1
00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:03,600
Speaker 1: Now we've been talking about compulsory voting proposed for local

2
00:00:03,640 --> 00:00:06,880
Speaker 1: government elections. I want to move to the topic of

3
00:00:07,240 --> 00:00:10,720
Speaker 1: drug testing politicians. Amanda Wilson, the Liberal candidate in the

4
00:00:10,720 --> 00:00:13,600
Speaker 1: seat of Black, has he may have heard Matt Abraham

5
00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:16,599
Speaker 1: this morning on five double A Breakfast with David Will

6
00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:19,439
Speaker 1: talk about this, and he played a grab of Amanda

7
00:00:19,480 --> 00:00:24,720
Speaker 1: Wilson saying she'd welcome the compulsory drug testing about state politicians.

8
00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:29,319
Speaker 1: Obviously a contentious issue to some degree in the Seed

9
00:00:29,360 --> 00:00:34,320
Speaker 1: of Black, although the former member claims it's a deep

10
00:00:34,360 --> 00:00:39,519
Speaker 1: fake as we know. However, regardless, Amanda Wilson wants to

11
00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:42,320
Speaker 1: see this happen. Some of the polies do as well,

12
00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 1: and we'll get onto that with Sarah Game one Nation MP.

13
00:00:45,479 --> 00:00:48,280
Speaker 1: I just want to start off with the council issue, though,

14
00:00:48,320 --> 00:00:54,360
Speaker 1: because Sarah Game has had legislation involving council elections before

15
00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:57,240
Speaker 1: state Parliament. She joins me. Now, Sarah Game, good morning.

16
00:00:57,640 --> 00:00:58,560
Speaker 2: Good morning, Matthew.

17
00:00:58,880 --> 00:01:02,640
Speaker 1: You've put forward legislation and about the transparency of council

18
00:01:02,720 --> 00:01:06,360
Speaker 1: elections as the nomination period comes to an end, talk

19
00:01:06,440 --> 00:01:09,440
Speaker 1: us through that, and I understand your bill has passed

20
00:01:09,480 --> 00:01:10,520
Speaker 1: one House of Parliament.

21
00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:15,000
Speaker 2: That's right. The bill did pass the Upper House last night,

22
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:17,600
Speaker 2: which is great, and I expect it will actually either

23
00:01:17,640 --> 00:01:20,720
Speaker 2: pass the Lower House or be incorporated anyway by the

24
00:01:20,720 --> 00:01:24,319
Speaker 2: government into their own reforms. But as we've spoken previously,

25
00:01:24,480 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 2: the current situation is that when you nominate yourself in

26
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:31,679
Speaker 2: these local government elections, the community doesn't actually find out

27
00:01:31,720 --> 00:01:35,640
Speaker 2: who's nominated, or in fact if anyone has nominated, until

28
00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:40,320
Speaker 2: after the nomination date has closed. And so that didn't

29
00:01:40,319 --> 00:01:42,720
Speaker 2: make sense to me in terms of transparency and also

30
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:46,000
Speaker 2: in the sense of making sure we've got enough competition

31
00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:49,920
Speaker 2: in the community. And so this piece of legislation will

32
00:01:49,920 --> 00:01:52,840
Speaker 2: mean that as soon as somebody is nominated or within

33
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:55,840
Speaker 2: the twenty four hour period, that becomes public information and

34
00:01:55,880 --> 00:01:58,880
Speaker 2: the community is where that that individual is running, and

35
00:01:58,920 --> 00:02:02,920
Speaker 2: hopefully that would give others the chance to put their

36
00:02:02,960 --> 00:02:03,920
Speaker 2: hat in the ring as well.

37
00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:07,440
Speaker 1: Does that happen for state or federal polls? Do we

38
00:02:07,480 --> 00:02:09,480
Speaker 1: know who's running before the nominations close?

39
00:02:11,280 --> 00:02:14,520
Speaker 2: Well, that's a good question, Matthew. I think you certainly do.

40
00:02:14,560 --> 00:02:18,560
Speaker 2: You know, people want people to know earlier, and you know,

41
00:02:18,600 --> 00:02:20,880
Speaker 2: if they start their campaigning, and I think that is

42
00:02:20,960 --> 00:02:23,480
Speaker 2: more widely available but certainly that's not the case the

43
00:02:23,480 --> 00:02:26,680
Speaker 2: local government. As we know, we've got very poor voting

44
00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:29,320
Speaker 2: turnout as well for local government. So anything we can

45
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:33,000
Speaker 2: do to improve public interest I think is a good thing.

46
00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:36,680
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I think you're right. Should the elections be compulsory?

47
00:02:36,680 --> 00:02:39,320
Speaker 1: Frank Pangelo has put forward legislation, as you'd be aware,

48
00:02:39,320 --> 00:02:45,240
Speaker 1: into the Upper House to have council elections compulsorily, have

49
00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:47,880
Speaker 1: people vote compulsorily in those elections. Should that happen?

50
00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:51,640
Speaker 2: Look, I think that's an interesting question. I don't have

51
00:02:51,720 --> 00:02:54,000
Speaker 2: a strong view on that at the moment, but what

52
00:02:54,040 --> 00:02:57,760
Speaker 2: I do think is that it would be a really

53
00:02:57,800 --> 00:03:01,519
Speaker 2: positive step if we could make the community more interested

54
00:03:01,600 --> 00:03:07,000
Speaker 2: in who's nominating themselves for these positions and to want

55
00:03:07,040 --> 00:03:10,080
Speaker 2: to take part in having their stay about who's going

56
00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:12,840
Speaker 2: to be nominated or who's going to take up those

57
00:03:13,480 --> 00:03:14,800
Speaker 2: privileged positions.

58
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:18,840
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, absolutely, all right, Sarah. Now, in terms of

59
00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:22,200
Speaker 1: drug testing and peace, we've spoken about this before as well,

60
00:03:22,680 --> 00:03:25,720
Speaker 1: and interesting Amanda Wilson coming out the candidate, the Liberal

61
00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:28,080
Speaker 1: candidate for the seat of Black and Saturday's by election

62
00:03:28,720 --> 00:03:31,160
Speaker 1: in favor of it. If only more were.

63
00:03:32,960 --> 00:03:38,000
Speaker 2: Well, I absolutely support random drug testing of politicians and

64
00:03:38,040 --> 00:03:40,320
Speaker 2: their staff, as I think I've mentioned before, because I

65
00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:43,960
Speaker 2: actually think everybody working in Parliament House should be held

66
00:03:44,040 --> 00:03:47,080
Speaker 2: to high standards. They not just politicians but also their staff.

67
00:03:47,120 --> 00:03:50,320
Speaker 2: But of course politicians are making legislation, they should be

68
00:03:50,360 --> 00:03:53,080
Speaker 2: held to a high standard and be an example to

69
00:03:53,440 --> 00:03:57,000
Speaker 2: the community, and so I can't see really any argument

70
00:03:57,040 --> 00:04:00,440
Speaker 2: against it, although I did read that apparently our Prime

71
00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:05,000
Speaker 2: Minister Anthony Alberezi was against random drug testing of federal politicians,

72
00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:08,400
Speaker 2: so certainly something to be against it, but I can't

73
00:04:08,480 --> 00:04:09,840
Speaker 2: understand the argument against.

74
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:12,520
Speaker 1: That at all. So politicians and their staff, because they

75
00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:14,880
Speaker 1: bring their own staffers with them, their own hires. What

76
00:04:14,920 --> 00:04:17,800
Speaker 1: about staff? You say everyone working in Parliament House, So

77
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:21,000
Speaker 1: what cafeteria staff should be included, the library staff, the

78
00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:23,400
Speaker 1: maintenance guys, should they be part of it as well?

79
00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:27,159
Speaker 2: Well? I don't feel so strongly about I guess those stuff.

80
00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:29,239
Speaker 2: When I'm talking about staff, I really mean the staff

81
00:04:29,279 --> 00:04:32,320
Speaker 2: that are working very closely. Certainly, no one should be

82
00:04:32,320 --> 00:04:36,480
Speaker 2: taking illegal substances. But I do think that the staff

83
00:04:36,520 --> 00:04:40,680
Speaker 2: that work with politicians are also acting in a very

84
00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:43,799
Speaker 2: privileged position and they're privy to a lot of sensitive

85
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:48,120
Speaker 2: information and they do assisted decision making, and so everybody

86
00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:50,719
Speaker 2: really needs to be held to account and held to

87
00:04:50,760 --> 00:04:53,080
Speaker 2: a high standard in that those types of roles.

88
00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:55,719
Speaker 1: Would legislation be needed to make that happen or is

89
00:04:55,720 --> 00:04:58,320
Speaker 1: it just a matter of somebody knocking on the doors

90
00:04:58,320 --> 00:05:00,560
Speaker 1: of MPs when they're in Parliament saying here, blow into this.

91
00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:05,479
Speaker 2: Well, look, I think that and certainly I would be

92
00:05:05,640 --> 00:05:08,840
Speaker 2: happy without legislation to take any level of drug testing.

93
00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:11,760
Speaker 2: But I think legislation probably is required. I think there

94
00:05:11,760 --> 00:05:14,040
Speaker 2: have been members in the past who have considered that,

95
00:05:14,200 --> 00:05:17,479
Speaker 2: and certainly I would be happy to consider putting legislation

96
00:05:17,680 --> 00:05:20,599
Speaker 2: like that forward as well. And maybe the appetite is

97
00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:21,880
Speaker 2: right at the moment for that.

98
00:05:22,200 --> 00:05:24,240
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, all right, we'll see what happens next. Sarah,

99
00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:26,479
Speaker 1: appreciate your time, Thank you, Thanks so much,