Independents united this week on a number of issues, including a renewed push for electoral reform. Proposed legislation includes the introduction of real-time disclosure for any political donation over $1,000.

"Let's go live to independent member for Curtin, Kate Chaney. Kate, thanks for your time. What did you think of Minister Don Farrell's comments, where he had a bit of a dig at the teal independents, saying that you were happy to put a lid on donations and funding as long as it's not your own money? What did you think of that?"

"Well, it really made no sense to me, Karen, because we're proposing a set of rules that apply to everyone the same. So, I don't think anyone should be able to put more than, you know, we're saying at the moment, $1.5 million into the political system. And that applies whether you're donating directly to a candidate, spending it on your own campaign, or going through an intermediary body. So, I didn't really understand where that was coming from. “

The other point, though, to make here, I guess, is that Independents do need some dollars with which to try and boost a profile when you're coming from a standing start, as opposed to the major parties. There, it's not an equal playing field in that sense."

"That's exactly right. And that's why we've proposed a cap model that we think could stand up to constitutional challenge. Obviously, it is really hard to get a campaign up and running, and it does cost money. Caps on spending have the potential impact of reducing political competition, which is why we've gone with more of a donation cap model. I understand that people think there's too much money in politics. We've got to be really careful that if we push for electoral law reform, it doesn't have the effect of actually locking in the two-party system and preventing any future competition.”

Indeed, because that would preclude those that might get community donations, $10 at a time or whatever else. As you're trying to deal with the likes of Clive Palmer, I guess, who tried to buy seats in the Parliament by spending so much. But really, the interesting thing is that that fell flat. Is there a limit to how much money is actually productive in a political sense before it backfires?

"Yeah, I think money isn't everything in politics, but it is something. So, yes, Clive Palmer may not have achieved a lot of seats out of that, but he probably did have an impact on the election. And I don't think anyone in Australia thinks that it's fair that someone could spend $100 million on politics and potentially shift the outcome. So, it's definitely an issue that we need to deal with, and we just have to find the right balance there. The reason the crossbench has put this bill forward is we really want to see some change on this before the next election. We don't want to see the can kicked down the road on things like transparency, so people can actually know who's supporting their candidates before they vote.”

So, that's real-time disclosures on donations and that sort of thing. The other point that I know you and your colleagues have been making is the truth in advertising component. Is that also a pivotal part of this reform in your mind? And what else is of concern to you?

"Yeah, I mean, transparency and truth are the main things behind this bill that we've put forward. People should know who's sponsoring their candidates before they vote so they can take that into account in making a decision. But they also should have the right to not be lied to in political ads. Now, it's hard to regulate truth in political advertising, but it's not impossible. South Australia did it 20 years ago, and it's been working well there. So, I think this is another thing that's really important before the next election, especially when we see all this misinformation and disinformation in democracies around the world. We have the ability to do something about this, and we need to get that started now so that we can have something in place at the next election."

Can I ask you something away from electoral reform? On the economy, we saw that job number yesterday. The unemployment number was a lot lower than the markets and economists had expected. It's created concerns, albeit good news to see the unemployment rate down, but the RBA might have second thoughts now in terms of a timeline for cutting interest rates. And I'm sure many in Curtin, like right around the country, are hoping that they cut rates sooner rather than later.

"Absolutely. And as you say, that employment data is really good news if you're someone who's looking for a job. We want people to be in jobs, but it does bring into question how quickly rates can be dropped because inflation also has a huge impact on cost of living, and that's the delicate balance we have to find. So, you know, as always, we've got to find that balance going forward. Take the good news and be wary of what that might mean in terms of the speed of reducing interest rates.”

Kate Chaney, member for Curtin, appreciate it, talk with you soon.

"Thanks Keiran.”