ABC Radio Drive: Mandatory Sentencing, Nature Positve Laws and Government Accountability (6 Feb 2025)

Gary Adshead: Now my next guest is the independent member, of course, for Curtin here in Western Australia, Kate Chaney. I think she's waiting to catch a plane, so hopefully I haven't kept her waiting too long. And she joins us now. Thanks very much for your time, Kate.

Kate Chaney: It's a pleasure to be here, Gary, and I've got plenty of time.

Gary Adshead: Okay. Hey, just quickly, if you don't mind. Obviously, what you heard there—me talking to the senator about in relation to whether a prime minister should be briefed about something as serious as a caravan with explosives in it—what do you think about that? Do you find it a bit weird that the PM won't say?

Kate Chaney: Oh, I think it turns it into an issue where it might not actually have to be an issue. Certainly, I think all politicians—it would be great if they could just give straight answers a bit more often. But I think what people really want to know is that we have systems that keep people safe and that appropriate law enforcement professionals can take the action they need to when they need to. That seems to me like the bigger issue rather than the particular timing of someone receiving a bit of information. Obviously, the Prime Minister can't do everything and does have to rely on other people playing their roles too. So I think it ends up being blown up, but it'd be nice if he could just give us a straight answer.

Gary Adshead: Now, were you surprised when the government changed its tune and decided to go down the path of minimum mandatory sentencing in and around hate crimes?

Kate Chaney: I was surprised, and I was disappointed. The Law Council of Australia and the Australian Law Reform Commission all say minimum mandatory sentences are a bad idea. I think the government has been scared to look weak and is caving on matters of principle, putting politics first.

Gary Adshead: But from the public's point of view, is it not important to make sure that the judiciary understands exactly what would be expected—to put out deterrents and to send a message to people who might be responsible for the sort of things that we've been watching unfold in the last few weeks with anti-Semitism?

Kate Chaney: Absolutely. But we need to let judges do their job too. It's pretty normal to put maximum sentences on, but then we trust judges to decide sentences based on all the circumstances. There should be strong penalties for these crimes, but when we put minimum sentences on, it doesn't work as a deterrent. There's no evidence to show that it actually is a better deterrent. It means that you can't look at all the circumstances, and it can turn people into hardened criminals if they end up going into jail for longer than is appropriate, given the circumstances of that particular situation. So I think these are pretty important principles.

Gary Adshead: Can I ask you, though, under the idea and the whole architecture around mandatory sentencing—wasn't it meant to promote consistency? If someone else were to be sentenced, it absolutely sends out a message that the conduct of people is denounced wholeheartedly by mandatory sentencing.

Kate Chaney: Yeah, but I think looking at the circumstances is pretty important. In-depth research that the Law Council refers to demonstrates that when members of the public are fully informed about the particular circumstances of the case and the offender, 90% actually view judges’ sentences as appropriate. It's easy when you read a headline to make up your mind about what the punishment should be, but we trust judges to take their time, look at all the circumstances, and understand them. It's a fundamental principle of our legal system. People have pretty good trust in our legal system, and we need to protect that and not undermine trust in our judges and criminal justice system by insisting that parliamentarians in advance know better than judges do when they actually look at what happened.

Gary Adshead: So you're not concerned that you might be seen as someone who's soft on anti-Semitism?

Kate Chaney: No doubt that's how it will be pitched. I absolutely think there should be strong penalties for anti-Semitism and hate crimes, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. I don’t pretend to know all the circumstances of every crime in advance, and I trust judges will make appropriate decisions, as they always have in our legal system. That's what they're there for.

Gary Adshead: Can I just throw one at you as well? You would have heard me talk to the senator about the decision to ban DeepSeek off government phones. Are you comfortable with that? We seem to be banning a few things as soon as there's a Chinese attachment to it. What do you think of it?

Kate Chaney: Well, I think we've got a real challenge regulating social media and digital platforms as fast as they evolve. We're really behind the eight ball, so I'm pretty comfortable with it being banned. I think governments and parliament are going to have to get a whole lot better at understanding what's happening and responding nimbly as things continue to evolve. I certainly don't have it on my phone and don’t plan to put it on either.

Gary Adshead: All right. And just something that I know you're passionate about—another week of Parliament, probably. Maybe more? Is there more than one week, actually, or have they decided yet?

Kate Chaney: No, there's a lot of speculation.

Gary Adshead: Yeah.

Kate Chaney: That's one week, or we could be back in March for a budget.

Gary Adshead: Your gambling reforms—have you tried to get the government interested? Any sign they will bring in bans on advertising for online gambling?

Kate Chaney: No, they haven't been. The Greens this week said that they'd be prepared to support a compromise position, but the government hasn't responded to that. So at this stage, it doesn't look like there's going to be any legislation passed on gambling reform in this parliament. I'd be really pleased to be wrong about that.

Gary Adshead: One of the reasons I ask is to lead into this ‘nature positive’ legislation. It’s got such a lovely title, but you've seen the Prime Minister twice now run away from the idea of nature positive legislation. You believe it needs to be revisited, and if it were a hung parliament, you’d certainly use your ability on the crossbench to get it up and running. Should people in your electorate be concerned about these nature positive laws?

Kate Chaney: The thing that gets me about this is the Samuel review, which was done at the request of the previous government. That came back and said our nature protection laws are both cumbersome for business and also don’t protect nature—they need to be fixed. That was the start of this work. Most people want to see nature being protected. We also need processes that are quick so that proponents of projects get a quick and right answer. I support getting that reform done both in the interests of business and better protection for nature. I’m disappointed that it just ends up being all about who will win or lose votes in which seats at the next election. Some things need to be done in the long-term interests of the country, irrespective of what effect it might have in a few months at the ballot box.

Gary Adshead: Yeah.

Kate Chaney: We’ve got to make some tough decisions and do the things that are good for our kids and our grandkids.

Gary Adshead: You’ve heard the Premier of Western Australia say it will be very damaging for the mining and resources sector and for our economy. There are people in your electorate who probably work in those areas. Who’s right and wrong?

Kate Chaney: I think it's a really alarmist approach, much more connected to the fossil fuel lobby. Possibly, the resources lobby is getting alarmist about it. I think we can come up with a framework that is both better for business and better for nature—one that provides greater certainty and protects the right things. A lot of people I speak to feel really sad that Australia is leading the way in extinctions. We have amazing natural resources that are very fragile. We need to exploit renewables and critical minerals to help decarbonise, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater and wreck our beautiful natural environment at the same time.

Gary Adshead: Alright. I appreciate you taking the call and being there just before boarding to come back to Western Australia. Appreciate it. Thanks for that, Kate.

Kate Chaney: Thanks, Gary. See you.

Related article: Antisemitic graffiti in Dalkeith (2 Feb 2025)