I’m running again (9 Mar 2024)
Kate Chaney will stand again for the seat of Curtin at next year's federal election. "I have had a lot of questions about running so I thought it best to make it clear," Ms Chaney told the POST. "It feels like there is unfinished business. "It doesn't mean I'm starting campaigning with the state and federal elections so close next year I think people will be sick to death of it."
The Liberal Party's state council confirmed Tom White last Saturday as its candidate to challenge Ms Chaney for the seat that covers the western suburbs (Clear run for Churchlands, POST, March 2). Ms Chaney, was elected by a narrow margin and with the help of 900 volunteers as an independent for the previously safe Liberal seat in 2022.
The next election needs to be held before May next year. In an interview this week, Ms Chaney rejected the notion that independents are ineffective. And with federal opposition leader Peter Dutton in town, she did not hold back on her opinion of his tactics. She also gave the POST a frank view of her time in the job so far.
Curtin MP Kate Chaney has rejected criticism that independent members of parliament are ineffective. "The [independent] crossbench has shaped the national discussion in this term," she said after confirming she would run again for the federal seat.
After 21 months in parliament, she is no longer so polite about opposition leader Peter Dutton, who she said was bringing to Australia US-style politics of anger, fear and division. She said she had much better access to and influence on government ministers than an ordinary backbencher and was not hogtied by party policy. "We're not constrained by party promises or political positions," she said. "The status quo suits the political parties quite well. "This job is not my whole life. If I don't win the next election, I'll go and do something else. "It means I can afford to be a bit courageous about the things that we're willing to talk about and put on the table, and not 'shy away from the tough stuff."
What tough stuff? the POST asked:
Peter Dutton: If Opposition members stray too far from the views of Peter Dutton, they're not allowed to express those views. They can't even vote the way they want to vote. We haven't seen any actual policy coming out of the opposition other than just blocking things. The [independent] crossbench is in a position to make incremental improvements to things. At the very least, I can vote in a way that's consistent with the values of my electorate.
The opposition seems to have very little interest in improving legislation. Its, you know, its job seems to be oppositional.
Dunkley by-election: The voices of moderates were clearly being ignored. It seems me that the Liberal Party did not learn any lessons from what happened in 2022.
Under Peter Dutton's leadership, it seems to be about fear and anger and division, with very little focus on creating a positive vision for the country. This US-style campaigning is a simplification of everything into culture wars and false dichotomies. And I don't think that's in the interests of the country. Everything is being driven by outrage all the time.
I think actually people genuinely want calm, considered leaders who are open minded, willing to look at both sides and not entirely driven by tribal motivations. I've been asked to speak at a number of international events about the community independent movement in Australia, because democracy all over the world is at risk from polarisation and vested interests in the big parties.
Access to politicians: The level of engagement in Curtin is very different to what we've seen before. It's amazing: I estimate I've had contact with 10,000 constituents. At its very basic level, my job is to vote in accordance with the interests of the community and the country. influencing the national debate, keeping issues on the agenda and holding both sides to account.
Restoring trust: "My restoring trust Bill, I think, has helped shape the conversation on transparency and financial influence. I have been in a position to draw attention to the potential conflict of interest between the government receiving political donations and creating reform that, for example, the gambling companies don't like, and kept the pressure on.
Gambling advertising: I think there's broad community support for banning online gambling ads. We know that the government in eight months met with gambling companies, TV stations, sports codes, who also stand to gain, and have met with gambling reform advocates as well in that time.
Tax reform: There are certain words that are taboo in tax reform, but we need to actually put everything on the table. At some point we need to talk about GST, capital gains tax, negative gearing, because we're relying too much on personal income tax, with a declining proportion of the population as it ages.
Housing: It's very hard to see how you'll ever own your own home, unless you've got the Bank of Mum and Dad to fall back on. When I bought my first house, the average house was four times the average income. It's now double that and we've taken 20 years to get ourselves into this situation. The really difficult thing is to address that affordability change. We probably need flat housing prices for nearly 20 years, but no one is going to put up policies that deliver that.
Immigration: Australia's growth has always been built on immigration. But if we're not taking immigration into account when we're setting housing policy, then of course, we'll end up in in trouble. I'd like to see immigration targets, for example, that are then fed into housing strategies or approaches nationally rather than them existing in different silos.
Nuclear power: I think this is an excuse to kick the [clean power] can down the road. There are no commercially viable small nuclear reactors, although this is a rapidly changing space. So it's a pipe dream; it feels like it's entirely driven by culture war rather than economic common sense.
Related article: Chaney to seek re-election (8 Mar 2024)
