Bills

Statutes Amendment (Industrial Relations Portfolio) Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:19): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Fair Work Act 1994, the Public Holidays Act 2023, and the Work Health and Safety Act 2012. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:19): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the passage of the bill through all remaining stages without delay.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is not an absolute majority. Ring the bells, please.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As members will be aware, portfolio bills provide the opportunity to make amendments that are minor or technical in nature across a number of acts in one bill. This portfolio bill makes a small number of technical amendments in relation to naming conventions in several pieces of industrial relations legislation.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Fair Work Act 1994 to update references from Fair Work Australia to the Fair Work Commission. Part 3 of the bill amends the Public Holidays Act 2023 to insert names for each public holiday next to their date or in the case of public holidays over Easter the description of the date on which they fall. These amendments will dispel the baseless fear and misinformation the Liberal Party has spread throughout our community about the effect of the amendments passed in the Public Holidays Act last year.

The position of the Liberal Party on this issue has been fundamentally dishonest. The truth is that far from removing public holidays the Public Holidays Act enshrined those holidays in law. It guaranteed 25 April as a public holiday. It guaranteed Easter Sunday as a public holiday. It guaranteed Christmas Day as a public holiday. Under the Public Holidays Act not only would ANZAC Day be locked in as a public holiday on 25 April, but South Australia has specific legislation in the ANZAC Day Commemoration Act to confirm this.

Of course, those facts did not get in the way of the Liberal Party going out into the community and spreading misinformation and fear amongst our veteran communities about the status of ANZAC Day. This was a fear campaign run by the Liberal Party to cover for their own brazen attempt to amend the act to scrap the Easter Saturday public holiday after over 110 years of being celebrated in this state—an attempt that went down in flames before this parliament.

What we heard from veterans is that this was fearmongering from the Liberal Party, not the Public Holidays Act, which was causing consternation and concern. In December last year, we heard the President of the RSL in South Australia, Dave Petersen, on radio decrying that this had become a politicised issue and sharing his frustration that veterans were calling him late into the night thinking that ANZAC Day had been cancelled. What we heard him say when speaking to FIVEaa on 1 December was, and I quote:

I'm not offended by this piece of legislation but what I am offended by is the misreporting of what is happening here, the outrage that some veterans are feeling thinking that their date has been cancelled but it has not.

Unlike the Liberal Party, we will not treat our veteran community as a political football by spreading fear and misinformation. The last thing we want is veterans believing that the sanctity of ANZAC Day has been eroded. The effect of these amendments will be to make clear to the South Australian community what was always the case: that ANZAC Day and other significant public holidays, like Christmas Day, are and will remain public holidays under the laws of this state.

Finally, part 4 of the bill amends the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 to update references to the executive director to the regulator consistent with the rest of the act. I commend the bill to members of the house and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Fair Work Act 1994

3—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

This clause amends section 4 of the principal Act to replace the definition of Fair Work Australia with a definition of Fair Work Commission. This change reflects the name of the relevant body in the Fair Work Act 2009 of the Commonwealth.

4—Amendment of section 92—Retrospectivity

5—Amendment of section 100—Adoption of principles affecting determination of remuneration and working conditions

These clauses replace references to Fair Work Australia with references to the Fair Work Commission.

Part 3—Amendment of Public Holidays Act 2023

6—Amendment of section 3—Days fixed as public holidays

This clause amends section 3 of the principal Act to:

insert names of public holidays to correspond with the dates or days on which they fall; and

insert an explanation of which days Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday fall on in a year, to correspond with the names of the public holidays; and

replace references to the dates of public holidays with references to the names of the public holidays in the provisions about additional and substitute public holidays.

7—Amendment of section 4—Part-day public holidays

This clause amends section 4 of the principal Act to insert the names of part-day public holidays to correspond with the dates on which they fall.

Part 4—Amendment of Work Health and Safety Act 2012

8—Amendment of section 117—Entry to inquire into suspected contraventions

9—Amendment of section 277—Reviews

These clauses replace references to Executive Director with references to regulator. The principal Act provides (in section 4) that regulator means the Executive Director so the changes are simply providing consistency in language within the principal Act.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (16:28): If there is one date we will know it is 6 February, which will probably be known from here on in as the day of backflips. We have had the backflip on the member for Waite's sneaky picnic tax and now we have the backflip on our public holidays. These backflips are good backflips. They are celebrated by the opposition, of course, but the government has been repeatedly dragged kicking and screaming to the table on these reforms or fix ups to their initial legislation.

We saw the backflip on the picnic tax and now we have got legislation which has been repaired in order to fix the picnic tax, to block the picnic tax, making sure that people no longer will be threatened with gate fees or paid parking on Sundays and public holidays in our precious Botanic Gardens. That one was not noticed in caucus, it was not noticed by the board of the Botanic Gardens and it was not noticed by the minister.

Now we have got the amendment for the names of public holidays before us. This is unnecessary. This did not need to happen. We do not need to be here wasting parliament's time with this legislation, if only the government had not sought to cancel the names of our public holidays in an act of grotesque political correctness, in an act of huge overreach, in an act of elitist wokery. The attempt to cancel the names of our public holidays—public holidays that mean so much to South Australians, that mean so much to our veterans community in the case of ANZAC Day, that mean so much to faith communities in terms of Christmas Day and Easter, and that mean so much to many other Australians in terms of Australia Day.

Why did political correctness have to go mad, in terms of this government's approach to our public holidays? Why do our public holidays need to be reduced to mere dates on a calendar? Why can meaning not be placed alongside those dates? Because that is what this government decided to do, despite attempts in the upper house—standalone attempts by the Hon. Heidi Girolamo—and in this chamber as well. I want to particularly hone in on what happened to Heidi Girolamo when she moved the amendments in the other place. She was harangued, she was bullied, she was harassed and she was name-called by members of the Labor Party who said what she was doing was unnecessary and was, in a way, trying to create outrage over nothing.

That was not the case, because that outrage was immediately and significantly felt right across South Australia and, in fact, right across our nation. When it became apparent to people in the general public, the ordinary people—not the cloistered elites who inform and advise the Labor Party, not those people—when people in the outer suburbs and people in the regions started to understand what this government was trying to do by cancelling the names of our public holidays, the government started to get feedback, and they realised that their haranguing and bullying and name-calling of Heidi Girolamo was actually completely misplaced because Ms Girolamo had highlighted and sought to fix something that the majority, the vast majority of South Australians, wanted fixed as well.

South Australians do not want their political class to try to cancel the names of public holidays. South Australians want 25 December to be called Christmas Day. South Australians want 26 January to remain Australia Day, by name. ANZAC Day is, I think, probably the most important of all. They are all important in their own individual way, but when it comes to ANZAC Day, we do not want that to be reduced to a mere date. We want ANZAC Day to be called ANZAC Day because it is a sacred day remembering those who have sacrificed everything for this state and this nation.

Why should ANZAC Day be reduced to a mere date in legislation? Why should it not be proudly referred to as ANZAC Day? Why should the public holiday not be given the meaning, rather than reduced to a mere sterile date—as if waiting for some point in the future for that meaning to drift away in the minds of Australians and be replaced just by a day off, a day to go to the beach, a day to hang out with your family. These days have significant meaning sitting behind them.

This government has been caught out. They try to say, 'Oh, no, it's not about that. It was about trying to create another public holiday.' This was entirely separate from that. This government has been caught out, and they can have all the spin they like. This government sought to cancel days that mean a huge amount to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of South Australians.

The attempt to remove the name ANZAC Day from our public holiday legislation and translate it into a mere date is sacrilege in my view, and that is a view shared by thousands of South Australians. It is shared by the veterans' community. It is shared by hundreds of members of the Returned and Services League of South Australia—that fear, that sadness, that grief that a government that sought to represent them would strip away the word ANZAC from that public holiday.

It makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to South Australians. I do not even think it made much sense to the right of the Labor Party. The Premier stepped in and said that this legislation must be moved. He was forced to do that by the opposition, by the mood and the feeling and the anger of South Australians. I am glad he has done it, the same as I am extremely glad that the member for Waite's picnic tax has been done away with as well.

Today is the day of backflips, and I am grateful that this government has come to the party, listened to the opposition—more importantly, though, listened to the anger and the sentiment of South Australians—and we have put an end to this politically correct nonsense. Our public holidays' names and heritage will not be cancelled from legislation, and that ought to be commended to this house.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (16:36): I rise today to make a contribution on this bill before the house, entitled the Statutes Amendment (Industrial Relations Portfolio) Bill 2024, but we know it is not quite that. This bill represents the Labor Party, the Malinauskas government, walking into this chamber today, not wanting to and still maintaining the spin right to the very end. There has still been no admission almost that they have actually got this wrong. This is the day of cleaning up the house.

If we go back to where we are, it is the first day of sitting for the parliamentary year. Instead of looking forward, instead of dealing with some of the key issues that are facing South Australians today, instead of dealing with the housing crisis, instead of dealing with issues around cost of living, instead of dealing with those issues that are front and centre to South Australians—let us not even broach the subject of ramping or the South Australian health system that has only become worse under this government—we are here today using taxpayers' money to make changes to bills that this government has already had opportunities to do so.

The arrogance that has beset this government already did not allow that to happen until it became blatantly clear and obvious that they were on the wrong side of this, that the South Australian public clearly valued the names of their public holidays having the meaning that is attached to those names of their public holidays in this state's legislation. Only then, when it was beyond all doubt that they were on the wrong side of this, was there a conversation had.

Let's walk through how we got to this point, because I think it is important. There have been what I would describe as mistruths that have been perpetuated throughout the Labor Party's significant spin machine to try to get this back in the can, to try to take a bit of the heat out of what would be one of the silliest missteps in terms of the life of this government to this point for something that was, as The Advertiser described, completely inevitable criticism.

Let's walk back: we had the Holidays Act, the version that had been in place up until it was repealed by the government's bill dealing with these naming conventions. This version that I am looking at was current between 2012 and 2023. If we go back over some of the arguments that were put forward by those opposite, we can tell that there was just a scant bit of truth in some of them.

Regularly we heard government ministers saying, for starters, that the names were unnecessary—they did not mean anything to anybody and we did not need to have them in the legislation. It then moved to, 'They haven't been in the act previously, so, my goodness, why would we?' But there is only one problem: you see, if we turn to the Holidays Act 1910, the one that I said was in force between 2012 and 2023, let's turn perhaps to section 3A—oh my goodness, it talks about ANZAC Day and uses the words 'ANZAC Day'. If you just shift to the next section of the act, section 3B: Christmas Eve. Goodness me! If you turn the page, we even have Good Friday. Over the page again, Christmas Day is mentioned in the previous act.

But no, we had government ministers out there perpetuating: 'No, no, we're not doing anything new there. These names didn't exist previously. It was all a figment of our imagination. God forbid that these names actually be mentioned.' It was preposterous from start to finish in terms of the complete naivety about the names of these public holidays and how they resonate with the South Australian public.

One of the other arguments that has been put—the minister in fact rolled it in again this morning—was, 'It was all the Liberals, the nasty, naughty Liberals out there spreading misinformation about the fact that we were getting rid of ANZAC Day altogether.' If you go back to the speeches that were provided in this place and the public comments that have been provided on the radio, you will see that it has been made clear that the only thing the Liberal Party were alleging was that this government was looking to strike out the names of those public holidays from legislation.

One would have to think, one would have to assume, that the only reason you would start to reach for these excuses in the bottom of the barrel, the back of the cabinet, is because you know you have been caught out. But instead of coming in here with a degree of humility, with a degree of repentance about what has occurred to this point, we cannot even come into the house today to have another public holidays bill 2024, amending names of public holidays or including names of public holidays. No, the government has to come in here and dress this up as the Statutes Amendment (Industrial Relations Portfolio) Bill 2024. They could not even bring themselves to walk in here and be truthful about what they were trying to do in the title of the very bill that they introduced. What does that say? One can only imagine.

We know the Premier was on his leave—and rightfully so—at the point in time when this was hitting the parliament, but I find it rather difficult to believe that he was not involved in some way in the decision-making to reach the Labor caucus' position on this issue. I think the Premier is rightfully involved in all of the decisions, one would think to an extent, of the Labor caucus, but particularly one that had a level of such public importance.

The question then has to be asked: what was this all about? Why did it take so long? Was this some internal issue between the left and right factions? 'No, we want to get rid of the names. It has to happen. We will keep pushing, pushing, pushing, pushing until it becomes so unpalatable that we have to come in here and do this all again.' Was it the internal friction that was the issue? Was it just a complete lack of political judgement? Was it a complete lack of understanding of the sentiment, of the thoughts, of the South Australian public? Those of us on this side will probably never know, but those opposite surely understand what took place to get us to this point.

The broader question, the one that struck me on the night that we were having this very debate—at this point, I am referring back to the set of amendments that I moved in this place when that discussion took place. They look eerily similar to the bulk of the bill that is before us today. When I look back at that debate, it was almost like there was an air of flippancy to the discussion around adding back the names of the public holidays into the legislation. The Deputy Premier simply, almost dismissively in my view anyway, said that the amendments that were before the house at that point in time were just about giving the colloquial names for each of those public holidays:

Somehow, South Australia has survived for 110 years with the Holidays Act without including these names. Somehow we have managed to work out that we have those holidays on those days.

That was the statement that she gave to the house on that day. Funnily enough, I have just referenced the original Holidays Act and, goodness me, the names of the holidays are actually in that act. So not only was it flippant, not only was it dismissive, but it was also inaccurate.

The Labor Party, the Malinauskas government, has had two opportunities to fix this. We had debate in the upper house, where the bill was introduced. Again, one would have to ask the question why the Attorney-General is not introducing this bill in his house for an act that he has carriage of, as I understand. Why is the Attorney-General not introducing this bill? Why is it up to the member for Cheltenham to come and take the sandwich for his—

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs: 'Minister'.

Mr COWDREY: 'The member for Cheltenham', too. Why is it the member for Cheltenham has to come in here today to take the sandwich for his colleague from the other place? Why was that the case? Is it embarrassment?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, minister and the member for Heysen!

Mr COWDREY: In the other place, we had members there. The other place traditionally has been known for the way and manner in which members interact with each other being of a standard that is slightly improved on this house, the house of the commoner. While we hold ourselves to a level of decorum that is what most would believe to be sensible—most of the public probably do not agree with that from time to time—the other place has been known to be reasonably sensible in the manner in which it has its significant discussions.

But on that night, there was behaviour well and truly unbecoming of that house in the manner in which my colleague Heidi Girolamo was treated, and all she was seeking to do was what the government is seeking to do now, what the Liberal Party had been seeking to do on multiple occasions since this bill was first introduced. I can go through a time line of the fact that we had the bill, we had the discussion and the public discourse had begun in late November. We turn to 1 December, as I think the government was just starting to understand what they had taken out of the can, just how tinny they were in terms of the South Australian public's view on this issue.

But again, we had the Attorney-General on FIVEaa with Matthew Pantelis on 1 December defending the decision that they had made, describing the Liberal Party pointing out what had occurred in this place, what had occurred in the other place, what the government had done in removing names of public holidays from the legislation—simply that. I quote:

It's scaremongering. The Public Holiday Act has been around since 1910 and generally what it does—

'generally' I think was probably the operative word that the Attorney was relying on in this instance—

is refers to dates that are the same each year, like 25 April, but then when a date moves around like Easter it can be on different days and refers to the name of them.

I can hold up the holidays act of 1910 again and point out the fact that ANZAC Day is clearly referenced in that act. But it was this continuation that there was nothing to see here, and why? I go back to the core question, the one that I referenced but did not quite point out, the one that has stuck with me right from the very beginning when we were undertaking this discussion, this debate in the house: what was the harm in keeping the names in the legislation? What was the harm?

That is the question that those who sit opposite need to think long and hard about. Was it the internal factional issues of somebody perhaps pushing for something more, somebody not willing to give something up? Was it simply that they did not want to agree with amendments that had been put forward by the opposition? Because, by golly, they seem reasonably sensible and straightforward to me. Or was it more sinister? Was there a greater idea? Was there a bigger plan in terms of what was trying to be achieved here?

As the leader quite rightly said, we welcome the government coming to the house today with this bill; that goes without saying. The RSL welcomes the government coming to the house today introducing the bill. We should at every point in time find any way we possibly can to acknowledge, to reference, to credit those veterans who have given their lives for our country and our state.

When we come into this place there is a line that is often thrown around by members here that language matters. We need to be so precise with our language because it matters. Well, it matters in this case as well. It mattered to veterans around South Australia that 25 April is referred to as ANZAC Day. It matters to people of faith, no matter where you sit on the spectrum of faith, that 25 December is referred to as Christmas Day. It has just been a complete nonsense, and to walk in here today to see the debacle that was simply the introduction of this bill, the suspension of standing orders just to get here. This has been a debacle from go to whoa and it is one of this government's own making.

The minister again has tried to make representations that the people of South Australia believed we were eliminating ANZAC Day, that it was never going to be there forever more, when simply we were saying the name of ANZAC Day had been referred from the legislation. Such was the cut through—and I am not one to visit hotels on too many occasions with two young kids, two and four—that I am reliably told that on a quiz night at the Prince Albert Hotel about a fortnight ago one of the questions that was asked was: which state removed the reference to Australia Day from its public holiday legislation?

That says more than anything that the topical cut-through of this issue—the fact that this resonates with everyday Australians—is there and it is well and truly real. The Advertiser quite rightly pointed out that this was inevitable criticism, that this decision left the government open to be criticised and, my goodness, it was 100 per cent accurate. All these things could have been avoided.

We are here today using taxpayers' money to have this house sit because of the arrogance of this government, because of the arrogance of members opposite, because of the arrogance of the Malinauskas Labor government. This could have been dealt with three months ago. This could have been dealt with when it was tabled back then—not one opportunity but two opportunities, both in the other place and in this very chamber just a couple of months ago.

Make no mistake that today the Liberal Party has been legislating from opposition, and this really highlights more than anything the lack of genuine legislative agenda and the popular streak that governs the decision-making of this government. On these occasions, with the picnic tax and with this mop-up today, their rudder was well and truly off course and long may that continue.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:56): I rise to contribute to the debate, moved as I am by the contribution of the Minister for Police introducing this bill because the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer have said it all: it is so true that we are here on backflip day, on mop-up day, on a day on the return of the parliament in 2024 when the government comes into this place with its tail between its legs and moves to suspend standing orders so it can mop up what was an egregious error at the end of last year.

I come into this place, as I do on every occasion, as a proud Australian, as a proud South Australian and as a proud representative of those electors of mine within the district of Heysen in the Adelaide Hills because this is a place that is not ultimately driven by technicalities or procedures, it is not a place that is cut and dried and divorced from people and communities. Far from it. This is a place that is about heart, it is about humanity. In the work that we do as legislators, we are reflecting the heart and soul of our community: of those who send us here, of those who send us to legislate, to characterise the nature of this fine state that we live in. It is about heart and it is about humanity.

Well it is that we suspend standing orders to get this done, but this is important work and these changes that we make that articulate the names of these days in this legislation are matters of substance. So it should be noted that when this legislation is introduced, it is introduced undercover of a description that puts it in terms of a portfolio and of statutes amendment, and the minister introducing it describes it as suitable for changes of a minor nature or a technical nature. They are the ones that are suitable for inclusion in a bill that is described as a portfolio bill.

We see undercover of this portfolio bill the real work that needs to be done urgently in the political interests of the government now at this late stage in part 3 of the bill to reintroduce the important names of those holidays that we have long celebrated in this state and will continue to do, I hope, for many decades and centuries ahead: days such as Australia Day of course; days such as Christmas Day of course. My goodness, whoever thought of anything so outrageous as to start to tell your children, 'Well, happy 25^th of December, children.' How outrageous.

But certainly no more important day ought to be recognised in this statute, and spelt out in bold text, as 25 April, ANZAC Day. It has been so recognised in this country since 1916. It recognises perhaps the most significant day in the then short history of this federated nation, when on that morning at dawn in 1915, so many brave Australian soldiers made their way ashore. It was, as we know, to become among the most famous of military engagements, and it has come in the more than a century since to define those characteristics that we are so proud of in the character of Australians.

So, far from taking some opportunity on the reform of legislation to do away with these names, far from taking that kind of action, this ought to have been the very occasion on which the name was writ large, the name was spelt out, and the name was cemented in that occasion to update the legislation. We have heard from the shadow treasurer that the names have long been spelled out.

So I say that, far from this being some occasion to make amendments that you might find in a portfolio bill that might be described as minor or technical, far from that, the government ought to have come in here with the name of a bill that reflected the importance of applying the name, of reminding ourselves why we apply the name, of reminding ourselves why we commemorate on these important days, and not first to diminish their identification and importance on the introduction of the legislation last year, and then to continue to do so by the means by which this is brought back to this chamber on this occasion.

I have paused to focus on the importance of ANZAC Day, because ANZAC Day, of course, is a date that is a national day of commemoration. It is a state day of commemoration, and as we all know, each and every one of us, it is a day of local commemoration. It has become as important, even more important over the more than a century since, to those very local small communities that sent what were in some cases the large bulk of a small town's young men, and so well it is that we name that day in the legislation.

The important role of the Hon. Heidi Girolamo MLC in the other place in calling this out and, of course, the debate in the other place has been recognised. I recognise that contribution in particular, and I also take this opportunity to recognise and thank those committed members of RSL sub-brigades across the state throughout South Australia who shared with the opposition a view about the importance in particular of ANZAC Day, which is so important to our veterans.

We have heard this kind of excuse of technicality that has come from the government about this. We have heard this sort of excuse that it is about process and that is at the core of what we do and we know better and it is a technical change. I just say to members in this place that this is a place about heart and humanity. In order to achieve a greater level of coherence, if it is necessary in order to build the fabric of community that we hold so dear in this state, let's legislate with some heart and humanity and let's remember to keep that at the core of our consideration whenever we have an opportunity to legislate to reform, to review, legislation.

Let's remember that the very origin of the word 'holiday', an old English word, derived from 'holy day'. These days, when first described, were holy days. They were so special as to be designated in that way. Now of course they have come into modern usage as a day of rest, as a day of celebration and a day of commemoration and we identify public holidays through the year for that whole variety of purposes. Let's remember that derivation counts because it identifies and highlights the importance that was ascribed to that description from the beginning.

While we have holidays for a whole range of purposes these days and they are legislated, it is well that we name them because if we name them we remind ourselves why they are important to us nationally, at a state level and locally. We do not all have the same public holidays state to state. There are some days that are celebrated in some states and not others because they are of that particular greater significance to that state.

Let's name those days, let's identify them for the important days they are to all South Australians, let's ensure that the legislation is informative and let's do all we can to galvanise our respect with particular reference to ANZAC Day, which has been such an important feature of the urgency of this debate. With particular reference to the importance of ANZAC Day, let's get on with the passage of this important legislation that could not be further from the simply minor or technical. I commend those aspects in particular of the bill and I look for their speedy passage.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:08): It is like the former minister, who acted in the role of the Attorney-General, did not know what statutes we had on the books here. I remind the member opposite that the ANZAC Day Commemoration Act 2005 was introduced by a former Labor government to make sure that ANZAC Day was enshrined in law.

Given he is so fond of Australia Day, how could he have sat there for four years in government while the act only said '26 January' and did not mention the words 'Australia Day'? Why did they sit silent? Why did they all sit silent?

I will not be lectured about Christian holidays. I will not take a lecture about Christian values from any of the members opposite, especially the former Attorney-General. I will not take any values from him or members opposite. How dare he insinuate that members of this house and this government do not believe that Christmas Day should be celebrated as a public holiday. How dare they. Who do they think they are?

Think of the arrogance to tell practising Christians that we do not believe in Christmas Day. Think of the arrogance to know that there is another piece of legislation that enshrines in law ANZAC Day commemoration and then to go out and tell the returned services league community—to tell our veterans—that we have somehow abolished ANZAC Day, even though we have an act in parliament that we introduced when I was in parliament. It is here to make sure it would be enshrined forever.

But, of course, what they do not mention is that Good Friday remained mentioned. They did not mention that. When you saw Senator Antic on his Instagram post talking about how we tried to wipe out Christianity and tried to erase our Christian values from modern society, it did not mention that we left Easter and Good Friday in the legislation. Why is that? It is because it was just pure political pointscoring. That is all it was. It was not about what they really cared about. It was not about Christian values. It was not about public holidays. It was cheap political pointscoring. That is all it was. I will not take a lecture from anyone on that side of the parliament about Christian values, given what they did in the last four years they were in office. How dare they. It is just appalling.

The idea that the Premier of all people is some sort of woke warrior who wants to remove references to these types of days is just simply a fantasy. It is just not true and members opposite know it and that is why they hate him so much. They dislike the type of premier he is, so they try to invent these fake culture wars because that is the only thing they have. They have no policies on health. They have no policies on ramping. They have no policies on education, health, transport or infrastructure. They have zero policies. All they have is Alex Antic pretending we are trying to get rid of ANZAC Day and pretending that we do not support Christmas Day and rubbish speeches by a man who wants to be the attorney-general saying that we are running around telling everyone to say happy 25^th of December.

How appalling to attack another member of parliament's Christian values. I have never once said to any member opposite who espoused Christian values that they are not a real Christian because they are members of the Liberal Party. Why would I? Why would you do that? But what are you implying when you say that members on this side are trying to erase Christmas? What the Attorney-General did was simply say that for dates that are fixed the dates are fixed and for dates that are moved the occasion is named.

The Liberal Party opposite have done a very good job trying to smear up the culture wars. That is all they have. They are trying to be the big warriors, the sky after dark type. They want to go out there and talk about how we are trying to abolish Christian values and so we are getting rid of Christmas when they know it is rubbish. They know it is rubbish. They know it is not true. When we come here to fix this, rather than celebrate it and say, 'Okay, good, well done to the government', they attack us for suspending standing orders and they attack us for moving the bill and then they say, 'We commend the bill to the house'. It is not about the actual naming in the bill, it is about the issue that they wanted.

I got fired up over this over Christmas. A number of my friends said to me, 'I have seen Senator Antic say that you are abolishing Christmas.' What could be further from the truth. There is this idea that one political party thinks they have ownership of Christian values and Christian holidays over another. If you want to play this game, mate, I am ready to go. If you want to match my voting record against a majority of your voting records on Christian values, let's go. I am up for it. Line me up against every single Liberal that you want to about Christian values. I am your huckleberry. I will do it, no problem at all. Do not come here and lecture us that we somehow do not support Christian holidays, or that we are trying to get rid of ANZAC Day, when we have a special piece of legislation to make sure no-one could ever do it and it is here in law.

I get fired up about this because returned servicemen believed what they were hearing that we were somehow trying to denigrate ANZAC Day. Why would we? Why? I make every single service I can for ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day. I try to support our RSLs. The idea that somehow we do not support our RSLs is offensive. Of course, it is. Labor members and Liberal members of this house went off and fought together. Of course we support our returned servicemen. They go off in our name. Of course we support them. That is why we introduced a piece of legislation in 2005 to make sure that ANZAC Day is commemorated ongoing. It is law, l-a-w, law. It is in the books.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: So are the tax cuts.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is true. They were. He has got me on that one because I am responsible for the stage 3 tax cuts! My point here is if this was such an important issue to members opposite, for four years Australia Day remained unmentioned in legislation. Why did they not put it in? There is no answer, and do you know why there is no answer? It never occurred to them. It never occurred to them, not once. They were happy, for the entire time they had a majority in the parliament, to leave the legislation that we are amending today with 26 January as a public holiday without it referencing Australia Day.

I think there is a Greek word that comes to mind, and that word is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy, to try to politicise something like this. What they are really attacking is the parliamentary counsel. What we are really saying here is because the government wanted to formalise public holidays and we brought in a piece of legislation that had the fixed dates with the date, and the dates that moved with the name, I thought—

Mr Cowdrey: It did not happen.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It did not happen.

Mr Cowdrey: There were no names in there.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There were no names.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No. Good Friday is in there.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Yes, because you couldn't work out the maths to put the maths in, that's why. You didn't put the mathematical sum in. That's why that was in there.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My goodness! This is a great case study in incompetence from members opposite. There was no deliberate plan at all to try to remove names from the statutes to try to bring in some sort of woke agenda at all. It was very simply the days that are fixed have the date, and the dates that are moveable are given a name. It is very simple. Members opposite, who are so opposed to this, made no changes while they were in office and left Australia Day unnamed. There is no answer to that.

Mr Cowdrey: There is nobody in the room here who can answer that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Alright, but it only said 26 January, so to take the words of the opposition, what do we say on 26 January? 'Happy 26 January day'? Why not put 'Australia Day' in there? Why did the Marshall government not put Australia Day in there? Why did the member for Colton not move a private member's bill when he was a backbencher in the Marshall government to introduce Australia Day into the statute? Why didn't he? Did he not care about Australia Day? See where the argument can go here? See how offensive it is almost immediately? See how you recoiled when I said that? Because it is offensive. It is silly. It is the type of politics people hate.

Mr Cowdrey: Not much you say can offend me.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Really? Yet here you are listening. No, it is not your bill: it is our bill, and we are the ones who are removing the culture wars from this statute. We are the ones who are focused on policy, not culture wars and mudslinging and accusing some members of being unpatriotic and not loving their country or other members of not being Christian enough. We do not do that.

If members opposite want to start that type of politics, I say bring it on. If that is what you want, we will retaliate. But that is not the type of politics the people of South Australia want. What they want is a policy focus. They want us to focus on their cares and concerns, not trying to frighten them that someone is trying to abolish Christmas Day—which would never happen in a country like Australia. It is not going to happen. If you want to repeal ANZAC Day, this is the legislation you amend. Why would you? You would never, we would never do that. Of course ANZAC Day is important to us.

When I heard the shadow Attorney-General talk about the importance of ANZAC Day, the implication in his remarks were that we did not understand the significance of ANZAC Day—that some of us on this side of the house think that ANZAC Day is just another day. Of course it is not. It is a solemn day. It is a very, very solemn day when we remember people who went and gave their lives for our country in the first, most defining battle of a new, young country.

What members on the opposite benches are attempting to say is that the Labor Party is unpatriotic, does not care about our returned soldiers, does not care about Australia Day and does not care about ANZAC Day. Then, also, in sort of hidden messages, it is that we are also not Christian, because we do not like Christmas Day. That is the part that I found offensive, very offensive.

I am happy to have this debate with members opposite. If they want to run a 'Who's more Christian than the next person?' campaign, let's do it. No problem. I go to church every week. If we want to have this debate, let's go ahead. What is the next test? These types of debates do not add to the discourse of South Australia or the political discourse of this state.

What it does is that it shows that an opposition is desperate, and they are frightening people to try to get votes. They are scaring people, and they are playing on prejudice. I think it is appalling, absolutely appalling. It is one of the lowest points for members opposite I have ever seen, because when you take the accusations to their final conclusion what they are trying to say is that if you are in the Labor Party you do not love your country, and if you are in the Labor Party you do not respect Christmas. That is what they are trying to say, and that is appalling, because it is not true. It is a lie. It is an out and out lie.

The idea that we would somehow abolish Christmas Day or that this was some sort of move by left progressives to try to bring in some sort of new reset to try to undermine traditional Christmas values I think was just an appalling debate. I think this amendment puts that to rest.

I leave the house with a final question. If this was so important to members all they had to have done for the four years they were in office was introduce an amendment to insert the words 'Australia Day' into the act that governs public holidays, and they never did it, but you will not hear me saying that members opposite do not support Australia Day, because I know it is not true. I know it is not true. Of course they do. They celebrate our national holiday. They take the public holiday. They go to the citizenship ceremonies. I have seen them. I have sat next to them. It would be a lie to say that of members opposite, so why is it okay for members opposite to say that about us when they know it is not true?

I commend the bill to the house, and I hope this finally puts an end to these stupid culture wars that members opposite are trying to cling to. How about they come up with a policy pretty please?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (17:22): I think that at next year's Academy Awards I am going to send that clip in, because I have never seen such insincerity in my life. As I recall the 'Don't trust Habib' campaign of the Labor Party, that was the most disgusting thing that has happened in politics in recent times: having people in the seat of Elder wrongly believe—and whether they wrongly or rightly believed it does not matter, but they wrongly believed—that that woman was a Muslim and she should not be voted for. That is what that was all about. The member for West Torrens was going on about Christian values. I can tell you what: there is nothing Christian in that. We all know the story of the good Samaritan.

It is just extraordinary that the minister would try to defend what is the biggest balls-up that I have experienced by government in my 18 years in this place and try to cover it up with attacking members for speaking about a bill that replicates the amendments that the government rejected—an amendment bill that reflects the amendments the opposition presented when the bill went through in, I think it was, November last year.

We need to remember that Hansard is a permanent record of what happens in this place. It is something I often share with school students when they come through the chamber. I particularly refer to a Hansard from the Legislative Council from 1912. I stumbled upon this simply because I pulled it out one day and it was the smallest and lightest Hansard with only a couple of hundred pages, not hundreds and hundreds of pages in it. I came across a debate by Mr Cowan MLC in 1912 about daylight saving. In that debate, he tells the house that every state has agreed that daylight saving will be a good thing. Then I explain to the kids that this was 1912. When was daylight saving introduced? Except for the emergency process that went through during the Second World War, it was 1971. They find that extraordinary, but they have learnt that from the Hansard.

Imagine if this government did not realise what a major mistake it had made in removing the reasons for these holidays. The reason a particular date is there for a holiday that is an obvious reason, without actually knowing what the holiday is called, is New Year's Day, because we all know that 1 January is the first day of the new year. Any person with a reasonable standard of education or world experience would know that 1 January is New Year's Day. Of course, the date of 26 January was to commemorate a particular event of the first settlement coming to Australia, and so that is why it is called Australia Day.

I found the report from the member for Colton interesting about the quiz night at the Prince Albert Hotel. I am reliably advised that the lefties in the room cheered when they heard that South Australia had removed the name Australia Day from the holiday list and was the only place in Australia to do so. I wonder how they would have felt if the question was: which is the only state that does not celebrate Labour Day as Labour Day? I wonder if there would have been cheers or screams at that time.

That is the whole point about this legislation. The reason, the emotion and the connection with all of these days have been completely removed and replaced with numbers and months. It is an extraordinary oversight. I really do think this was a major tin-ear omission from the government and whoever was responsible for this bill.

Where does it end? If we were not attending to this today, if the Liberal Party did not run the campaign we ran in the media, out in the public, telling South Australians what this government had done to describe the reasons for holidays, would we have lost Remembrance Day as being the day that we call the 11^th of the 11^th? It is not a public holiday, but it is Remembrance Day. I do not say that I am not available at 11 o'clock on 11 November. I say I am not available on Remembrance Day because I will be at the commemoration, if somebody wants an appointment or some other invitation lobs on my desk. It is Remembrance Day. We are not going to commemorate the 11^th of the 11^th at 11 o'clock. It is Remembrance Day, and it is well known because it is called Remembrance Day and we are reminded about why it is called Remembrance Day on every 11 November.

There is no doubt that even the government's attempt to fix the mess that they created by just instantly dismissing the concerns raised by the Liberal Party, both in the Legislative Council and in this chamber, about adding amendments to put those names back in. But even the name, Statutes Amendment (Industrial Relations Portfolio) Bill—getting back to Hansard; why would anyone know what that was about? I think it should have been called, 'How the hell did that happen?' amendment bill. That is what I think it should be called because there are people listening to this debate, and I can tell you now that social media and the emails that have gone to my electoral office about people—if you want to talk about emotive issues, this is how social engineering starts.

Yes, sure, have the holiday but we are not going to talk about. We are not going to talk about what the holiday was about. We don't want to have a debate or a discussion about the history of Australia or the history of this particular day or why people lost their lives, or why Australia is the nation that it is because of that first settlement on 26 January 1788. I think that the whole purpose—can you imagine a proud country like the United States not having or renaming Martin Luther King Day after the date? It just would not happen. There would be riots in the streets, I am sure, by those who are true believers in America's freedoms and celebrations of their way of life.

Today, this is a backflip by the government. I am pleased that they have had the courage to come in and do this. I find it bizarre that we needed to suspend standing orders. I guess they did not want it on the Notice Paper for very long. Both the minister as the mover, and the member for Cheltenham, and then the Minister for Transport were simply attacking the very people who are supporting this bill today and would have preferred if the government had supported the amendments during the committee process when they were staged. But now we have it on permanent record in Hansard, in the statute books for that short time, the fact that we do not recognise the history behind these days.

Do you know who else did not like history and removed it all? Pol Pot. Remember, Pol Pot started from the year zero when he came to office. There was no history before him. It is extraordinary that nobody picked it up. The member for King did not pick this up and was happy for her constituents to celebrate dates rather than days; the member for Newland did not pick it up; the member for Waite, the member for Davenport. No-one picked it up. Why did they not pick it up?

Of course, the minister said—and this is a line that is growing from the government—'Why didn't you do in four years what we didn't do in 16 before you?' It seems extraordinary. Everything that is not done—'Why didn't you do it in four years?' We didn't do it in 16, but you didn't do it in four.' It reminds me of a scene from Seinfeld when George Costanza was trying to impress. He was posing as an American tourist from Kentucky, I think it was, because he was trying to date the attractive New York guide. Jerry said, 'Well, what did you tell her?' George said, 'If I condense everything I have done over the last 30 years into one day it is pretty impressive,' and that is what we are seeing with the 16 years of Labor government. They compress everything. They compare 16 years of their government with the four years of ours, where for two years we were managing an international health crisis, a pandemic that saw thousands of lives lost around the world where it was not managed as well as it was managed in South Australia.

It is not over. We know that there are more deaths in nursing homes from COVID now than there were a few months ago. It is not over. This government thinks it is over. It is not over; there are still things that need to be done. Where are the vaccination advertisements reminding people that there is a new variant and there is a new vaccine to deal with that new variant? How do people know that? But I guess they are hoping to be here for another 14 years so they can do what we did in four years over their 16 years.

We need to understand that the only reason we are here using the valuable time of the parliament to rename public holidays—or dates in the calendar, I should say, that were public holidays with the reasons why they were public holidays—is to remind people, whether it is a day of commemoration, whether it is a day of celebration, whether it is a day for a race in the history about the Adelaide Cup and the contribution that that industry has made to our culture and to our establishment as a colony, and later as a state in that instance.

In regard to Labour Day, I wonder if SA Unions were consulted about removing the name Labour Day from the October public holiday. I wonder if they agreed. Was it their idea to remove Labour Day? Perhaps the conversation went like this: a group of people said, 'We really want to stop using Australia Day' and then members of the government thought, 'We can't really just remove Australia Day and not the others, so are you prepared to give up Labour Day? If you're prepared to give up Labour Day we'll have a go, we'll see if we can get away with it.' That is what I think happened; that is how they got this through the party room.

It was a deal with the left and the right—either that or the right were asleep. I know the Premier was on leave. Maybe the member for West Torrens was preoccupied with something else. Others did not really care or did not quite understand the cultural significance of such a significant change. Maybe that is how it happened. They are the party of deals and we know that there is always a compromise when it comes to what they really believe in.

On those points, I support these amendments but I am very disappointed that we have to go through this again. I remind the house that we had the opportunity to leave these where they are when legislation was going through to deal with the public holiday on Christmas Day.

Another very interesting question here, of course, is: how many of the bodies that have an interest in these days were consulted? Were the Australia Day Council consulted about replacing Australia Day in South Australia being known as 26 January, or the racing industry about the Adelaide Cup day being replaced with, I think, the first day of March in the legislation? Was the RSL consulted about ANZAC Day?

Was there a protocol? Is there a protocol that is supposed to be followed if you are removing a birthday that was put in place to celebrate the sovereign or the monarch's birthday? Is there a protocol? Do you need to contact the Palace? Do you need to, at the very least, have a conversation with the representative of the sovereign here in Australia or in South Australia? Did that happen? Was that a requirement?

Was Unions SA consulted? What did they say? I put a theory out there that I think probably would be the only reason, I would imagine, that Unions SA would agree not to celebrate a day called Labour Day. You can imagine how revved up people would be when someone said, 'Let's go out and celebrate the first Monday of October.' There's not much to get enthusiastic about, is there? 'Let's go out and celebrate Labour Day! Yes!' You can hear them all shouting when you use that language, but the first day of October: 'What was that about?'

You can imagine those kids who did not have the opportunity, those schoolkids in 50 years' time who didn't have the opportunity to have a member of parliament that read old Hansard to them so they would understand that it used to be called Labour Day. 'Is that why we have that holiday?' And Proclamation Day: was the History Trust consulted? I am interested to know what their views are.

There is no doubt about the fact that we have only had a lead speaker from the government and then we have had an attack from the Leader of Government Business. Congratulations to him; he is very good at it, but he did not actually argue anything, other than he wanted to have a debate about who is more Christian than somebody else. I would argue that you do not need to be Christian to hold Christian values. Our whole society is built on Christian values. I know there would be many people in this house who would not call themselves Christians but would argue that they live Christian values.

What about those with different religious beliefs? Many of those live Christian values as well, because they are human values. It is why we are different to animals. I support these amendments and scratch my head as to why those public holiday names were removed from the bill in the first place.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.