How do you be part of changing our country for the better?
In the shifting currents of Australian democracy, independent senator David Pocock has signaled that the old model of solitary independence may no longer be adequate to the pressures of the moment. Speaking on a Sunday morning as One Nation's influence grows on the political right, Pocock left open the possibility of independents coalescing into a formal party — a move that would mark a quiet but consequential realignment in how Australians outside the major parties seek power. His remarks, woven together with calls for deliberate tax reform and fairer returns on natural resources, suggest a politician taking stock of what representation truly requires.
- One Nation's rising poll numbers are forcing independent politicians to ask whether standing alone is still a viable strategy against a resurgent populist right.
- Pocock stopped short of committing to a formal party but refused to close the door, creating real uncertainty about the future shape of the Senate crossbench.
- The Albanese government's push to pass capital gains tax reforms within six weeks is drawing sharp resistance, with Pocock warning that rushed legislation consistently produces worse outcomes for ordinary Australians.
- A call for Senate inquiry into business investment tax changes signals that the crossbench intends to slow the legislative clock and force genuine public deliberation.
- Pocock's argument that Australians pay more for their own gas than foreign buyers do crystallizes a broader frustration: the country's wealth in resources, minerals, and emerging industries is not yet flowing back to the people who own it.
David Pocock appeared on television Sunday morning and said something that would have seemed improbable not long ago: that independents might need to form their own party. Asked directly whether such a move was necessary to counter One Nation's growing influence on the right, the ACT senator didn't dismiss the idea. He spoke about the need to elect people willing to address the root causes of Australia's problems — causes he believes the major parties have consistently failed to confront. He said he'd like to see independent candidates running in every electorate at the next election, backed by community support, though whether he himself would join a formal structure remained an open question he acknowledged but didn't answer.
Pocock also pushed back hard against the government's timeline on capital gains tax reform. The Albanese government wants the changes passed within six weeks; Pocock called that pace reckless. He described a troubling pattern of legislation being rushed through parliament without proper deliberation, and argued that slower, messier processes produce better laws because lawmakers actually hear from the people affected. He called for a Senate inquiry into the business investment tax changes, describing them as too complicated for hasty treatment.
On the specifics, Pocock argued the tech sector deserves carve-outs designed to keep promising Australian startups from being acquired and relocated to the United States. He also returned to a long-standing concern: Australia is among the world's largest gas exporters, yet domestic manufacturers pay more for Australian gas than Japan does. The same logic, he argued, should apply to critical minerals and AI infrastructure — resources belonging to Australians should generate returns that benefit Australians. The conversation left the impression of a politician quietly reassessing whether the traditional independent model is still equal to the moment.
David Pocock sat down with a television host on Sunday morning to talk about the future of independent politics in Australia, and what he said suggested the country's political landscape might be shifting in ways the major parties haven't fully reckoned with yet. The independent senator from the Australian Capital Territory was asked directly whether independents should form their own party to counter the rising influence of One Nation on the political right. He didn't dismiss the idea. "I'm always happy to chat about the future of our country," he said, leaving the door open to a possibility that would have seemed unlikely just years ago.
Pocock's openness to party formation reflects a broader frustration with how Australian politics operates. He spoke about the need to elect people willing to address root causes of the problems facing the country—problems he suggested the major parties have failed to tackle. At the next election, he said he'd like to see independent candidates running in every electorate with community support. The question of whether he himself might eventually join a formal party structure remained unanswered, though he acknowledged it was "a big question in the current political climate as an independent." For now, he said his focus is on serving people in the ACT and using whatever power he holds in the Senate to work on their behalf.
Beyond the question of party structure, Pocock used his television appearance to push back against the government's legislative timeline on capital gains tax reform. The Albanese government wants to pass changes to the CGT discount for businesses within six weeks, but Pocock argued that pace was reckless. He pointed to a troubling pattern in parliament where legislation gets "rammed through" without proper deliberation. When parliament takes time to get things right, he said, the process may be messier but the outcome is better because lawmakers actually hear from Australians affected by the changes. He called for a Senate inquiry into the business investment tax changes, describing them as "very complicated" and requiring genuine engagement with the details.
On the question of whether certain industries should be carved out from the new rules, Pocock was clear: the tech sector deserves special treatment. He wants policy designed to encourage startups to begin in Australia and, critically, to stay there as they grow. He noted that too many Australian companies with good ideas get acquired and moved to the United States. For other small businesses, he said the question needed broader consultation, but the principle was sound—policy should incentivize people to take risks and build enterprises that solve major challenges.
Pocock also used the interview to revisit his long-standing argument about natural resource exports. Australia is one of the world's largest gas exporters, he noted, yet manufacturers here pay more for Australian gas than Japan does when buying the same product. The country needs a fair return on gas exports, he argued, and should be thinking the same way about other emerging industries—critical minerals, artificial intelligence data centres. He didn't propose a specific solution, but the principle was clear: resources that belong to Australians should generate returns that benefit Australians. When asked if he was thinking of a government ownership model like Norway's, he sidestepped the specifics but held to the underlying logic. The conversation suggested that as One Nation's polling numbers climb and voters express frustration with the major parties, independents like Pocock are beginning to think seriously about whether the traditional model of independent representation is sufficient to meet the moment.
Notable Quotes
There's plenty of conversations going on all the time. I think there's so many people in politics for the right reasons and when you're in there, you want to say, well, how do we actually ensure that people can elect people that are going to come here and really deal with the root causes of the problems that we're facing, because we haven't seen that.— David Pocock, independent senator for the ACT
We've seen this worrying trend in politics where things are just rammed through parliament rather than actually taking the time to get it right.— David Pocock, on the government's timeline for capital gains tax changes
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Pocock think independents forming a party would actually help counter One Nation, rather than just splitting the vote further?
He didn't quite say it would help—he said he's open to conversations about it. The real issue he's naming is that people are angry about root causes not being addressed. One Nation is rising because voters feel unheard. If independents could organize around actual solutions rather than just protest, that might matter.
But wouldn't a formal party structure contradict everything independents stand for—the whole point is they're not bound by party discipline.
That's the tension he's sitting with. He kept saying "who knows" about his own future. I think he's recognizing that individual independents, however principled, might not have enough collective power to shift policy the way a coordinated group could.
On the CGT changes—is he actually going to block the government's legislation, or is this just positioning?
He's not saying he'll block it. He's saying slow down and do it properly. That's different. He's asking for a Senate inquiry, which would delay things but also give the government a chance to make a better case. He seems genuinely interested in the policy working, not in scoring political points.
Why does he care so much about keeping tech startups in Australia? That seems like a narrow issue.
It's not narrow to him. He sees it as a symptom of a bigger problem—Australia extracts resources and talent but doesn't capture the value. Gas, minerals, ideas. He wants policy that makes Australia a place where good things stay and grow, not just pass through.
Does he sound like someone who might actually run for prime minister one day?
No. He sounds like someone trying to figure out how to be useful within the constraints he's chosen. That's almost more interesting than ambition.