Jamie Burnett: Kate Chaney, the federal member for Curtin, with me today.
Jamie Burnett: Good to see you. Good afternoon.
Kate Chaney: Thanks very much for having me, Jamie.
Jamie Burnett: How’s life as an independent?
Kate Chaney: Oh, look, I have to say it’s easier this term than it was last term.
Jamie Burnett: Is it?
Kate Chaney: Last term it was like drinking from a fire hose the whole time, whereas this time, you know, a little bit more experience, understand what tools I’ve got, how I can use them for greater impact. So, you know, it still really feels worth doing.
Jamie Burnett: Yeah, okay. Drinking from a fire hose. I like that. It’s a good analogy. Suddenly I’m thirsty. Was it overwhelming to begin with? I mean, you grew up in politics, but it sounds like there’s still some surprises there for you.
Kate Chaney: Yeah. I mean, I didn’t really grow up in politics. I had an uncle who left politics when I left high school. So I grew up with the idea of politics in my family, but I hadn’t really seen it up close.
So it was pretty overwhelming. I’d changed careers a number of times before, so I was used to being in a field, learning how it works and getting used to it. But doing that on the public stage brought a new element of stress to it. But it felt really inspiring from day one to be involved. And I appreciated some of the absurdity of how our system works, but also some of the more precious things about democracy. It’s slow and messy, but it’s better than the alternative. So it really has felt like a real honour to be able to be part of that.
Jamie Burnett: So what do you see as the role of an independent in a federal parliament?
Kate Chaney: Well, I think a big part of it is saying the stuff that neither major party is actually willing to say out loud. And I mean, one example of that would be on tax reform and capital gains tax and negative gearing. When I first started talking about that in the last term, lots of people said, “Oh, you can’t talk about it. It’s political suicide.” But there are issues that we need to deal with that are bigger than winning the next election. And someone has to actually look at those long-term issues.
If you’re in a major party, you have to be loyal to the team above all else and prioritise winning the next election and your team winning. I’ve had a career before politics. It’s not the entire definition of who I am. I’m there to really try and drag both parties to longer-term thinking, to think about what the country needs and think about making the laws better, no matter who’s actually in government at the time.
Jamie Burnett: Okay. So on negative gearing and capital gains, some might find it strange to hear that the member for Curtin is raising those as issues. When you have done that, how’s that reflected when you go back to your community, which I imagine would be some of the greatest benefactors of that legislation?
Kate Chaney: Well, that’s true. But one of the things, I’ve held a couple of community events in person and online and done surveys about this too. The thing that I hear from people is that they’re really concerned, even if they are property investors, they’re concerned about their kids and their grandkids and living in a country where you can actually expect to grow up and work hard and eventually be able to afford to buy a house.
Now, in 2000, when I bought my first house with my husband, the average house was four times the average income. Now it’s nine times. And so I think even people who are property investors look at that and say, “Gee, the odds are stacked against younger Australians.” And we don’t want to live in a country where it depends on the wealth your parents have, whether you can afford a place to live in. We want hard work to be rewarded and for that opportunity to be available for everyone.
So I’ve done surveys in various different forms and always see majority support, like 80% plus support from the people who’ve answered those surveys in my community for reforming capital gains tax and negative gearing. Now, different ideas of how to do that, but lots of people recognise that the combination of those two in the last 25 years has really stacked it against younger people.
Jamie Burnett: Is that because they’ve had a lick of the ice cream there, though? They’ve had the benefit of it, and then if something like that is changed, and particularly if it’s grandfathered, it’s almost another hit to that next generation coming through who don’t get the advantage of something like that.
Kate Chaney: I think you can’t get the advantage of that if you can’t actually get on the property ladder. So I think it’s less about that and more about people thinking about what kind of country they want to live in. I knock on doors and people say, “Well, I’m fine, I’ve got this place, but I’m worried about my kids because they can’t afford to buy anywhere unless I give them the money for it.”
Jamie Burnett: Sure.
Kate Chaney: So I think that intergenerational equity does actually speak to older people as well because it’s about who we are as a country.
Jamie Burnett: Funnily, I’ve asked this question a few times of people sitting where you are. Maybe it tells us something, that alone. But is WA becoming a place of haves?
Kate Chaney: Well, I think WA and Australia are a bit, really, but also lots of other of our equivalent countries globally. And democracy needs to be able to deliver on creating opportunity for people. Otherwise, you see the rise of autocracies.
And I think if you look at what’s happening in the US at the moment, a lot of that comes down to people feeling like the system doesn’t work for them and decisions are made in the interests of the rich and powerful and their interests are forgotten. So it’s really important that we make sure that you do get a fair go if you live in Australia, no matter where you come from.
Jamie Burnett: Is there another world where you would have been a member of the Liberal Party?
Kate Chaney: Yeah, maybe. I mean, I had no interest in politics, really, and didn’t ever expect to be there. It looked like a pretty ugly game. I didn’t feel like I fit perfectly in any political party and thought that was it.
But then when I was approached by this community group, I cared a lot about different issues, even though I couldn’t see myself in the political world. And I realised that there were lots of other people who cared about the same issues as me.
When I was first asked to run, I said, “Thanks very much for asking. Good luck finding someone. I’ll be really supportive and I hope you find someone better.” Then they ended up saying, “Well, you know, we think it should be you.” And I thought, well, you regret the things you don’t do more than the things you do. And I do care, really care about democracy and making sure that we do rebuild that trust and that people do feel represented. So that felt like it was worth doing.
Jamie Burnett: You know, it might seem like covering old ground, but I think it’s interesting when you look at the state of play at the moment, particularly with the two major parties and particularly with what we’re seeing with the Liberal Party and maybe a crisis to a degree of identity. You know, on one side, there are people like you and Teals, and then on the other side, we’re seeing a growing One Nation vote as well. What do you think the impact of that will be? Do you think that we will continue to see maybe more of a rise of independents and those smaller parties and a move away from the majors?
Kate Chaney: I can’t see anything that would indicate that trend will change. One of the things that surprised me most about going into politics is realising how much it’s about power without purpose. You know, the point is winning rather than the point is to make the laws better and make the country better, with the winning being on the way there.
So, I think the Liberal Party is really trying to work out who they are at the moment. And unless there’s progress on that front, I think you will see people saying, “I don’t feel represented here.”
And I think, certainly what I hear from people in my community is they love the fact that I’m actually accountable to them, not to the boss of a party somewhere. I have to explain my voting position on every vote to my community and explain why I made that decision and actually own that decision as well. You can’t hide behind someone having told you to vote a particular way. And I think people like that.
It goes back to the fundamental principles of representative democracy, that we are meant to be there representing our community. That’s what the parliament’s meant to do. And instead, we have people there representing parties.
Jamie Burnett: So what tools do you have then, I suppose, for that change to go through? Because at the end of the day, it’s you. There are others, I suppose, who are in your space as well. We look at those other Teal members. But what is it that you can offer to see some change in those areas that you care about? Is it anything more than leverage?
Kate Chaney: Well, I think there are lots of different ways to have impact and I really enjoy using those different tools. One is raising issues in Parliament, in the media. You know, the media are a big part of that as well. And also working, being reasonable and working across the Parliament to make the laws better.
So because I’m not trying to necessarily fight anyone, I listen to what’s wrong with the laws and go and meet with the minister, propose amendments. Some of those are accepted. But things like tax reform, getting tax reform on the agenda. In the last parliament, I spoke about the need for tax reform 11 times. Allegra spoke 20 times on that, one of my colleagues. And then there was a long tail down to zero for most people.
And at the time, it felt like, well, when are we ever going to actually talk about tax reform? Yet in this term, it’s become part of the conversation that we start to recognise that there are these structural problems with our tax system.
On gambling ads, I’ve pushed really hard on reform on gambling. And finally, the government has actually put something on the table. Now, I think it could be better, but I’m sure that without the pressure that I’ve put on and other crossbenchers have put on, we would have seen this kicked into the long grass and seen nothing on it at all.
Jamie Burnett: Right. I remember talking to you, I think it was maybe a month or so ago, a couple of months ago, around that. And we had a chat about your views on gambling ad reform. And then we saw the change from the federal government announced, I think it might have been a few days later. So do you look at that as, okay, that’s not far enough, it’s not what I wanted, or do you take that as a win there’s been a level of agitation that’s led to some movement?
Kate Chaney: I think it’s got to be a bit of both. It definitely needs to be better but without our pressure we’d be nowhere. So you’ve got to take those small steps. Tobacco advertising didn’t disappear overnight and it was phased out over time.
And it’s only through that continued public focus and pressure that these changes happen, especially when you’re taking on big, powerful interests. It has to be community creating that pressure and that expectation of government to get any movement on it.
Jamie Burnett: You’ve had big wallets behind you in your campaigns. Do you feel the pressure of that?
Kate Chaney: Well, it’s interesting you say that. I mean, I have donors of all different sizes. I’ve always put every donation on my website in real time so people can go and see exactly where the money’s coming from, unlike anyone else in the parliament, actually. And I think that full transparency is really important so people can make up their own minds.
I’ve said no to donations from people if I think there’s any expectation that comes with it. I’ve made counter offers. Someone said, “I want to give you this much money,” and I said, “Well, how about half of that instead?” Because it’s really important to me that I am true to that community independent model.
Jamie Burnett: There’d be other politicians listening to that wishing they had the same problem.
Kate Chaney: Well, I tell you, it’s a weird conversation to have with someone.
But no, I don’t feel any pressure. I guess what I hope is that I only get donations from people who understand what I stand for and what I’m trying to do and want to back that.
But I think total transparency is the minimum. And I’m glad to see, I mean, I’m not happy with a lot of the electoral reform that was put up by the two major parties in 2024. But one of the good things about it is that we will have greater transparency on political donations, at least above $5,000, although you can still put $4,999 into lots of different vehicles if you’re donating to a major party and hide it.
But that is an improvement. You’ve got to celebrate these improvements because everyone should know exactly where the money is coming from and they can make their own decisions about whether that’s good or bad.
Jamie Burnett: A little bit of compromise across the board. We’re going to come back in just a moment.
Jamie Burnett: Hey, a few texts coming in for you, Kate Chaney. This one here. Should we be taxing the gas industry at higher levels? What are your thoughts?
Kate Chaney: I think yes. And I don’t know exactly what the number is. There’s a campaign around 25%. Most countries get at least a 10% royalty for their gas. Now, under the PRRT, we haven’t had that. And people are starting to get wise to that.
The PRRT was designed for the oil industry, not the gas industry. It has not delivered. So at some stage, sooner rather than later, but I think it’s been ruled out for this budget, we do actually need to restructure the way we tax gas to either fix the PRRT or have a standard royalty rate and possibly a super profits tax as well.
Jamie Burnett: We touched on a couple of things that have been floated when it comes to the federal budget in a week or so’s time. What are you hoping to see?
Kate Chaney: Well, I reckon it’s a really tough time to be writing a budget with the global conflict. And there’ll be pressure for there to be relief around the cost of living issues that that’s creating, but that relief will have to be targeted and temporary.
The things I want to see in the budget are looking beyond the short term to some of the long-term that the government really needs to deal with. Tax reform is a big one of those. We are going to need some spending restraint, with the gross debt on track to reach a trillion dollars, and then targeted spending where it matters and where it’s really going to make a difference.
On tax reform, we need to get less of our revenue from taxing work and more from taxing wealth and housing speculation. We need to fix CGT and negative gearing. I think we’ll see something on that. You mentioned gas tax. I think that’s something they’ve got to fix.
I’d love to see tax brackets indexed so we don’t see our tax bills increasing every year, and instead the government actually has to explain where the money is coming from every time it announces new spending. And neither of the major parties want to index tax brackets.
And then we could also shift some of the tax burden from wages to GST, with some compensation for poorer households.
Jamie Burnett: What’s an increase to the GST?
Kate Chaney: I think that we could do that if it was combined with compensation for lower income earners. And I put up a progressive GST proposal last year that would mean it would only actually have an effect on higher income earners, but on a broader base.
So everyone would get a cash back, some cash to cover the increased GST for basics. But the problem we have is if you don’t have a mortgage and you’re living on savings because you’re wealthy, then when interest rates go up, you earn more and you spend more. So if you’re spending more, I think you should actually be able to bear some more of that tax burden.
Jamie Burnett: Do you think it will be a cruel-to-be-kind budget?
Kate Chaney: I mean, looking at that mix between the short and the long term? Yeah, I mean, we’re certainly hearing some talk about spending restraint, which I think is a good thing. Some things like NDIS, you know, we need to rein that in. There are deep concerns about how that’s going to affect people. But in reality, it has to be sustainable if we want it to last.
Jamie Burnett: So what are you hearing about that? Because, what is it, $50 billion a year for the NDIS? It’s one of the most significant spends the federal government has announced that will be reined in. Is that the right thing to do and are they doing it in the right way?
Kate Chaney: I think it’s the right thing to do.
Jamie Burnett: That is Kate Chaney, member for Curtin.