Crossbenchers are joining forces in Canberra to push for electoral reform, which would see caps on political donations and stop lies being spread in advertising. Independent Kate Chaney has introduced the bill in the House of Representatives, with David Pocock and Greens' Larissa Waters doing the same in the Senate. Kate, where would donations be capped?

"Well, it's really hard to come up with a cap model that doesn't prevent future competition. The model we've put forward is a mega donor cap, which means no one person can donate more than 2% of the public funding that went into the last election. That would be about $1.5 million based on the coming election. So, it's a high cap, but it does actually mean that we're not seeing one person have a disproportionate influence. So, when you consider that Clive Palmer donated $7 million to his own party last year or Anthony Pratt, who gave Labor $1 million, it would affect four donors only but would have more than halved the amount of money that came in through those big donations. It achieves the purpose of preventing one person from having too much influence but still ensures that we can have competition for new political players."

And the reform would ban some donors. Who would be banned?

"We think that there should be a ban on companies making a donation if they are in the business of social harm. An example of this is the Communications Minister took a donation from Sportsbet in the week of the last election of about $19,000. Now, she's then in charge of regulating online gambling, and these are the sorts of donations that we think are not in the public interest. The list of donations is revealed sometimes 18 months later. So, the reforms also want real-time disclosures."

What difference would that make?

"I think everyone should have the right to know who is funding their political candidates before they vote. I disclosed all my donations on my website in real time, so people could look it up and decide if they thought that was a problem. There's no reason that everyone shouldn't have to do that, so that people can actually make a genuine choice about what they think might influence how someone votes or represents their electorate."

There's also a truth in advertising clause. How would that work?

"This is really hard because obviously, there are a lot of things that are opinions. But at the moment, you can't tell lies in business, but there's nothing to stop you from telling bold outright lies in political advertising. So, this would mean that someone like the Australian Electoral Commission would have a role to hold politicians to account if they say things that can be proved to be false."

If the reforms are brought in before the next federal election, how different would the landscape be?

"I think we'll see a change, and I think it will be a good one. People will know who is funding their candidates before they vote, they will have more faith that they're not being told outright lies, and we won't see individuals trying to shift the outcome of the election. That's got to be a good thing for democracy."

Now, supermarket giants have been big donors, but if the Greens get their way, the duopoly will be broken up by divestiture powers, which are being introduced in the Senate. The Nationals are supporting it. Is this an effective way of dismantling unfair market power?

"People are really struggling at the moment, and grocery prices are high. The supermarkets are an easy target, but we've got to be really careful with competition law. There's no doubt we have a problem with market concentration and market power in Australia, but it's got to be done carefully. I don't want to see knee-jerk reactions like divesture powers. We need to wait for the outcome of the inquiries that are happening at the moment and make sure we're doing the right things. That means we've got good competition not just in supermarkets but in other industries like airlines as well."

And power prices now, the energy regulator is forecasting price falls. This is as more renewables supply the market. So, do we need new coal and gas projects that are still being approved?

"We know that the whole world is trying to decarbonize now. We know we need some gas for a while, but it's got to be as little as possible for as short a time as possible. The experts say there is enough gas in existing and planned projects already. We should not be approving new projects. We need to shift our attention to all the great opportunities there are in renewables, so that we have long-term prosperity in a zero-carbon economy."

Alright, Kate Chaney, thank you so much for joining us on Midday. Thanks, Nalda.