The Albanian government’s decision not to go ahead with a total ban on gambling advertising, unanimously recommended by a committee chaired by the late Peta Murphy, is enough to test anyone’s faith in the system. Anti-gambling advocates, crossbenchers, journalistsand previous PM are among those frustrated that a popular, common sense trait has been derailed by self-interest, with not even Murphy walks away enough to force Labor to get a spine.

Curtin MP Kate Chaney has been closer to this process than most, as the only independent on the Social Policy and Justice Standing Committee. But while the committee had been “very positive and very constructive”, Chaney, who won his Perth seat outside the Liberals in the 2022 teal wave, was not surprised when reports emerged that the government was leaning towards a partial ban – something the committee heard. wouldn’t work.

“Disappointed but not surprised,” she tells me, adding that she could see from information obtained through freedom of information requests that the communications minister had met with groups “financially invested in gambling”. The Committee has had little interaction with the Minister; few other members have spoke in favor of the recommendation they approved just over a year ago.

“Looking at the 14 months since then, it’s been a good reminder to me of the real problems with the two-party system,” Chaney says, pointing to the influence of gaming companies, broadcasters and sports codes. “Major parties have a different set of decision-making factors rather than what is best for society … There is an important role for the cross table in holding parties to account.”

It’s a depressing turn of events. But Chaney remains optimistic, suggesting Labor can still respond to community backlash (reporting today suggests that the government postpone the announcement yet again). “Hopefully we’ll get an improvement,” she says, adding that it’s worth celebrating what “wins” they can get.

Some might suggest that the title of Murphy’s report – “If you win some, you lose more” — neatly sums up the past two years for the teal MPs, who have tabled countless amendments and private members’ bills with little or no chance of passage. And yet Chaney has not been deterred from his belief that independents can make changes, with or without a balance of power (although with would obviously be preferred).

“Democracy is slow and messy,” she says when I question how few gains they’ve had. “I think nudging, finding the points that matter and nudging them, has an impact, even if it’s not immediate.” She takes heart from Indian MP Helen Haines’ push for a federal anti-corruption commission. It took years for it to become an election issue, but in the end we got one – albeit not as forcefully as many would have liked.

“People don’t seem to understand – I didn’t before I was in the job – that if you put forward a bill for private members, it won’t be debated, it won’t become law. What’s the point of that anyway? It changes the conversation. That’s the point of it.”

It’s no wonder Chaney’s team teases her for being a “Democrat geek.” Between that and her focus on election reform (Chaney also sits on the Standing Committee on Elections and has introduced two private members’ bills, the latest being her Fair and transparent electoral proposals), the former Anglicare WA director of strategy likes to think “at a systems level” – something she attributes to her 10 years on not-for-profit boards Next 25.

“We’ve built these two machines that are focused on winning elections,” she says. “Where is the machine that focuses on the future of the country? I still believe that Parliament can play that role if it can continue to develop, rather than Parliament being a waiting room for the executive where you sit and wait until it’s your turn and throw some rock in the meantime.”

Chaney will run again in the next election and insists she is not focusing her decisions on winning votes. Some may dispute that. Chaney recently switched sides to oppose Labour’s live sheep export ban, a hot-button issue in WA, for which Kerry Stokes owned Western Australian labeled her “DAG” (Chaney took it in good spirits).

Chaney post a video explained that she had switched sides based on voter feedback. “It’s hard to change my mind, but as a community independent I’ve committed to listening to my community, and that’s what I’ve done,” she told viewers, adding that such a thing is not possible for major party members.

I told Chaney that there is a strong parallel between listening to your constituents and winning votes. She agrees, with the caveat that she needs to do more than just take a poll and vote accordingly.

“I’ve also been elected to use my judgment and to research the issues,” Chaney says, adding that she weighs a range of community opinions, as well as listens to arguments from experts. “There’s no formula for how you weigh up the different things, but it’s a very explicit process that we go through.”

Chaney remains hopeful that the Labor leadership could listen to the feedback and evidence and change its mind about the ban on gambling ads.

“The government could really do with a win at the moment and a strength, and this could be a legacy,” she says. “We could look back and say ‘remember when the Albanian government made history for the gambling ads we did with tobacco?’ I hope the government finds some strength and actually goes ahead with it.”

Can Labor still pull off a total ban on gambling ads? Let us know your thoughts by writing to [email protected]. Please enter your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.