Except they have to convince politicians of their case. In contrast, Climate 200 gets people elected who are already on board. They’ve just cut out the middlemen – the lobbyists. But the result is the same.

It looks like a distinction without a difference.

READ ALSO Minister and eCommissioner laying down the law with social media giants as under-16s ban approaches

When Pocock was kicked out of the footy club, he took to social media.

“Being kicked out of the club for raising concerns around gambling lobbyists buying access to the club shows the influence vested interests have here in parliament and just how normalised this has become.”

Those vested interests are forking out money to ensure they have access and, presumably, can get what they want. Do you think that might be why Pocock could trouser so much money from renewable energy billionaires?

He went on.

“It’s no wonder we haven’t seen the action to end gambling advertising the majority of Australians are desperate to see when gambling lobbyists are calling the shots in Canberra.”

Let’s rephrase that: It’s no wonder we continue forking out non-stop renewable energy subsidies that increase energy costs when renewable energy lobbyists (and billionaire donors) are calling the shots in Canberra.

And who are the most effective lobbyists for the Climate 200 billionaires?

Well, they’d be the people Pocock stands with at almost every press conference – the Teals. And, of course, Pocock himself.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

46
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Yeah, nah. I stopped reading this after the first 2 paragraphs. The argument about ‘how difficult it is to get a child into Rugby’ is pretty pissweak.

What are you talking about? Kids sport is hugely expensive. As a volunteer I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen families having to pick and choose which of their kids can play and which have to miss out because they simply can’t afford it.

Well off politicians don’t need to be funded by the gambling lobby.

Murtach having a problem seeing the wood because of the trees.

Unfortunately, the Australian Government is very much beholden to special interest groups and donors, only got to see they reluctance to make multinational companies pay tax. Australia is not a democracy it has become a corporatocracy

We need to send more sensible independents to parliament, it’s the only way to take the power away from the vest interests.

“We” ? Have you recently joined Team Australia ?

“We” refers to sensible people obviously, Penfold. You should know that…oh wait.

Given your views are the rusted, uncritical, regurgitation of those of the billionaire class you’re hardly representative of team Australia, mate.

An amazing confounding of a politician working for the “common good” and politicians working for a handful of “the wealthy elite” who will promote any cause, no matter it’s social harm, if it turns them a dirty dollar.

Must admit I had to Google “TINSTAAFL”. At first I thought Pocock had helped Canberra get an Aussie Rules team, oops.

Speaking of sanctimony and hypocrisy amongst political donors though, isn’t that climate-hugging Cannon-Brookes bloke the one who just bought a CO2-gouging private jet ?

“According to reports, the aircraft emits 90kg of CO2 per passenger per hour. Based on that average of 450 flight hours and an average of four passengers per flight, the jet emits 162,000kg of CO2 a year. The average Australian’ annual carbon footprint is around 6,000kg of CO2 per year.

https://www.realestate.com.au/news/inside-australian-billionaire-mike-cannonbrookes-new-houselike-120m-private-jet/

The logical fallacy Penfold attempts to use here is the Red Herring fallacy.

” intentionally or unintentionally introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the original issue”…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

The likely reason for this, beside the usual attention seeking, is that Pocock is doing a good job, is widely liked as a result and the Canberra Liberals are unlikely to get that Senate seat back in immediate future.

It’s hard not to enjoy the schadenfreude….

It’s far simpler than that. If you read the article you’d learn Cannon-Brooks is mentioned.

I suggest you read the wiki page on Red_herring or look in a mirror.

Leon Arundell2:25 pm 16 Oct 25

Have I been selling my services too cheaply?
I didn’t get any sponsorship money for arguing for electric buses and bus rapid transit.
The Conservation Council ‘rewarded’ me by expelling me from its transport working group. It then fabricated allegations against me in an application for a court order to prohibit me from entering its office and from contacting its board.
The court dismissed the Council’s application.
The board of the “ethical and transparent” Council won’t let me back into its transport working group, and refuses to say what decisions it made about me.

Heather Raymond2:23 pm 16 Oct 25

You only made one good point in this article – that politicians should be paying their own way: this issue does not pass the “pub test”. However, comparing harmful gambling and associated lobbyists who are not declared in a transparent way to the public with those trying to get climate change policies in place which is beneficial to society is beyond laughable.

Comedic up there with John Clarke!! Absolutely brilliant to contrast a dangerous guy who fights for worthy causes and against policies that destroy lives, versus honest guys who seek to promote incredibly harmful, but immensely profitable products that destroy lives! I haven’t had such a laugh since the good old Clarke & Dawe days!

Merlin Johnson12:03 pm 16 Oct 25

I find it interesting that people take a different view to greedy property developers, as opposed to greedy renewable energy developers. They are all out to make a dollar, many of them at any cost. Pocock may have good intentions (hence his popularity), but his naivety is something to behold. About time this was called out.

Heather Raymond2:33 pm 16 Oct 25

I’d rather support someone making a living from manufacturing products that meet government/societal objectives than the destructive gambling leaches who provide nothing. How can you possibly say they are equivalent? What, you expect them to be a charity? People will always try to make a profit out of something, so that’s why it is up to government to decide what is beneficial to society and regulate accordingly. If property developers are “greedy” and get away with stuff it is government’s fault since it should be controlling what get’s approved or not.

lol maybe there’s an obvious difference between taking money from a cause you already believe in (pocock + climate 200) and selling your attention to the highest bidder (e.g. gambling lobby) 😂 also, there’s another obvious difference between “climate lobbyists” pocock and teals and gambling/coal/etc lobbyists – both get a say on our country’s future but only one has been democratically elected…wtf is the thought process behind this article n where r the editorial standards?!

Replace Pocock with Reece Walsh. At least Reece is comfortable being a show pony

David – good job calling out the hypocrisy. Pocock is hardly alone in his double-standards but the virtue signalling and smugness is something to behold.

Here’s a simple solution – no politician should take any funds from anyone involved in the renewables industry. Building developers are banned from political donations in some states, the same should be extended to the climate lobby, themselves developers.

Chris Bowen keeps telling us that the Sun doesn’t send a bill and renewables are cheaper. Great – the industry shouldn’t need to buy their way to government support and funding. The economics will take care of things.

And speaking of sanctimony, the Greens wanted to ban political donations from “the fossil fuel industry, property developers, the tobacco industry, the banking industry, liquor and gambling businesses, pharmaceutical companies”. Do those industries ring any bells to Pocock ?

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1357

So Penfold has now decided that he supports banning all forms of government lobbying and payments from groups linked to the fossil fuel industry amongst others.

Interesting.

Chewy14 – No other opinions shall be heard except the sanctimonious

Sorry Futureproof, cant work out whether you’re for or against lobbyists and special interest groups funding parliamentarians?

You may well be sanctimonious but I think everyone can have an opinion, even if it isn’t supported by evidence.

That’s right FP. Groupthink must publish daily talking points and supply lists of those who are approved and otherwise.

Futureproof, are you incapable of mounting an argument for yourself? That may not be surprising given your comment is merely ad hominem.

Perhaps the five syllable word has thrown you Axon, but FPs obvious argument seems to have hit home 🎯

Heather Raymond2:52 pm 16 Oct 25

I agree – ban political donations. Instead give registered political groups grants for communications, etc. so they don’t have to take bribes. Declare all lobby groups/individuals on real time public register.
With regard to your other issue:
If you think there is level playing field across lobbying groups, you need to think again. There are a bunch of harmful industries that have almost endless resources and long cultural history with established “old-boy” political networks. As a result they are able to get exclusive non-disclosed access to elected politicians that actual voters can only dream of and are able to generate high quality, slickly produced propaganda to the masses. Just watch commercial TV for a single evening and you’ll know what I mean.
I’d rather support an industry that is beneficial to society than one that ruins people’s lives!

“That’s right FP. Groupthink must publish daily talking points and supply lists of those who are approved and otherwise.”

Exactly right Penzero, as you are almost exclusively the first one to post the daily Groupthink talking points under each article.

At least you’ve now admitted it, the first step to improvement and growth. Well done.

Heather – some interesting points, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder isn’t it. Pharmaceuticals benefit people’s lives each day, every day. As do fossil fuels, alcohol and some might even argue, gambling. MONA’s David Walsh would probably agree.

As for renewables, well besides the thousands of tonnes of fossil fuels they spew out annually (thanks CR), the Chinese Uyghurs would be unlikely to share your dreamy views of how they benefit society. Nor would many farmers, environmentalists and so on.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-10/renewable-energy-projects-wind-farm-face-opposition-four-corners/103951940

Out of curiosity would you support the nuclear lobby providing political donations to Pocock ?

Penfold, don’t be silly. FP made no argument and you make no point.

In the same way beauty is in the eye of the beholder Axon, the validity of points and arguments is in the eye of the beholder. Or if you like, those trying to understand.

To continue the sports theme, our comments clearly went straight through to the keeper !

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra 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.