A conservative lobby group has accused ACT senator David Pocock of trying to "weaponise the bureaucracy and the police" over complaints he made about "robocalls".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This comes as the Australian Electoral Commission revealed only two of 900 electoral breach investigations from the last year were referred to the Australian Federal Police - and they both concern Advance Australia.
Senator David Pocock has blasted the Australian Electoral Commission over its verdict that two calls made by the group, which has been linked to former ACT Liberal senator Zed Seselja who lost his seat to Senator Pocock, did not breach electoral laws.
Another Canberran has disputed the commission's claim that these calls, which called Senator Pocock a climate extremist, were only made to subscribers.
Electoral commissioner Tom Rogers and Senator Pocock had a fiery exchange at a recent inquiry, with the pair vehemently disagreeing on whether the controversial calls were authorised.
Now Advance Australia has accused Senator Pocock of abusing his power as a politician.
Executive director Matthew Sheahan said:
"Having already been embarrassed by the AEC ruling against him, so called independent senator David Pocock is now misusing his position in the Senate in an attempt to weaponise the bureaucracy and the police against his political opponents.
"This is wrong, stupid and dangerous.
"Australians will see through Senator Pocock's attempt to Americanise our democracy with woke corporate money and attacks on the impartiality of election officials."
One in 450 investigations referred to AFP
Senator Pocock's complaints about the calls, which he claimed were unauthorised, are two of 900 the commission said it investigated in the last year.
Of those complaints, the AEC found 716 did not breach electoral laws, while 182 resulted in warnings.
Of these, the commission's 2021-22 annual report said it took further action on 20 matters.
The two cases referred to the AFP regarded Advance Australia corflutes depicting Senator Pocock and Warringah independent MP Zali Steggall wearing Greens shirts.
The commission called these the "more serious matter" of being allegedly misleading or deceptive.
Advance Australia said the AFP had not contacted it regarding the signs.
The 182 breaches that resulted in warnings were authorisation breaches.
However, Mr Rogers and the commission have repeatedly called the "robocall" allegations a "minor technical breach".
It is understood the commission considers many authorisation breaches result from ignorance of the law.
It responds by educating the group or person responsible about correct authorisation.
The calls Pocock complained about
Mr Pocock complained to the commission about two separate calls, made in the days leading up to the last election.
In the first, a female calls Mr Pocock an "extreme Green activist".
The commission says that as Advance Australia claimed this call was only made to subscribers, it did not breach any electoral laws.
Drew McKinnie said he and his wife received this "push-poll call" despite not being subscribed to Advance.
"We were receiving quite a few phone push-poll calls, many of them on our landline, and a couple of them on our mobiles," he said.
"We're politically aware people, and politically engaged. We're not members of any party and certainly hadn't subscribed to [anyone]. And they were quite annoying, and basically, we just hung up on the buggers.
"I have no idea how they got a number."
READ MORE:
On November 7, Mr Rogers told a Senate inquiry the commission was looking into Advance Australia's claim about subscribers regarding this first call.
"In fact, we're looking at that right now, based on that issue of whether or not it did go to a subscriber list or not. So we are examining that to see what comes as a result," Mr Rogers told a Senate estimates inquiry.
Mr Rogers said this call "had a form of authorisation".
"As I understand it, both of those messages, the two, one was the survey and whatever the other one said, both had a form of authorisation in any case," Mr Rogers said.
Mr Pocock replied: "There is zero authorisation."
On Thursday, the commission said the investigation into this call had concluded, and it was found it did not breach any electoral laws.
"If further information regarding either of the telephone communications from Advance Australia comes to light then we will consider that matter further," a commission spokesperson said.
A call on election eve
Advance Australia made a different automatic call, in the form of a survey, to Canberrans on the night before the election.
The call accused The Canberra Times of bias and called Mr Pocock a "climate extremist".
"The Canberra Times has encouraged Canberrans to vote for independents like climate extremist David Pocock in the Senate," the call said.
"The Canberra Times has written countless articles in support of Labor, the Greens and climate extremist candidate David Pocock."
When asked, the electoral commission said calls only reached Advance Australia "subscribers", who had opted-in to communications.
This masthead then reported that staff members, who had not subscribed to Advance Australia, had received this second call.
Days later, the commission said this call did not contain electoral matter.
When asked to define the term, an AEC spokesperson said:
"Electoral matter is matter that is communicated or intended to be communicated, for the dominant purpose of influencing the way electors vote in a federal election."
Mr Pocock insisted the call was intended to influence the outcome of the election, which was the next day.
Last week, the commission said the investigation into this second call was ongoing.
"It is worth noting that any breach of authorisation requirements by the second call would be technical, as the call did identify that it originated from Advance Australia," an AEC spokesperson said.
In a recording of the second call, it ends with: "This call is authorised by Matthew Sheehan from Advance Australia, Kingston, Canberra."
- The AEC said anyone who had evidence about breaches of electoral rules should fill out the AEC's online complaint form.
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.