ABC Breakfast - 'This is politics': Independent Kate Chaney on Labor, Coalition's housing plans (15 Apr 2025)
Interviewer 1:
With you this morning, you probably hear the waves from a beautiful Cottesloe Beach, which is in the federal electorate of Curtin, held by independent MP Kate Chaney, who joins us now in our studio. Welcome. Thank you so much for—
Kate Chaney:
Coming in so early. It's great to be here in this beautiful studio. Yeah, it's lucky it's not windy.
Interviewer 2:
Well, we did have the side blowing a little bit yesterday, but it's nice and still for us this morning.
Interviewer 1:
It's part of the beauty of broadcasting from the road. We've been hearing a lot about housing, and we know that housing in Perth is a big issue. It's very expensive. What have you made of the offerings from the major parties so far? Is it an auction to try to buy votes?
Kate Chaney:
I'm with the economists on this one—this is politics, not economics, from both sides. Universally, we're hearing this will throw more fuel on the fire, which is exactly what we don't need in Australia. Housing comes up all the time when I'm out door-knocking, even from people who own their houses. They're really worried about their kids and grandkids in the next generation. What I'd like to see is more long-term thinking and a little bit of boldness when it comes to the supply side, rather than always using the demand side.
Interviewer 2:
What does boldness mean in terms of the tax reform that's needed? David Pocock says there needs to be a reform on negative gearing, and the Greens agree. Do you think that needs to be looked at in the next term?
Kate Chaney:
I think it has to be on the table. I've developed a housing policy with the community that has 15 ideas in it. One of those is reviewing capital gains tax and negative gearing, and it has pretty broad support. I think it's ridiculous that something like that should be taboo and we can't even talk about it. There are ways it could be reformed that protect people who have made decisions in the past. You could limit it, but it's clearly not doing what it's supposed to do. When you're seeing the Coalition instead adding tax deductibility for interest payments, surely we need to put that on the table and look at it.
Interviewer 1:
It feels like the ghosts of Bill Shorten's loss from 2019 hang over this debate. Nobody wants to go near those two big tax levers. Do you think the community has become more sophisticated about this debate, given how house prices have moved? Could a major party now say, “Hey, we're going to curtail the capital gains tax rebate. We're also going to wind back negative gearing”? Do you think they'd survive, or would they still face a huge backlash?
Kate Chaney:
I think we have to have that discussion. More and more people are deeply frustrated with the fact that both major parties are entirely focused on how to win votes at the next election, and not thinking about the long-term reforms we need. We've been in gridlock for the last 15 years on economic reform—neither side has any guts. Economic management comes up again and again when I'm talking to people. People are smarter than that, and they realise that circumstances change and we need to use all the levers. But both parties are prisoners to the decisions they've made in the past, and we need to go beyond that and actually be bold. This is an issue that affects a whole generation of people who are stuck and don’t see any prospect of owning a home in the future. That’s a serious conversation where we need to put everything on the table.
Government should be building more social and affordable housing—like they did last time we had a housing crisis after the Second World War. We need to look at zoning and planning. Of course, the federal government needs to work with the state government, but people are sick of hearing, “Well, that’s their problem.” They just want governments to get together and solve the problem.
Interviewer 2:
You're part of what's known as the teal movement. What can you point to that you've achieved in the last Parliament? Your opponent, Tom White, the Liberal candidate, says it's really only members of a government who can get things done for their electorate.
Kate Chaney:
You’ll hear that, but I think if the member of the team isn’t influencing the direction the team's going in, then what's the point? I think the reason voters went with independents is that they didn’t feel they were being represented. We've had a huge impact on the national conversation, as well as being able to work with government on amendments—changing and improving legislation.
Having people in Parliament who are there to improve the laws, not because they're thinking about becoming a minister, means Parliament can actually hold government to account. I'm really proud of some of the work I and my colleagues have done around climate change, on economic policy and on a range of different issues where we've moved things forward and allowed people to have these discussions, rather than the two major parties burying them.
Interviewer 1:
It’s a tricky question for any independent, but if there is a minority government—and maybe the polls suggest it’s more likely to be a Labor government again—do you have a party in your mind that you'd pick? Or do you wait until you see the full results and then decide who you'll back to form government?
Kate Chaney:
If I had a party in my mind, I would have joined that party. The whole point of being independent is that I don’t fit into a party. I look at all the factors, like the number of seats each party has, but I’d also be willing to listen to both sides on what they're willing to do to bring in long-term thinking and break this ridiculous situation where everything is about winning votes at the next election.
Interviewer 1:
Would it be a policy-by-policy situation, or would you support either Labor or the Coalition?
Kate Chaney:
I would absolutely protect my right to vote independently on every piece of legislation. The only discussion I would have is if my support was needed for supply and confidence. I believe in stable government, and I think there will be enough sensible people on the crossbench that we’ll come up with an arrangement that provides stable government but also pulls whoever’s in government toward longer-term thinking. I’d vote on each piece of legislation on its merits so the government has to convince the majority of Parliament that it’s a good law. That’s what Parliament is meant to do.
Interviewer 2:
Well, Kate Chaney, it's good to be in your patch. It's a very beautiful area. We can’t wait till the sun comes up.
Kate Chaney:
It is beautiful and it’s a gorgeous day. So, welcome to Curtin.
Interviewer 1:
It is tricky with the time difference. Thank you so much, Kate.
Related article: Curtin Housing Policy
