Kate Chaney
Curtin · Independent · Australia
“Digital platforms will have a legal responsibility to prevent harm, but the design of this commitment matters enormously, and I want to flag three things that the government must get right. First, there must be a single overarching duty.”
“The government gave stakeholders representing millions of Australians affected by gambling harm a single 45-minute consultation session on the exposure draft, with written submissions due the next day. Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, who took part in that session, described it afterwards as a charade.”
“A doctor who uses the phone, internet, fax, email or video conferencing to provide lawful VAD care risks prosecution and fines greater than $300,000. This means seriously ill patients must attend every consultation in person, travelling long distances while gravely unwell, often more than once, to make and confirm their request.”
“I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,000 Australians. The petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It calls on this House to amend the Criminal Code Act so that it no longer applies to voluntary assisted dying, VAD.”
“She lived in one half of a single house divided into two separate dwellings. She got on well with the quiet single working man next door. This particular morning she was devastated and in shock. The man had hung himself in the shed where she found him, and left a note listing all the people he owed money to including the amounts.”
“No avenue to call up customer service at these companies and request this person be denied an account. Our nightmare never ends. There's nowhere to help us. The only option presented seems to dissolve the marriage and the family.”
The complete record
Every one of 846 lines we hold for Kate Chaney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 17.
“This is by no means the only legislation that needs to be passed on this topic, but it would plug an immediate hole in the Criminal Code. Context – AI Generally Artificial intelligence has many potential benefits—for much needed productivity, innovation and efficiency, and no doubt benefits that we can't even begin to imagine. Even within the sphere of child safety, AI can enhance monitoring and reporting tools, ease the burden on frontline responders and help to locate child victims faster. But, like any new technology, those benefits are accompanied by new risks. Some of the risks are about exacerbating harms we already understand—about privacy, scams, disinformation and enabling further harm on issues like child sexual exploitation and abuse.”
“I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Overview This is a bill to make it an offence to download child-sexual-abuse-material generators. Right now, it is possible to access and download these sickening technologies from websites, app stores and the dark web. The bill focuses on this particular type of artificial intelligence tool that's designed for the purpose of creating unlimited, on-demand material depicting the sexual abuse or exploitation of children, often tailored to specific preferences. Images can be deleted before detection, and the proliferation of this material makes it harder for law enforcement to identify actual child victims. Possessing a single image is already illegal. But the capacity to infinitely produce, delete, and reproduce abusive images through AI tools represents a new and urgent threat.”
“This is a question for the Minister for Communications. In the last parliament, this government initiated an inquiry into online gambling which resulted, two years ago, in a report containing 31 unanimous recommendations, including phasing out ads for online gambling. The government hasn't even responded to our report, let alone implemented its recommendations. Since the report, countless more lives have been ruined by gambling harm. Our communities want to see change. Will the government commit to implementing these recommendations during this term?”
“I gave evidence to the procedure committee in the last term of parliament on this topic and on the need to increase the level of respect in the chamber, and, as far as I can see, not a lot has happened to develop a positive duty of respect and dignity in the chamber as a result of that evidence. I hope that, if this does go to the procedure committee, they feel empowered to act to lift the standard so that we are actually meeting the expectations of the Australian community in this room.”
“I think there is an expectation that we are able to have civil debate, disagree and have robust discussions on policy matters while treating each other with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect. I would really urge the government to consider making that change to the standing orders so that the new standard of behaviour that we expect outside this room also applies in this room, where Australians actually see us. If that is not done, and if the government refers it to the procedure committee instead, I would really urge the procedure committee to make recommendations about those changes.”
“Everyone I speak to in my community about parliament pretty much has the same feedback. That is: why is the behaviour in parliament so appalling? There is a standard of behaviour that's considered acceptable in this room that would not be acceptable in any boardroom, classroom or even clubroom in the country. This is really unacceptable. We had this 2021 S et the standard report; we now have a behaviour code for Australian parliamentarians. People are horrified when I tell them, 'Oh, yeah, that only applies to behaviour outside the chamber.' The expectation that people are treated with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect doesn't apply when we're actually in the House of Representatives, and I don't think that meets community standards.”
“It's common for both major parties to send out a postal vote application form with an addressed envelope that goes to the party, not the AEC. Then the party records all your personal data before sending the form on to the AEC, and there's no law against this. There should be, and I've put my own up, but neither major party wants to stop harvesting your data. So, this election, remember that attack ads might be lies. I will not do this in my campaign. If you want to vote by post, go straight to the AEC, and don't be tricked into sending your personal data to political parties.”
“With the federal election looming, there are two things I want to warn Australians about—lies and data harvesting. There's no law preventing lies in political ads. This is mind blowing. Businesses can't tell lies; that's called 'misleading and deceptive conduct'. But politicians can say whatever they want without any repercussions. I've introduced two bills to protect voters from lies in political ads. The government has finally introduced its own bill, but it's not going to be passed in this parliament. So voters must look out for the lies. If it doesn't sound right, email the person involved, and ask them about it. The other issue is data harvesting. Political parties have made themselves exempt from privacy laws, and they engage in some pretty dodgy practices.”
“But, if the government were serious about transparency and tax reform, it would be going further and prioritising longer-term fixes.”
“With indexed tax brackets, successive governments wouldn't be able to treat the hidden additional revenue as accountability-free pocket money or demonstrate periodic confected largesse. Any decision to spend more would need to be made explicitly, with clear trade-offs and with the permission of the electorate. A stalemate over genuine tax reform has evolved between the major parties over the last 30 years, with ideology overriding facts and evidence. Political leaders are hamstrung by their legacies of promises not to touch anything, so we end up tinkering around the edges like this. Tax policy cannot be taboo. We must design a tax system for future decades. Now, I will back these tax cuts because they're better than nothing. They're one short-term way to address bracket creep.”
“This is bad news for taxpayers and good news for whoever's in government. It means the government gets a slush fund each year of extra tax that they can spend on whatever they want. Every Australian loses because of this. In lots of other countries, tax brackets are indexed with inflation and so you only pay a higher average rate of tax if your pay goes up more than the cost of living. But, unfortunately, because indexing tax brackets serves neither major party, you won't hear much about it unless there's pressure from the crossbench and from the public. Both major parties value the fact that they'll be given access to additional tax revenue when it's their turn in government. I've asked the Treasurer about this in question time, and there's not much enthusiasm for it.”
“The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Cost of Living Relief) Bill 2025 legislates a small cut to personal income tax—$5 a week next year and then $10 a week the year after that. We rely way too much on personal income tax. A big driver of this overreliance is bracket creep. These tax cuts are a one-off way of addressing bracket creep, but there's a simple way to stop this getting worse and make both sides of politics accountable for their spending decisions. There's only one honest, long-term way to address bracket creep, and that's to index our tax brackets. In Australia, you pay more tax when you move into a higher tax bracket. So, when you get a raise to cover increasing living costs, more of your income is taxed at a higher rate. That means people pay higher average income rates every year. That's right—more tax every year.”
“WA's own Minderoo Foundation has pointed out that this could lead to almost 40,000 parents being able to return to work or to increase their hours if they want to. So I join the Parenthood CEO, Georgie Dent, in commending this bill. She says dropping the test is 'a profound win for children, equity and the nation', and I commend this bill to the House.”
“We need to be bold and have ambition, rather than only seeing the transitional problems. The transition will need to be managed, but paying early childcare workers more under the laws passed in November will definitely help. It's always a chicken-and-egg situation with supply and demand—if you change one, the other one needs to catch up. But, unless we actually make these bold decisions, then nothing will improve. This change is supported by the Productivity Commission, the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, the ACCC, Thrive by Five and Early Childhood Australia—all of whom have made important policy contributions to improving outcomes for both families and the economy over the long term.”
“For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, that guarantee is 100 hours per fortnight, which is aimed at closing the gap in school readiness. Catherine Liddle, CEO of SNAICC, which is the national voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children, calls it a 'game changer' for First Nations babies, meaning that more children will be ready for school and set up for a thriving future. Ms Liddle also refers to wider impacts in the community, with recent studies showing that interventions in early childhood education and care settings with vulnerable children and their families may be the key to reducing youth crime. I understand that in the short term this will put pressure on the sector, but short-term transitional issues should not prevent good long-term reform like this.”
“But I know how much my kids gained from the stimulation of being in centre based care and how important the workers there were to their development. Educators at my kids' childcare centres taught them things that kept surprising me as a parent. They came home with new knowledge and new ways of resolving conflict—as well as the inevitable new viruses building up their immune systems. This bill provides a guaranteed minimum of 72 hours of subsidised early childhood education and care per fortnight for all families, regardless of whether mums are working or studying. All households with a total income of $530,000 or less will be able to access some level of subsidised care. This will provide much needed cost-of-living relief for nearly 67,000 families in the first year alone, and lower-income families will save an average of $1,460 per year.”
“I remember, after having each of my three children, the challenge of looking for a job while still caring for kids full time. It feels like a chicken-and-egg situation: you can't afford to pay for the care unless you have a job, and you can't search for a job, go to interviews or even know how much you'll be able to work until you've secured child care. Thrive by Five's Jay Weatherill points out that the activity test has particularly punished single mothers, casual workers and those looking for work. They get trapped in a cycle where they can't get child care if they don't have a job lined up but can't get a job if they don't have child care lined up. It's fantastic to have the option of staying home with your kids.”
“I rise in support of the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, which removes the activity test for early childhood education and care. Child care is important for children and for families. The activity test, which requires that parents are working or studying in order to get subsidised child care, is based on an assumption that early childhood education and care is a benefit for parents but not for kids. But quality care actually benefits kids, especially those from lower socioeconomic families. Quality early childhood education is linked to improved academic achievement, reduced delinquency, increased school completion, higher earnings in adulthood, and improved social and emotional wellbeing. This benefits everyone.”
“This is a question for the Treasurer. Governments on both sides rely on bracket creep caused by inflation to increase tax over time and surreptitiously fund their additional spending. Do you agree that indexing tax brackets, like 17 other OECD countries have done, would stop us sleepwalking into greater reliance on income taxes and provide greater transparency for taxpayers about new spending?”
“We should be leading on critical mineral production. The world wants this stuff, and WA can provide it. However, we're at risk of being left behind as other countries get the jump on us in transforming their economies. We have the opportunity to be well positioned for global trade in a decarbonised world, but if we're too complacent about it we will miss out. It's essential that we accelerate opportunities in WA's critical minerals sector and capitalise now on the position that critical and battery minerals will play in decarbonising the global economy. I urge members from across the House to have a bit of vision and support WA by getting behind production tax credits so we can make the most of the opportunities ahead and continue to carry the country economically.”
“This helps with building a business case in a new industry, derisking the sort of forward-looking investment that we need. I really want WA to benefit from the global transition to green energy. If the government wants to be on the right side of history, it needs to be creating policy settings like this that derisk and crowd in private investment. We have so many resources that are essential for the transition. Critical minerals like lithium, nickel, cobalt, silicon and rare earth elements are essential components in many rapidly growing clean energy technologies. They're critical because they can't be easily or cost-effectively substituted. WA accounts for around half of global lithium production and is a major exporter of nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earth elements. We have a skilled workforce and access to export routes.”
“The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia and the Minerals Council of Australia have all given evidence to a parliamentary committee supporting this bill. Rebecca Tomkinson of CMEWA has talked about the need for this bill to level the playing field in an intensely competitive global market. She said: Passage of the legislation would set an important investment signal for further value adding activities and provide certainty to industry. Production tax credits are a great way for government to derisk new investments. Instead of money paid upfront for something that may or may not turn into something tangible, production tax credits are payable only when a company delivers, so taxpayers are paying for results, not attempts.”
“Companies are actively looking to develop and grow their renewable operations in Australia, but they need tangible confirmation of Australia's energy transition vision. We need to give investors the confidence and certainty that Australia will welcome and incentivise the new energy opportunities currently knocking on the door. Production tax credits are a proven economic tool that have been used prolifically under the US Inflation Reduction Act. While the future of the US IRA is no longer certain under a Trump presidency, the enthusiastic uptake of clean energy production tax credits under the IRA up until now does at least show us that investors are motivated by this credit.”
“This objection from the opposition was despite investors, climate finance experts and industry, including the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA, supporting this bill. It was typical; opposition for the sake of opposition, rather than on its merits. Even the leader of the WA Liberal Party came out in support. This is because production tax credits, when designed correctly, make good sense for the economy. Here I am, 12 months later, rising once again to speak on production tax credits, and this time I call on the opposition to support the legislation that will mean we can actually get the production tax credit scheme off the ground. Can we please stop politicking and just get this done? We all know that a stable investment environment is essential if we want to attract investment that we need to unleash our next wave of future prosperity.”
“This time last year, I moved a private members' motion calling on the government to increase Australia's international competitiveness for new energy industries, specifically with production tax credits. I'd been worried that Australia was not acting fast enough nor decisively enough to take advantage of the global transition to green energy. Coming from WA, I wanted to make sure that we are harnessing every opportunity to transition swiftly and profitably. The government later announced the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024, which the Leader of the Opposition immediately attacked, calling the production tax credits 'billions for billionaires,' displaying a sad lack of awareness about the opportunity for WA to continue to carry the country economically into a decarbonised world.”
“It's such a reasonable request to ask governments to publish a business case and, when there's a cost blowout, to explain it. And, after projects have been delivered, they should have to be evaluated. Can you believe they don't have to be? We never find out if a project achieved its goals or if we can change our assumptions in the future so that we can better estimate the costs of future projects. The changes proposed in this bill would rebuild public trust in government decision-making and allow us to learn from our failures and also from our successes. I commend this bill to the House, and I urge the government to bring this bill on for debate. This is something that all Australians will benefit from. Both sides of the House should be held accountable for their spending decisions.”
“They can also be a useful economic management tool if they're done at the right time of the economic cycle. But, if they're done at the wrong part of the cycle, they can drive costs up. For example, at the moment, we desperately need more housing supply, but the housing sector is competing for construction workers with the $120 billion worth of large-scale infrastructure projects in the pipeline. Some of these projects should wait, but how would we prioritise the best ones? It's really hard to do without a business case. I was absolutely floored when I found out that big infrastructure projects don't have to have a business case. Governments can commit to spending hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars without proving that the project is needed, that it will deliver benefits or that it's worth doing.”
“As we enter pork-barrelling season, before an election, it's more important than ever for taxpayers to see that their money is being spent well. So, when governments want to spend our money on big projects, this bill will require them to do a few things. Firstly, they'll have to have a long-term infrastructure plan. Secondly, they'll need to publish a business case showing each project is actually worth doing. They'll need to explain the reasons if there's a cost or time blowout and also learn from each project for next time so we can get better at delivering infrastructure. These are sensible and reasonable measures and, apparently, they're also pretty radical, because neither party wants to be scrutinised when they're in government. Big infrastructure projects are an opportunity to create the future we want.”
“I rise to second the member for Wentworth's National Land Transport Act Amendment (Better Value for Taxpayers) Bill 2025, and I commend her, once again, on her constructive contribution to the 47th Parliament. Like many on the crossbench today, she is offering up rational policy that takes a long-term approach. This bill would put in place a range of things that I had assumed already happened. Coming from the private sector, I assumed that taxpayer money would be spent carefully on the things that make the most sense. But the reality is actually a bit depressing. No business case is needed, no blowouts have to be explained and we never check whether projects actually delivered what they were meant to deliver.”
“Shifting this onus onto the companies with the information and the scale would create better incentives for companies to continue to innovate on how they prevent scams. But, in the spirit of pragmatism, this framework is better than nothing, and it's definitely an improvement on the existing approach. I won't let the perfect be an enemy of the good, and on that basis I will be supporting this legislation. But there is a clear opportunity there, perhaps in the future, to make this go further to protect Australians better.”
“Having heard so many stories from consumers in my community and considering how hard it can be to navigate the dispute resolution process, I don't think this proposed legislation puts the interests of the victims first and foremost. In conclusion, I appreciate the minister's engagement with me personally on this issue and with the crossbench on the government's broad response to scamming. I recognise the importance of introducing an overarching framework and proposed industry codes for banks, telcos and digital platforms. It's absolutely a great start, but it doesn't focus on the experience of the victim enough. In the context of a complicated and evolving space, while scammers continue to innovate, the framework still ensures the onus is on consumers to navigate that system and prove that the bank, telco or digital platform failed them.”
“Another way of dealing with it would be a mandatory reimbursement model. Under the UK model, UK banks will be required to reimburse up to a maximum of about $166,000 unless the consumer acted with gross negligence. If you've brought it on yourself and it's entirely because of your action, then there's no mandatory reimbursement. Otherwise, you will get reimbursed. Instead, Australian consumers can obtain compensation via the AFCA or by exercising their private right of action for damages against regulated firms if and when they can establish a breach of those legal requirements. Australia has the opportunity within this framework to aim far higher and become a world leader in preventing and disrupting scams and responding to innocent people and families whose lives are markedly changed by scams.”
“Reversing the onus of proof so that the bank, telco or digital platform must show its reasonable steps would be a more consumer focused approach where there's significant asymmetry of information. The banks and telcos will know a whole lot more about what steps they've taken and what they could take than the consumer, who's looking at it all from the outside. Where a scam could be avoided by multiple parties—that is, a bank, a telco and a digital platform—the risk of the scam harm should be allocated to the party that can avoid the scam harm at least cost. In almost all circumstances, the parties best placed to eliminate or mitigate scam risk would be banking, telecommunications and digital platform companies. This is because, first and foremost, they have control over the architecture and design of their systems and processes.”
“Perhaps the most concerning part of the legislation in front of us is that the onus of proof is very much on the consumer or the victim of the scam rather than the organisation that allowed the scam to happen. So the person who had the money stolen from them, despite the requirements of the banks or telcos to stop it, is required to show that the bank, telecommunication company or digital platform didn't do enough. The vulnerable victim has to take on the business to prove that the institution didn't meet the requirements. This seems very challenging for a consumer who has just suffered a loss—which could be considerable—to then have to navigate the legal system to prove the scam is the fault of the bank telco or digital platform.”
“I have concerns in three areas: the compliance approach, the onerous dispute resolution mechanism, and the onus being on the victim. As drafted, this legislation is designed for businesses to take a minimum standard compliance approach rather than incentivising innovation to keep up with scammers who are always steps ahead. I think that's a problem. The dispute resolution mechanism is complicated, expensive and onerous for the consumer. It requires the consumer to go through an internal dispute resolution process first with the regulated entity before escalating their complaint to an external dispute resolution mechanism. The Australian Law Society said in its submission that directing scams to internal dispute resolution processes before they go external would result in a poor and frustrating experience for victims.”
“This may feel like a long time for consumers, but I support the advice of stakeholders that the objectives of the framework can only be achieved if regulated entities feel empowered to take strong and timely action to block activity that they suspect may be a scam but where they don't have sufficient information to be certain the activity is a scam. The safe harbour provision will help with that. There are a number of things in the bill that concern me. Prevention is really important, and we absolutely need to do that work, but this legislation should create a really clear path for victims if they're scammed. Scams will never be stamped out completely. It needs to be obvious and clear for victims who have already experienced a loss what they can do to get compensation.”
“Each entity must take reasonable steps to prevent and protect, and to disrupt scams. I also appreciate the single-door approach to scams regulation. We need to make scams prevention as accessible as possible for consumers. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has jurisdiction to deal with all scam disputes involving banks, telcos and digital platforms, which will hopefully reduce red tape and complexity. I support the safe harbour provisions. The legislation allows for a 28-day safe harbour protection for regulated entities to take proportionate disruptive steps to respond to concerns.”
“We absolutely need a simple, clear regulatory framework that can be understood by both businesses and consumers. It needs to be as clear as possible for business to implement measures and as simple as possible for consumers to access help. Some of these principles are addressed here and some have some work to be done. I agree with the government's approach to base the framework on principles. It's such a big problem, and it's evolving over time, so we need a broad set of principles on how entities will work to protect consumers. Under the framework, regulated entities are required to publish policies about how they'll respond to scams in relation to the principles of governance—prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond. I think it's important to regulate this issue as a progressive problem. It will keep changing.”
“The bill sets out obligations for businesses that are providing services in one of those three regulated sectors to do a few things: proactively take reasonable steps to detect, prevent and disrupt scams; report to the ACCC about actionable scam intelligence and scam responses; and establish internal dispute resolution processes and join an external dispute resolution scheme to resolve customer complaints for scams. If they don't comply, they may face significant civil penalties. It also sets out the ACCC as the framework regulator, and individual sector regulators can be designated by the minister. The minister can also make codes for each regulated sector. There are some good things about this approach that I first want to talk about. We absolutely need the regulation.”
“That brings me to the bill, which is a welcome addition to the network of scam prevention measures, but it could be better. What does it actually do? It introduces mandatory sector-specific codes to protect Australians against scams. The framework will first apply to banks, telecommunication companies and digital platforms, but the minister could consider adding additional sectors as the framework develops and as scams continue to evolve. This bill attempts to protect the vulnerable by creating obligations on those providers.”
“The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has found that banks only reimburse between two and five per cent of customers affected by scams—so, really, a tiny proportion of the losses that are occurring. Right now, there's no clear obligation on banks, telcos or social media platforms in relation to scams management. That's all to say that the introduction of a scams protection framework in parliament is essential. I acknowledge the work done to date. The National Anti-Scam Centre was set up in July 2023. It has a mandate to disrupt scams before they reach consumers, and that's starting to make some impact. But, as fast as we work to stop scams, the scammers keep innovating, and the scams evolve even faster, so it can feel impossible to keep up.”
“In 2023, Australians lost an astonishing $2.74 billion to scammers. It has dropped a bit recently, but that's nearly three times what it was in 2020. In 2023, Australians lost more than $5,000 per minute, and that's just the scams that were reported. The vast majority of scams are not actually reported. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says investment scams were the highest loss category, followed by remote-access scams and payment redirection scams. Traditional electronic bank transfers remain one of the most commonly reported means of payments to scammers, but social media scams are apparently the most profitable.”
“I also spoke about John, who lost $2.7 million in an elaborate scam when he relied on a broker for his investments and it turned out that the broker was actually a fake company. Last year, in 2024, I told Tim's story. His mum lost $800,000 in a scam that actually resulted in a capital gains tax liability, even though she'd been scammed out of the assets. Because this issue of scams is so important to my community and to all Australians, I, along with the member for Kooyong, co-founded the Parliamentary Friends of Scams Protection so that MPs and senators from across the floor could meet and try to find some better ways of addressing this growing problem. The magnitude of scam losses is hard to believe. CHOICE tells us that nine out of 10 people have come across what they suspected to be a scam in the last 12 months.”
“Scams are a huge problem and absolutely need to be addressed in legislation. This bill, the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024, is a good start, but I don't think it goes far enough in considering the experience of the victim. But, in the spirit of pragmatism, I'll be supporting it. Some of the first constituent stories I heard after being elected were from people in my community who'd been the victims of scams, and it's such a significant issue for my constituents that I've spoken about the issue of scams a number of times in parliament. In 2023, I told Lisa's story. Lisa lost $750,000 in a scam where she set up an account with the ING Bank, or at least she thought she did, only to discover that the account was fake.”
“Under the bill, ads about a party, not an individual, are not included in the electoral spending cap, so a party can massively outspend an independent. And taxpayers will pay much more to the parties, so they'll have a war chest from the last election and new challengers will have nothing. The bottom line is it's very complicated and could fundamentally change who can get into our parliament. If the government doesn't refer this bill to a committee, it's because they don't want voters to know how it will really work. Instead of changing the rules to lock out others, both major parties could try being better leaders.”
“We don't let Coles and Woolies make the laws about who can compete with them, but Labor and Liberal are close to stitching up a deal to stop communities choosing different representatives. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 was rushed through this House in November, and it's likely to hit the Senate in this sitting. If you look closely, it's about making voters pay more for less choice. We do need greater transparency and some sort of donation cap. Voters should know where the money comes from before they vote, and no-one should be able to personally influence the outcome of an election. But the bill also contains some really complicated spending caps that lock in the two-party system.”