Sky News: Political Transparency, Crossbench Influence, and the Battle for Curtin

Interviewer: Joining the panel now is independent member for Curtin, Kate Chaney. Thank you for your time. It's always interesting that in these contests, raising money is key to winning, but members never want to talk about it. How do you think the money battle is going? We do have more transparency from you compared to the Liberals. Are you hearing rumours about how much your opponent is raising?

Kate Chaney: Well, isn't it terrible that it comes down to a conversation about rumours? When I initially ran, we built a website in a week to disclose all donations in real time because I think voters deserve to know where the money is coming from. But because I disclose my donations and my opponent doesn’t, the conversation ends up being about my donors rather than where my opponent's money is coming from and how much there is. We will never actually know who they are. We also will never know how much money is spent in Curtin because of the current lack of transparency.

Interviewer: Let's get to the question we all want answered. Was there any discussion of a hung parliament arrangement with the Prime Minister or any of the independents last night?

Kate Chaney: That wasn’t discussed last night, no.

Interviewer: So neither the independents with him, nor him with any of you or your colleagues, spoke about that possibility?

Kate Chaney: I don't know what anyone else spoke about—I didn’t hear every conversation. But in every job I've had, it’s been important to build good relationships with colleagues. I’m happy to meet with the Prime Minister, and I also met with Peter Dutton last week. The crossbench can work constructively with both sides.

Interviewer: So you met with Peter Dutton as well. What was the flavour of that discussion?

Kate Chaney: We talked about the things we had in common and the things that were more challenging. I told him about the values of the people in my electorate and their priorities, including climate. We also talked pragmatically about where we are now.

Interviewer: Has he been meeting with your other colleagues that you're aware of?

Kate Chaney: I'm not sure.

Interviewer: Is that the first time you'd met him? Some of your colleagues, like Zali Steggall, have said there hadn’t been much outreach from the Liberals, that they’ve been giving people the cold shoulder.

Kate Chaney: I organised that meeting.

Interviewer: You reached out to him?

Kate Chaney: Yes, that’s right. I think it’s important to have good relationships across the whole House. One of the biggest issues we have is a lack of productive working relationships—where you can respect that someone comes from a different position but still find common ground. That’s the kind of mature discussion people expect from their leaders.

Interviewer: It’s clear what the PM is thinking here, though, isn’t it? He’s preparing for a possible minority government and wants good relationships with the crossbench.

Kate Chaney: Sure. Any sensible leader would want to build relationships with people they think they can work constructively with. That’s just mature. In any other workplace, you don’t refuse to speak to people—you work together. It’s a healthy and normal approach.

Interviewer: You’re in for a real fight, aren’t you?

Kate Chaney: I’m sure I am.

Interviewer: In this campaign?

Kate Chaney: Yes, I’m sure it will be very close, just like last time.

Interviewer: It looks like your opponent is getting a lot of volunteers.

Kate Chaney: I don’t know. I’ll just keep doing things the way I believe politics should be done—with a positive campaign focused on a vision for the future and holding both sides to account.

Interviewer: Do you still have strong volunteer support?

Kate Chaney: Very fired up, very enthusiastic. It’s exciting to see more public engagement in the political process than ever before. Before the last election, people in Curtin hadn’t really seen corflutes or political T-shirts. It’s a positive thing for democracy that more people feel like they can have a say and be involved.

Interviewer: You have more voluntary transparency than others, but donors can still choose whether to be identified. Are you considering changing that? There are quite a few anonymous donors on independent sites because they have to agree to be named. Isn’t the point that you shouldn’t get to self-identify?

Kate Chaney: The law currently allows that, but we recently changed our website policy and now disclose anything above $1,000.

Interviewer: So that applies going forward, not retroactively?

Kate Chaney: We changed it a few months ago. I can’t recall if there were any anonymous donations before that, but over 90% of my donors and donation money are disclosed. Most people are happy to show their support for political candidates. Some have concerns about repercussions from the government due to other things they’re involved in, but overall, open donations create a much healthier democracy.

Interviewer: We’ll have to leave it there. Kate Chaney, appreciate your time.

Kate Chaney: Great, thanks very much.

Related article: Donations fix damages democracy (5 Feb 2025)