Greg Jennett: Now formal briefings could begin as soon as next week on a significant overhaul of electoral laws to improve transparency over donations and to limit the total amount that can be donated. This, of course, has been the product of very lengthy negotiations led by Special Minister of State Don Farrell. Some further insights into specifics are emerging this afternoon, so we want to go to Perth now. Independent MP Kate Chaney has been engaged on these laws for as long as Senator Farrell, I guess if not longer. Kate, welcome back to the programme. General question first of all, as some snippets start to emerge from this package, have you been briefed or in any way otherwise gleaned where the government's got to?

Kate Chaney: I've been engaging with the Special Minister of State on this for really a couple of years now, certainly in the last year, and had a number of meetings during that time and shared my views and some of the reforms that were in my Fair and Transparent Elections Bill that David Pocock and I introduced at the same time in February. So I continue to have those constructive meetings and I understand that nothing's really finalised just yet.

Greg Jennett: As they say in negotiations, nothing's agreed until everything's agreed. But from what we can tell that's being reported by the ABC and other media, the very contentious matter of spending caps, or contentious in your view anyway, Kate, we've spoken about this before on the programme, the suggestion is that it could be set on a seat-by-seat basis and capped at or around $1 million. How would that sit with you?

Kate Chaney: Well, it's really hard to come up with a cap model that's fair. At a fundamental level, if 10,000 people gave $100 each, why should you not be allowed to spend that money? That feels like democracy. So I tried to come up with a cap model, but it's just so complicated because the parties have these advantages and incumbents have advantages and you just don't end up with a level playing field. So the devil will be in the detail, but there are all sorts of ways that parties can get around these caps, like paying for statewide TV ads out of unwinnable seats or senators spending money in seats that benefit MPs as well. So I don't know what the government thinks it can do to address all of these complexities, but it's going to be very, very hard to navigate. I will be really looking at it through a lens of, does this create a level playing field for new challengers?

Greg Jennett: And on those figures, you don't think it, or based on what you're saying here, you don't think it would pass that test?

Kate Chaney: Well, it depends on the structure. When I started as a new challenger, we needed an office, I needed a team, and we had to set up all of those things as well as then getting the message out there. And these are the advantages that the parties have. They have headquarters, they have a photocopier, and people in place. So I'm open to ideas on it, I'm open to seeing what the government comes up with, but I personally could not find a model that actually ended up being fair on new challengers.

Greg Jennett: That's always, I know, been the most contentious with you. Other elements, you may not find them as confronting. A cap on how much each donor might be able to give, apart from an aggregate cap in each seat. Would you be open to a number on that?

Kate Chaney: We've seen the impact of caps in New South Wales and Victoria, and it does seem that the impact they've had is that it's made it very difficult for new challengers to get up and get started. So I'll look at those numbers and I'll look at what the government's proposing, but again, there are some real challenges with making that fair and also a high risk of it being challenged under the Constitution as being in breach of an implied right to freedom of political communication.

Greg Jennett: Yeah, so the government would need to step very, very carefully there. And, you know, I think it's a challenging space to work in, even though I share people's concern about there being too much money in politics. I think there are ways that we can reduce its influence. Transparency is a really good start, that means we can make informed decisions about who we're voting for.

Greg Jennett: We don't have any new information to hand about where Senator Farrell might land on truth in advertising. I know that's a related and in some people's minds separate body of work. We'll see if he incorporates that. I know you've been strong on that too. But finally, on transparency, that is, real-time posting of donations, it looks like they might land a threshold above $1,000 and would be near to real time, not literally real time. How does that threshold look?

Kate Chaney: Well, that would be great. I think that would be a huge improvement on what we've got now, where you don't find out anything until months and months after the election. The thing that's disappointing to me is that I would like to see this in place before the next election so that when people are voting at the next election, they know who's funding the people they're voting for. It looks like because it's been left this late, it won't be in place until after that election, but I'd love to see that transparency happen as soon as possible.

Greg Jennett: Yeah, I think that is a feature of this afternoon's reporting by the ABC and the nine papers that it wouldn't cut in until after the next election. I wonder what that tells us about the government's calculations on when the election might be.

Kate Chaney: Yeah, I don't know. I think my understanding is the AEC has concerns about getting the systems in place in time, and we absolutely need that system to be robust. But at the same time, I built a website in a week that disclosed every donation in real time automatically and disclosed even a $10 donation in my campaign. It's not rocket science, and I think that increasing the expectation in this election would be really important, even if we don't have the systems to fully support that until down the track.

Greg Jennett: All right, so you'll be on standby for a briefing or the phone ready to take one when you return to Canberra next week then, I guess.

Kate Chaney: Absolutely, always willing to engage with the government constructively. I think electoral reform is really important, people want to see it. But if we see the two parties doing a deal together to build a wall of public funding to stop new challengers from getting in there, I think there'll be a very strong public reaction. And it does sound like there might be an increase in public funding, which is another real risk there.

Greg Jennett: Yes, that is another element we haven't got any fresh insights on. We'll let the audience in on a secret here. You took our call quite late in the piece today, Kate Chaney. We really appreciate it as always when you can join us, so thanks so much for that and we'll see you in Canberra before too long.

Kate Chaney: Thanks, Greg.