Sky News Interview on Electoral Reform re Donations (15 Nov 2024)
Interviewer: Spending on federal election campaigns could be capped as the Albanese government seeks to rush through new donation laws. The overhaul is designed to limit the impact of wealthy donors like Clive Palmer from bankrolling campaigns. Political donations would be limited to $20,000 per candidate each year. Candidates would also face spending caps likely set around $800,000 each and $90 million in total. The government has been working behind the scenes to secure Coalition support in a bid to bypass minor parties and independents.
Don Farrell: This is designed to take big money out of Australian politics. We're not targeting individuals; we're targeting the system that allows an uncapped amount of money to be spent on elections.
Interviewer: Independent MPs are unhappy, accusing the two major parties of doing a deal to protect their own interests.
David Pocock: A third of Australians voted for candidates other than the two major parties, and what we’re seeing is the major parties trying to entrench incumbency, to stitch it up so that we have this system of two parties when Australians are increasingly saying, "Hey, we want a different way. We want a third alternative."
Interviewer: Joining us with more on this is the independent member for Curtin, Kate Chaney. Kate, appreciate your time. Thank you. Just expand for us on those comments about entrenching incumbency. How do you expect these changes would impact independent candidates in particular who are trying to win a seat in Parliament?
Kate Chaney: I recognise that we absolutely need better transparency, and we probably need a donation cap so individuals can’t have too much impact on politics. But once you get into a spending cap, it’s very complicated, and it’s not a level playing field. It means that the parties and incumbents have an advantage. They’ve got an office, staff, and a communications budget. For a new challenger, they don’t have any of those things. Under this framework, ads that advertise the party rather than the individual are not included in that cap, so that’s not fair. Public funding also embeds the two major parties because it’s based on how many votes you got at the last election. We’re asking taxpayers to pay more for political campaigns. Rather than actually getting big money out of politics, this bill is guaranteeing big money to the parties.
Interviewer: Clearly outlined there when it comes to the spending caps. What about donation caps? Donations would be limited to $20,000 per candidate each year. What sort of level of contributions would you see as appropriate?
Kate Chaney: I think we can have a discussion about what that number should be, but it’s not the biggest issue in the bill. Personally, I think $20,000 is probably pretty reasonable. Others may have different views on that. It’s the spending caps that are the problem. If lots of people in your community want to give you money to run a campaign, why shouldn’t you be able to spend that money? If we dealt with transparency and a donation cap, then I don’t think we need the spending cap or more public funding. We don’t need taxpayers paying more for political campaigns.
Interviewer: In his announcement today, Special Minister of State Don Farrell said this would strengthen democracy. He said, "The Australian electoral system should not work on the basis that the only people who can be elected into Parliament are people sponsored by billionaires." Isn’t that fair enough? Isn’t there cause for concern when candidates are essentially indebted to wealthy individuals?
Kate Chaney: Absolutely, and transparency and donation caps would fix that. What he’s not saying is that the way he thinks it should work is that the only people who can be elected into Parliament are the major parties. We’re seeing declining support for the major parties, and instead of providing better leadership, they want to change the rules to prevent future competition. I think Australian voters deserve better than that.
Interviewer: When it comes to major donors, there is a real concern about the impact they have on individual members of Parliament once they are elected. Regarding your own situation, you received Climate 200 donations at the last election via Simon Holmes à Court. How much contact do you have with someone like Mr. Holmes à Court during your term in government? Do you communicate with him regularly?
Kate Chaney: Very little, certainly not on policy issues. Climate 200 had 13,000 donors, and Simon Holmes à Court contributed about 2% of that money but seems to get a lot of credit and is seen as a sort of puppet master. We don’t have discussions on policy issues. I accept Climate 200’s support for campaigning because there’s such an uneven playing field, and it’s very difficult to fight the big party system. Voters and communities want more than just a choice between two parties, and it would be a shame to see this legislation rushed through without the scrutiny it deserves when we’re fundamentally changing who gets to be in Parliament.
Interviewer: Would you welcome Climate 200 formalising itself as a political party to access the sorts of benefits the major parties get?
Kate Chaney: I have no idea what Climate 200’s plans are or if they want to be a political party. It doesn’t have anything to do with me. What I’m interested in is ensuring competition continues to be possible in politics. I’m now an incumbent and have some of those advantages, but for communities who want to be represented differently, they will be locked out if we see this change. Major parties will just get taxpayer money and make a profit in electorates where they don’t spend money but still get votes. They’ll take that profit and use it in contestable electorates to outspend new challengers, and I don’t think that’s fair.
Interviewer: These reforms wouldn’t kick in until after the next federal election. Your main competition in Curtin, Liberal Tom White, is reportedly doing well on the fundraising front. How worried are you about your ability to hold on to a traditionally blue-ribbon seat?
Kate Chaney: We’re seeing the Liberal Party trying to win back seats like mine with money, not policy. But it takes more than money. It’s about volunteers and community support. You can’t just write a check and buy an election. Clive Palmer spent $100 million and got very little for it. That said, we’ll never know how much money my opponent is spending right now because there’s zero transparency. I put every donation on my website in real time, and I think every politician should have to do that.
Interviewer: Independent MP Kate Chaney, thank you for joining us.
Kate Chaney: Thanks for having me.
