1
00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:02,240
Speaker 1: The dialing town of Circus, of course, rolled back into

2
00:00:02,240 --> 00:00:04,720
Speaker 1: the Capitol yesterday, the question being whether the Greens will

3
00:00:04,720 --> 00:00:07,160
Speaker 1: stop moaning about and not resigning and actually pull the

4
00:00:07,160 --> 00:00:09,400
Speaker 1: trigger on the Walker jumping law. University of a Tiger

5
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:11,960
Speaker 1: law professor Andrew Getters with us on this Andrew morning to.

6
00:00:11,960 --> 00:00:13,560
Speaker 2: You, Yeah, good morning, mind.

7
00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 1: Is the law itself clean, clear and usable if you

8
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:16,159
Speaker 1: wanted to?

9
00:00:17,079 --> 00:00:20,200
Speaker 2: Yeah, that pretty much is. Because she's down an independent MP.

10
00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:23,480
Speaker 2: That means the Greens have lost a member of Parliament.

11
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:27,080
Speaker 2: That's distorted proportionality, which is the trigger for the party

12
00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:29,920
Speaker 2: hopping law. So if the Greens wanted to use the

13
00:00:29,960 --> 00:00:32,640
Speaker 2: power they could. There's a process they'd have to follow

14
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:35,440
Speaker 2: within caucus, like caucus would have to agree to the

15
00:00:35,560 --> 00:00:38,200
Speaker 2: leader using the law. But it's clear that they can

16
00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:39,280
Speaker 2: do it if they want to.

17
00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:42,960
Speaker 1: What's their objection, Well, their objection.

18
00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:45,319
Speaker 2: Is a political one, right. They even though they sort

19
00:00:45,320 --> 00:00:47,199
Speaker 2: of voted to bring this in, they only did so

20
00:00:47,360 --> 00:00:50,800
Speaker 2: because You'll first basically forced them to in the previous coalition.

21
00:00:51,240 --> 00:00:53,360
Speaker 2: They really don't like the law. They've spoken against it,

22
00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:55,360
Speaker 2: they said it's bad law. They've actually said in the

23
00:00:55,360 --> 00:00:58,000
Speaker 2: Select Committee report they will never use it. So if

24
00:00:58,040 --> 00:01:00,240
Speaker 2: they do use it now they're open to, you know,

25
00:01:00,480 --> 00:01:01,440
Speaker 2: claims of hypocrisy.

26
00:01:01,560 --> 00:01:04,399
Speaker 1: Well I understand, yeah, that's the political argument. But from

27
00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:07,000
Speaker 1: Lee what I mean, Seymour argues the same thing, and

28
00:01:07,040 --> 00:01:10,679
Speaker 1: I just don't understand it. What if you lose somebody

29
00:01:10,720 --> 00:01:13,199
Speaker 1: from your party because they're a fraud or a corner

30
00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:16,160
Speaker 1: or whatever, what's to object about?

31
00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:19,280
Speaker 2: Well, I mean that's why the law was brought in.

32
00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:23,000
Speaker 2: There's thing is, every time someone's left their party since

33
00:01:23,040 --> 00:01:25,080
Speaker 2: it was brought in back in twenty eighteen, they've just

34
00:01:25,120 --> 00:01:27,920
Speaker 2: been allowed to stay there. So Labour allowed garrav Scheimer

35
00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:30,040
Speaker 2: to stay, National allowed Jamie Lee Ross to stay, The

36
00:01:30,080 --> 00:01:33,320
Speaker 2: Green's allowed Elizabeth Kerry Tree to stay. Because the perceived

37
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:37,200
Speaker 2: political problem in using the law and drawing attention to

38
00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:39,560
Speaker 2: the you know this recalcitrant MP and so on, it's

39
00:01:39,600 --> 00:01:42,080
Speaker 2: considered greater than just leaving them there to belinger on

40
00:01:42,120 --> 00:01:42,760
Speaker 2: the backbenches.

41
00:01:42,880 --> 00:01:44,960
Speaker 1: Does it make any difference whether their list or electorate.

42
00:01:45,760 --> 00:01:48,680
Speaker 2: No, the only difference would be that if an electorate

43
00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:50,920
Speaker 2: MP is party hopped out, they get to run again

44
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:53,640
Speaker 2: in a by election. Will a list MP degree just

45
00:01:53,680 --> 00:01:55,000
Speaker 2: get another MP straight in?

46
00:01:55,400 --> 00:01:59,560
Speaker 1: But as I mean, like my head's exploding. So she

47
00:01:59,760 --> 00:02:03,880
Speaker 1: wasn't voted for. She's on a list, somebody else selected her.

48
00:02:04,040 --> 00:02:07,400
Speaker 1: She doesn't represent anybody, and yet she can do what

49
00:02:07,480 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 1: she did and then just sit in the library for

50
00:02:10,240 --> 00:02:12,720
Speaker 1: two and a half years doing god knows what and

51
00:02:12,720 --> 00:02:14,880
Speaker 1: that's somehow normal or acceptable.

52
00:02:15,840 --> 00:02:18,519
Speaker 2: Well, it's not acceptable, it's wrong. She should resign. Yeah,

53
00:02:18,600 --> 00:02:21,519
Speaker 2: the Greens, I think if they use the power, I

54
00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:23,359
Speaker 2: mean I think this would be one of those situations

55
00:02:23,360 --> 00:02:26,080
Speaker 2: where the power is justified. The exactly problem is. The

56
00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:28,240
Speaker 2: problem is though they said this is a terrible law

57
00:02:28,240 --> 00:02:29,480
Speaker 2: that should ever be used.

58
00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:29,720
Speaker 1: But it's not.

59
00:02:29,880 --> 00:02:33,720
Speaker 2: They do use it, but it's not Oh no, well okay,

60
00:02:33,800 --> 00:02:36,160
Speaker 2: so sure, But from the Greens perspective, it is the

61
00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:38,600
Speaker 2: Greens would say that this is a bad law that

62
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:41,000
Speaker 2: could be abused and shouldn't be on the statute books.

63
00:02:41,320 --> 00:02:43,720
Speaker 2: And even if in this case it would be okay

64
00:02:43,720 --> 00:02:46,480
Speaker 2: to use it, you shouldn't use a bad law. I mean, okay,

65
00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:48,240
Speaker 2: I'm putting word into their mouths now, that would be

66
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:50,720
Speaker 2: the argument them. Even if this use is okay, the

67
00:02:50,800 --> 00:02:52,880
Speaker 2: law itself is so bad you shouldn't use it.

68
00:02:52,960 --> 00:02:54,919
Speaker 1: Would you use it? It strikes me as a very

69
00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:56,960
Speaker 1: simple piece of law that solves the problem potentially if

70
00:02:57,000 --> 00:02:57,720
Speaker 1: you have a problem.

71
00:02:58,200 --> 00:02:59,919
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I see my problem is one of the

72
00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:01,480
Speaker 2: ones who said it probably shouldn't have been on the

73
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:03,600
Speaker 2: sketchue books from the first place. I'd be in the same.

74
00:03:03,840 --> 00:03:05,640
Speaker 1: Populap But are you now proven wrong.

75
00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:09,000
Speaker 2: Putting hipocrisy aside? In this case? I see no reason

76
00:03:09,040 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 2: why Darling Towner should still be in Parliament.

77
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:13,359
Speaker 1: Exactly all right, Nice to talk to you, Mite, Andrew Getnis,

78
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:16,280
Speaker 1: University of a Tiger law professors. For more from the

79
00:03:16,360 --> 00:03:19,440
Speaker 1: My Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks it'd be

80
00:03:19,520 --> 00:03:23,240
Speaker 1: from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio