Interviewer: We'll start our next interview with the independent member for Curtin, Kate Chaney. Thank you for your time. Can you start with where this is at? We had this strange briefing with Labor that required people to sign NDAs, which seems to be the latest trend. Where do you think this is headed in terms of what Labor will actually do?

Kate Chaney: I would like to think they have not yet made a final decision because the rumored package leaked last week does not go far enough. Ten months ago, a committee I was part of recommended a full ban on all ads for online gambling, along with 30 other recommendations. I really want to see that happen because Australians lose $68 million gambling every day. The delay is concerning, but I hope the government is taking the reaction to last week’s rumors seriously and considering taking it further by showing some courage.

Interviewer: Costello is a big part of this push. He says there should be no partial ban, equating it to smoking, where a complete ban was necessary. He argues you can’t smoke safely, but you can gamble safely. Is that a fair comparison? Many people place bets on the Melbourne Cup or a few dollars on the lottery. Is it a false equivalence?

Kate Chaney: We’re not banning gambling; we’re stopping the promotion of gambling to young people, and, frankly, to everyone. What we’ve seen is that gambling has become normalized as part of sport, which has a significant impact on how young people perceive sports. People with gambling problems told us during the inquiry that it’s really hard to stop when everywhere you look, there are triggers and inducements. I think we need to treat gambling like a public health issue. Other countries have done so, but in Australia, we have a patchy approach to regulating it, and that needs to change.

Interviewer: What about social media? Couldn’t the ads just remain on social media, or could they be banned there as well?

Kate Chaney: The rumored package from last week included a ban on digital ads but not on broadcast TV. This might be because the government is more willing to take on Meta and Google than the commercial broadcast media. However, it’s crucial that any reform package includes digital ads because young people are constantly on their phones. Gambling companies have vast amounts of data on their customers, which they use to maximize revenue by targeting people when they’re most vulnerable.

Interviewer: But even if you ban gambling ads, won’t people just go underground, using VPNs to gamble on unregulated platforms? Isn’t that a concern?

Kate Chaney: Perhaps, but we’re not trying to eradicate gambling entirely; we’re trying to stop it from being insidious and omnipresent due to the overwhelming amount of advertising. There will always be ways to gamble, and that’s not the issue. The concern is how deeply embedded gambling has become in sports and in people’s everyday viewing, especially children’s.

Interviewer: How important is this issue to you? We saw a Newspoll today suggesting a minority Labor government is looking more likely. Would gambling reform be non-negotiable in terms of offering Labor supply and confidence?

Kate Chaney: I hope this will be resolved in the next few weeks. The next election isn’t until May, and a lot can happen between now and then. Right now, this is an opportunity for the government to show some courage and actually do something about this. It’s telling that the crossbench is the one standing up on this issue, giving a voice to the voiceless. There are backbenchers in both major parties who would like to see this reform, but they’ve become voiceless themselves because they can’t speak up.

Interviewer: Do you think electoral reform will be dealt with as well? We heard it might be introduced this week, with changes on donation limits and other reforms Don Farrell has been pursuing. Are you confident this will be done before the election?

Kate Chaney: I’m not confident it will be implemented before the election, but I’m still hopeful we’ll see an electoral reform package. The government committed to transparency before the last election, so people know who’s donating money to their political candidates before they vote. That hasn’t happened yet, and at the very least, it should happen before the next election. Time is running out, but I’m still hopeful we’ll see some reform because trust in our political system needs to be maintained.

Interviewer: The Liberals seem quite bullish when it comes to Curtin. What’s your sense of the mood on the ground in your seat?

Kate Chaney: People in Curtin have appreciated a different way of doing politics. The dissatisfaction with the major parties from the last election hasn’t gone away; nothing has really changed since then. I hold a lot of community events, which are well-attended, showing that people are interested in having a say and having a representative who’s accountable to them, not to a party. I’ll be offering that option at the next election, and people can make their choice.

Interviewer: Are you expecting any donation support from Climate 200 and Simon Holmes à Court?

Kate Chaney: That’s completely up to Climate 200 and their 11,000 donors. I suspect they will support me, and I’d happily accept that support because our values align with those 11,000 people who want to see politics done differently. I have no issue with that.

Interviewer: Would you be open to nuclear power?

Kate Chaney: Absolutely, I’m open to nuclear power. The problem is that the science and economics don’t back it up in Australia. It makes sense in other countries, but here, we have comparative advantages in solar and wind, ample space, and experience with those projects. It just kicks the can down the road. I’m not against it, but if the technology or economics change, it could make sense as part of a broader energy mix.

Interviewer: If renewable projects prove difficult to scale, and we end up with 15-20% gas by 2050, wouldn’t nuclear have been a better option?

Kate Chaney: If we were still thinking about a 20th-century energy mix, then maybe. But the economics have changed so much in the last 10 years, and renewables are now the cheapest option. We don’t have a baseload that doesn’t change; we need to figure out how to use the cheapest energy sources whenever we can and supplement that with something variable. Nuclear doesn’t fit well into that model. From a technological perspective, nuclear doesn’t make sense in the energy mix we’re likely to have by the time we could implement it.

Interviewer: There are still questions about how batteries will perform, but we’ll see. I suspect neither of us will be around by then, but someone will find a solution.

Kate Chaney: I’ll still be here!