Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now quick call or we're just going across right now
very quickly to our mate Jerry Wood. Good morning to you, Jerry,
Good morning, Katie.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I'll talk mate.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
I'm sorry I'm running so late. You and I have
been messaging each other and you're keen to really make
sure as we lead into the next election that the
question is asked whether whoever forms government is going to
go back to having scrutiny committees.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Yeah, just quickly. The reason we introduced scrutiny committees, and
the Labor Party introduced it some years ago and they're
very keen on it, is because like Queensland, we don't
have an upper house.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
So other states have an upper house, in the lower house,
the upper house scrutinizes a lot of the legislation, but
here we don't have that. Once it goes to the
lower House, that's it. So to get around that to
some extent, the government decided we'd copy basically what Queensland does.
And I'm a great support Robert, So that developed Scrutiny Committee.
So every piece of legislation went to the scrutiny Committee.
(00:57):
The scrutiny committee then we'll take it out to communities.
So they could have meetings in Darwin and now the springs.
They could go out further if they wished. They could
ask for people that put submissions in about the legislation
and then they would come up with some recommendations. So
the public and people who are directly affected by that
legislation could go to meetings and put what they thought
(01:22):
their comments on the legislation, and they could also write that,
of course, and send that in. We've now scrapped it.
We're scrapped it for about four years. The Labor government
who introduced it and said how wonderful it was, then
decided to scrap it. So you now have legislation going
through much quicker than it used to. They might say,
well that's what we need. No, if the legislation is
going to be brought before all the time and you
(01:43):
need to give a proper scrutiny to make sure it
is adequate. And the one was this about the curfews.
Now we've had the curfew already in our springs, so
we know you can have curfews. But if you're going
to introduce some new regime about curfew, well then put
it out to the public. The Member for Mark I
(02:04):
will have mentioned that he had concerns about it. We'll
take it out to some of the Aboriginal communities and
see what they think about it. And take it out
to the you know Alice Springstenter, Creek, Catherine, those places
and find out what they think of the legislation. And
here what the police have to say about it, what
the as a civil libertarian type people say about it.
(02:26):
It doesn't matter who has a say in it, but
at least you bring the community into the process. And
the government was so big on being open and transparent,
It was so supportive of having strutiny committees that I
just cannot understand why they got rid of them. Were
they scared of them? They think they're a waste of time.
They're not a waste of time. We should have enough
(02:46):
time in Parliament to look at things carefully and the
community should be able to have time to have a say.
Even in the end if the government doesn't accept the recommendations,
at least it's gone out there and people feel they're
part of the process.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
And part of being listened.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Now yeah, yeah, So my question is, well, CLP come in.
Will the reintroduced scrutine committees, because I think they're very
much an important part in the Northern territory of how
we run our parliament.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Yeah. I think it's a good question, Jerry, and it
is something that we will make sure that we ask
he very quick one before before I let you go.
I know you probably haven't had the chance to have
much of a look at it, but you have you
seen or have you listened much to the discussion we've
been having about this Ikak report into travel throughout the
caretaker period for politicians.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
I haven't only you thought it was in the paper,
but I've always been a believer that we should be
a lot more careful on how we want to is
use our electorate officers because they are not electric electorate
officers in the sense that they're not for politics for
people to use part of the Legislative Assembly. And the
other thing is we should be very I've always believed
there should be a limit on what you can spend,
(03:52):
a bit like what I saw in Canada, in Nunavut
and in Northwest territories, the limitations on what you can spend.
But the problem is here when you put limitations, a
party can then pull all the money it gets together
for each member and use that, which is then at
(04:13):
they have more you might say, advertising power than an
independent on their own. So if everybody was told you
can have twenty thousand dollars towards the election, that's your
maximum you can spend, a party might say, well, i've
got ten members, we can get together two hundred thousand
dollars here, whereas the independent person may only be allowed
to use ten.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
So it does have some downfalls, but I still believe
very much that the spending for elections should be limited
and it should be open and transparent like anything else
where did you spend it? What did you spend it on?
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Yeah? I think it's a really good point. Jerry would
good to catch up with you. As always, we'll talk
to you again very soon.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Okay. I tried to speak as quickly as I love it, Jerry.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Thanks mate, I appreciate it by now