All right, well, as we mentioned earlier, the government is making progress towards an overhaul of electoral laws, with an emphasis on caps on the amount of money candidates can receive and spend. Anthony Albanese has confirmed this is on track, subject to further consultations with a wide cross-section in the Parliament. "We are consulting very broadly, including with members and representatives of the crossbench and the minor parties, as well as across the major parties, to see if reform, as proposed by the minister, Minister Farrell, can receive very broad support. One of the objectives that we have here is to land reform that stays, not reform that comes and then goes with changes of government. My view has been very clear that there needs to be transparency when it comes to political donations. There needs to be a stop, to give just one example, of the sort of largesse that we saw from Clive Palmer during the last two election campaigns. I don't think it is tenable at all to have the sort of dollars washing around the system, such as occurs in the United States. I think that is unhealthy, I think it undermines our democracy, and though I make no apologies for the fact that we will engage, as I have engaged with the Member for Curtin and other crossbenchers at meetings that have been held about these issues, I'll continue to do so. Senator Farrell, as the minister, will continue to make himself available to see if we can indeed entrench greater support for our democracy."

You're sensing, from the Prime Minister's answer there, that the government is a little exasperated that some crossbenchers are publicly touting alternatives at a time when it's trying to consult them on electoral reform. The Teals are mostly against capping spending on campaigns, WA independent Kate Chaney is proposing a different form of control, though she joined us here in the studio a little earlier.

Kate Chaney, welcome back to the studio. Now, all indications are that the government is drawing closer with each day to a bill to update or overhaul electoral laws, even if they don't kick in until after the next election. That looks like being the proposal. We've spoken before on this program about donation caps and spending caps. You only support one of those, donation caps. What is your proposal?

"Well, I've tried really hard to come up with a model of caps that is fair because I know people think that there's too much money in politics. It's really hard to do so. The benefit of this Mega Donor or major donor cap is that it's really simple. No individual can donate more than 2% of all the public funding that was contributed in the last election. Now, that works out to be about $1.5 million for the next election. And you've done some calculations on the number of individuals, using the example of the last election, who would not have been able to donate in the levels they did."

"That's right. So, last in the last election, if this had applied, it would have affected four donors only, out of 735. But it actually would have more than halved the amount of money that was being put into the election through private donors. So, it has a disproportionate impact but doesn't create a huge regulatory or compliance burden for a whole lot of people."

"You use the word 'individual.' So, exactly who does it capture? Only individuals? What of other entities, that is, fundraising organizations? The Liberal Party has a few of those, of course, the trade unions and the like. Are they captured?"

"So, it has a look-through provision. Ultimately, it goes to an individual or company, but if they are donating through some fundraising mechanism, it goes back to the original. So, whether you make a donation through the Liberal Party's Cormack Foundation or through Advance Australia, or through a Climate 200 type model, it goes to the individual making the donation rather than the vehicle that you make it through."

"Okay, so just to pick up on a point you already raised. I think, in aggregate terms, the total spend on electioneering, under your proposal compared to what was experienced in 2022, it halves it, does it?"

"Yeah, that's right. So, it would change it from, in the last election, $200 million to about $80 million. So, significant impact because we have these individuals making huge donations that have the potential to actually change the outcome of an election, and I think no one really thinks that's how we should be running our elections."

"All right. So, as I mentioned near the beginning, the Electoral Committee, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, actually proposed a two-prong approach: caps on spending and on donations. What's your position or latest position on spending? Why is that so objectionable?"

"Well, as I've said all the way through, spending caps sound great, but the devil is in the detail, and they can really have the impact of preventing political