Electoral Reform Debate: Kate Chaney Warns of Major Party Advantages (15 Nov 2024)
Patricia Karvelas: Labour's electoral reform laws are set to be introduced to federal parliament next week, with a $20,000 cap on individual donations and candidates limited to a maximum $800,000 spend on an election campaign. Now Labor argues the change will remove the big money from politics, curbing the influence of wealthy people like billionaire Clive Palmer. The government is confident it has the support of the opposition and will look to introduce the legislation next week upon Parliament's return. Kate Chaney is an independent member for Curtin in WA. We've heard from a couple of independents. They're not particularly overwhelmed with joy about these changes. Kate Chaney, welcome.
Kate Chaney: Well hi, Patricia. Good morning.
PK: Isn't it fair to limit the amount of money that very rich people can put into individual campaigns?
Kate Chaney: Absolutely. It can be, and it should be. And I would like to see the really big money out of politics too. But this is a really complicated area, and the government has sprung on us now both donation caps and spending caps. The devil is in the detail. I’m really worried that what we'll see is a package of reforms that locks in the two-party system and prevents any future competitors from challenging them.
PK: Explain how. I've looked at the detail. I want you to explain to me where specifically you think that can happen, because Murray Watt argues, I did cross-examine him on that, he says no, everyone's treated the same.
Kate Chaney: Well, for a start, this is a huge bill and a huge change. The government is proposing to get it through Parliament in the next few weeks. It's left it to the very last minute in this term. I think this deserves proper scrutiny with a parliamentary committee and giving the public the opportunity to have a look at it, comment, and allow experts to get into the detail. We need to know exactly how we're changing our electoral system before we make these big changes. That's my main concern. I’m open to electoral reform. But the big challenge is the major parties have a lot of advantages and incumbents have advantages. When you put the same cap on everyone, it doesn’t take into account factors like national ad spend, rolled-over funding from the previous election—which is now being increased to $5 per vote—and existing party infrastructure like offices, printers, computers, and teams. Incumbents also have a communications budget. All these factors make a straight cap very difficult to implement fairly.
PK: So what it sounds like to me is that this gives incumbents an advantage. That's what you're arguing, because that means you have an advantage as a current incumbent, right?
Kate Chaney: In some ways I do, that’s right. But there are a whole lot of party advantages as well as incumbent advantages. I identified these early on in the interim report when I sat on the electoral matters committee. There are about 13 different advantages either by being in a party or being an incumbent. For example, the party cap is $90 million, while the individual cap is $800,000 per seat. But a party could do a lot of advertising saying just "Liberal" or "Labor" rather than mentioning a specific candidate, and that doesn’t count toward the cap. These factors embed party advantages. The public should be very suspicious of this secret deal between the major parties without exposure legislation and at the very last minute of this term, especially given the long-term decline in support for major parties.
PK: You want to see a Senate committee. The government looks like—and we don’t know, as Murray Watt wouldn’t answer that question—but it seems they want this passed by the end of the year. You’re saying it should go to a committee that doesn’t report by the end of the year?
Kate Chaney: I would have loved to see this done a year ago or 18 months ago. I put legislation on the table that the crossbench supported in both houses. The government could have passed it, addressing genuine transparency, reducing financial influence, and levelling the playing field. Instead, they’ve left it to the last minute and done a secret deal with the Liberal Party. If that doesn’t warrant suspicion and require transparency, I don’t know what does.
PK: Can you talk to me about the consultation? Because again, when I asked Murray Watt—he’s not the minister leading this but is across the detail—he said there has been consultation. Do you feel like you’ve been consulted?
Kate Chaney: I’ve had meetings with the minister and presented my two bills that could have passed Parliament, but there’s been very little consultation in the other direction. I was given a copy of the bill yesterday afternoon—it’s 224 pages with a 180-page explanatory memorandum. There’s been very little discussion of the detail. The approach feels like, “We’ll work it out with the Liberal Party and let you know afterward.” For a third of Australians who cast their primary vote not for a major party, this process lacks the scrutiny and access it deserves.
PK: You benefit from donations from Climate 200. Practically, how will it affect you?
Kate Chaney: I don’t know. I haven’t been through the detail on that. In some ways, it affects new challengers more than it affects me. My concern is ensuring political competition remains possible. Just as we don’t let Coles and Woolies make laws about supermarket competition, we shouldn’t let ALP and Liberal make laws about political competition. The public should have access to the process, and it should be possible to run against major parties and have a chance at winning. My concern is that this package, if rushed, will make that impossible.
PK: What do you make of the extra public money going into campaigns? Is that positive? Taxpayers might not be overwhelmed with joy about that either.
Kate Chaney: No, I don’t think it is positive. We want to reduce the influence of big donors, but replacing donor funding with taxpayer money locks in the two-party system. Taxpayer funding is based on votes from the last election, favouring incumbents. Major parties won’t need to fundraise, but independents or new challengers will. That’s an extra hurdle. It’s also worrying if there’s no truth-in-advertising framework, yet taxpayers are paying more to politicians to run campaigns.
PK: A really important piece of legislation that deserves scrutiny. Kate Chaney, thank you for joining us.
Kate Chaney: Thanks, Patricia.
PK: Kate Chaney is the independent member for Curtin in Western Australia.
