Kate Chaney Challenges Fairness of Labor's Electoral Reform Bill (15 Nov 2024)
Nadia Mitsopoulos: Well, much is being said this morning about major reforms to federal political donations. Under this bill, which Labor will rush into Parliament, donations to individual candidates will be capped at $20,000, and a candidate cannot spend more than $800,000 on an election campaign. Special Minister of State Don Farrell explained why he's bringing these changes in this morning.
Don Farrell: What these changes will do is take big money out of Australian politics. It will strengthen our democracy. The Westminster system has served Australia federally very well for the last 125 years. I want it to continue to work in the interests of Australians, and I think by taking big money out of politics, that's the best way we can improve our politics and our democracy in Australia.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: So will taking big money out of politics improve democracy? Because not everyone is happy. Kate Chaney is an independent member for Curtin. She is, of course, one of the teals. She's not convinced about this and has a few reasons why. Kate Chaney, good morning. What's your main concern?
Kate Chaney: Well, the minister says that this is getting big money out of politics, but actually, it's replacing donor money with taxpayer money, which then embeds the incumbents. Rather than banning big money, the bill guarantees big money to the big parties. I think we need competition in politics. We've seen a declining share of votes for the major parties over the last generation, and now we're getting bipartisan support for changes that effectively get rid of the competition in the future. I think it’s a real concern if we’re making these significant changes to who can get into Parliament, rushed through in the last sitting week of the year.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: Now you talk about the public funding under this legislation. Parties at the moment get $3.50 per vote. Now they would get $5 per vote. So you're saying that this would help the major parties?
Kate Chaney: Well, yes, because it’s based on how many votes you got at the last election. It means the major parties have a reliable source of revenue. Even if they don’t win a seat, they can still make a profit out of it. They can then use that to keep new competitors out. If you're a new competitor, you don’t get any of that public funding. You’ve got a cap of $800,000, which might sound like a lot, but it’s not a level playing field. If you're a challenger, that cap has to cover everything. But if you’re a party incumbent, it doesn’t cover your office, staff, communications, or any advertising about the party rather than the individual. So it’s not fair, and it locks the two major parties in for the long term.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: Your argument is that a sitting MP already has the infrastructure that a candidate trying to get in doesn’t.
Kate Chaney: That’s right. This legislation is complex, and it’s going to take time to understand it. But it looks like the $800,000 cap doesn’t include party advertising. So if you’re saying, “Vote for the Liberals” or “Vote for Labor,” that can be over and above the $800,000. But for an individual, it’s within the $800,000. That’s not fair between a new challenger and someone in a party.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: You could also argue that someone like Clive Palmer, who had a bottomless pit of money, gave his candidates an unfair advantage. Climate 200 has also provided substantial funding for the teals. You can make the argument that those with money have an advantage.
Kate Chaney: I think it’s appropriate to have caps so no individual can have a disproportionate effect on our democracy. That should apply equally to donations. But we’re talking about spending, not donations. If 500 people each give me $2,000, why shouldn’t I be able to spend that? That’s very different from one individual spending $100 million.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: So rather than having the flat rate for everybody, whether it’s what you receive or what you spend, you wanted it on a percentage basis?
Kate Chaney: Yes, that’s one way of doing it. Or it could be a flat rate. I have less of a problem with donation caps. It’s the spending cap that’s the big issue because it’s not a level playing field. It’s much easier to get elected if you’re in a big party or already hold the seat than if you’re a new challenger. We don’t let Coles and Woolies make the laws about supermarket competition, but we’ve got Labor and Liberal making the laws about political competition.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: Is the better system to be completely publicly funded?
Kate Chaney: The problem is that public funding is based on how many votes you got at the last election. That allows big parties to build up a war chest. They might spend nothing in a seat but still get 10,000 votes, which means they can harvest $50,000 and use that in a contestable seat somewhere else. It’s not fair. And if it’s all funded by taxpayers, it creates an extra barrier for new challengers. They have to go out and find money because they don’t get access to any of that public funding.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: Kate Chaney, can I ask how much you spent on your last campaign?
Kate Chaney: About $1.2 million in total. About half of that came from Climate 200 and the rest from other donors. I only had a couple of donors over $20,000.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: What was your biggest donation?
Kate Chaney: Climate 200 contributed about $400,000 or $500,000 from 13,000 donors. My biggest individual donation was about $25,000 or $27,000.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: Some would say $400,000 to $500,000 is big money.
Kate Chaney: That came from 13,000 people across the country who weren’t happy with the major parties and wanted change. I think that’s fine. Whether they donated directly to me or through Climate 200 doesn’t matter as much as ensuring there’s a level playing field. The spending cap is the real issue. We need to make sure campaigns allow voters to have choices.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: Finally, under this system, do you think you would have been elected?
Kate Chaney: I don’t know. Probably not. If the rules were different, maybe we would have campaigned differently. But regardless of whether you think it’s good that I got elected, most people agree it’s important to have choices in elections. This legislation undermines that. We’re heading back to only having the major parties because they have the machinery and public funding from previous elections. New challengers will be locked out. We need competition in politics.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: I’ll leave it there. Good to talk to you.
Kate Chaney: Thanks, Nadia.
Nadia Mitsopoulos: That was Kate Chaney, independent MP for Curtin, on ABC Radio Perth, WA.
Related article: Push to 'clean up' political donations (20 Mar 2024)
