Liberal Opposition

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:17): I move:

That this council calls on the Liberal Party of South Australia to provide the legitimate opposition South Australians deserve.

The members sitting on the benches opposite a government form the opposition. I say that because I am concerned they have forgotten. The proper working of a democracy in a two-party system requires the opposition to fulfil the duty to oppose the government by testing, probing and criticising government policies, but also, importantly, to show voters what an alternative government might look like. The opposition is not doing its job, and the voters know that. The Liberals might be able to hide from voters, but they cannot hide from me: I am only telling them what is being said behind their backs.

I know the opposition benches are familiar and familiar is comfortable, but we are not here to be comfortable. The public remains unclear on how the Liberals would lower electricity prices. People want to know if they have a plan to ease the cost-of-living burden. They talk about the government's failed promise to fix ambulance ramping, which reflects a wide range of other problems inside hospitals, including the ability to move people into other care once they are well enough to leave. What they have not articulated is what the Liberals are going to do about it.

How will the Liberals address the fact that people in mental health crisis end up in A&E and take up so much time, when specialist services are what is needed? Where do the Liberals stand on getting more doctors working in rural and regional areas? What is the Liberal's plan to fix the housing crisis? They talk about needing a standalone Minister for Child Protection: again, what do the Liberals suggest the minister will do to fix the child protection system? Where do the Liberals stand on men's health, for example—none of them accepted an invitation to the International Men's Day I arranged. Unfortunately, nobody can hurt the Liberal Party of South Australia as much as they can hurt themselves. I would like to see the Liberal Party succeed, but things need to change.

The Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, member for West Torrens, may desire the accolade of being the individual who has single-handedly inflicted the most damage on the Liberals, but in my opinion he is currently being pipped at the post by our members opposite. You see, one of the problems with the Liberals is the sense that they should be supported because, well, they are liberal after all. It does not work for the public and it does not work for me.

Support is built through building relationships and doing the groundwork. The Liberals need to come up with their own good ideas rather than trying to piggyback those of the crossbench. The honourable Leader of the Opposition in the upper house has taken the unusual step of wasting a question in question time, intended to hold government ministers to account on behalf of the South Australian public on a failed attempt to attack One Nation energy policies.

The honourable member has wrongly represented my views to the public on water trading, while attempting to ride my coat-tails with repealing the State Voice, all of course while simultaneously trying to throw me under the bus, figuratively speaking. I am told the Liberals want to work together with One Nation, collaborate, stand together on issues we share—you know, for the public's sake. Forgive me but I do not believe it. The Liberals have made it clear they will misrepresent One Nation to the public.

The Liberals have put on record that they support the One Nation Voice repeal bill, yet instead of getting behind One Nation petitions to repeal the State Voice, the Liberals started their own competing petition with no mention of One Nation's efforts.

The Hon. B.R. Hood interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.L. GAME: One Nation was deliberately and intentionally excluded from events with those opposite to promote opposition to the Voice. After observing me like a canary down a coal mine, the Liberal machine attempted to erase my efforts from conversation. I have had a petition against the division in this state since February 2023. If it was not strange enough of the Liberals to have a petition for a bill they do not have, even stranger is the fact that the Liberals have not committed to repealing the State Voice if they come to power. I will acknowledge that with the current outlook there is a slim chance the Liberals will get government anytime soon, but still it would be helpful—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.L. GAME: It would be convenient to put it to a vote because there are not the numbers in the chamber for it to pass and that would get you off the hook, since you have not made it clear to the public where you stand on this issue. I do not know why you keep landing yourselves in it.

The Hon. L.A. Henderson: We are on the record as supporting your bill, Sarah.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: But you are not on the record—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order and you are not supposed to respond to interjections. Just continue.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I will acknowledge with the current outlook there is a slim chance the Liberals will get government anytime soon, but still it would be helpful to know where the Liberals stand on the issue just in case. Concerningly, the Liberals, after all the toing and froing in the chamber and squawks about, 'Not enough detail,' finally settle the no for now vote while simultaneously shooting down my amendment to limit the number of committees the Voice could establish. The message seems clear: the Liberals' position is if we are going to have a State Voice, let it be as big as possible.

To be fair, the Liberals are completely committed to assessing the State Voice over the next couple of years and then completely committed to, well, not much, which is another problem plaguing the Liberals. In regard to water trading, I say to the honourable member: when we are on the same floor, same corridor, it is embarrassing and unacceptable to not check my water trading policies before seeking a cheap newspaper headline in a local paper based on fiction.

It is a shame the Liberal Party could not simply support my bill on politicians' water ownership like all the other members in the place did. Instead, they used social media to take petty swipes and try to piggyback on the idea while slandering me in TheMurray Pioneer. Get your headline on your own ideas. I encourage the opposition to put their heads together and come up with something.

It is important to be balanced here, so let's be clear: despite not one single Liberal member in this place accepting an invitation to my International Men's Day last year, one must acknowledge the Liberals do support women at least, especially women out there trying to make a difference. The Hon. David Speirs made this clear recently with his news address on the Dunstan by-election when he said:

How about the Premier of South Australia pull Tom Koutsantonis into line and say no we support women in public life and we are not going to have this bully like behaviour perpetuated by their side of politics because, quite frankly, I'm sick of it, my team are sick of it, South Australians are sick of it, [and] the people of Dunstan are sick of it.

If only the honourable Leader of the Opposition of the upper house had gotten the memo before her Sky News appearance and email to the Murray Pioneer. The Liberal Party are working hard, despite only having two Liberal women in the lower house, to counter the perception that they were once a party that had a longstanding problem with women.

The Liberals say they support women and lift them up—unless of course you happen to be a One Nation woman capable of coming up with ideas supported by the public, ideas for legislation demanding politicians declare their water ownership and ministers declare their travel expenses and repealing the State Voice nobody wants unless you are a bureaucrat. These types of proactive actions by a woman will find you as the Liberals' number one target.

Let's not forget the time the Liberals thought twice about putting my ministers' travel bill to the lower house. We only need to look at the Hansard to see the lack of jubilation on the day it passed both houses. Forget the public and their need for scrutiny of public spending. If the Liberals are upset, the public can wait until the Liberals get their own back.

Despite all this, I am open to collaborating with the Liberals in this place. It is what the public deserves on issues that should unite us, but I will not be subjugated into it. It may be one up against 31, but that will not stop me from standing up for myself and standing up for the South Australian people.

My tips to the Liberals are: stop your jollying with the left side of politics, commit to something, get your headlines from your own ideas and not hijack those from the crossbench, and leave the role of bringing down the Liberals to the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, member for West Torrens.

Let me be clear: the Liberal Party does not dictate which media outlet I appear in, and they do not decide when I call my bill to a vote. Liberals, if you truly wanted to work together, support the Voice repeal bill petition instead of competing—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.L. GAME: Exactly—another bill you want brought in that is going to crash. It is not in the interests of the public.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: Liberals, if you truly want to work together, support the Voice repeal bill petition instead of competing with it. Stop chasing petty political headlines and start chasing your own ideas. I call on you to resist the infighting culture of the Liberal Party and focus on what the people of South Australia want from their representatives.

Weak opposition parties are bad for any democracy because the governing party will have less incentive to govern the interests of all people. The Liberals sit on the opposition benches, but they are not doing the job of an opposition party. I want the situation to change. Our democracy, our freedoms, our prosperity and justice for all depend on the Liberals stepping up and doing the job they are elected to do.

When the opposition give their attention to undermining One Nation, they misunderstand their role, and they miss the opportunities that come with being an opposition and working with One Nation on common interests. I say to the Liberals, constant infighting is political death. I call on the opposition to show voters what an alternative government might look like. There is no other greater pressing issue for our democracy right now.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:27): I thank the honourable member for bringing this motion to this chamber and I regret the fact that there is such a clear and demonstrated need for her to do so. I am sure the honourable member speaks on behalf of so many in the community when she talks of her frustration and disillusionment with this so-called alternative government that is before us today.

I thought I might set out what it is that the Australian public deserve from an alternative government and what the Westminster system demands in exchange for its effectiveness, but it is actually someone else who spelled it out for me, so I will quote him instead. He said:

…it is not the role of oppositions to diminish the state we live in, to pull down individuals, to pull down business opportunities, to trash reputations... [It is to] ensure that our vision is in step with what the people of South Australia want from their alternative government.

They are the words in May 2022 from the Leader of the Opposition in another place, the Hon. David Speirs. What lofty ideals he committed to back then and what a wonderful job description he laid out for himself and his team, but what an absolute shame and disgrace that two years in the so-called alternative government has fallen so far short of what a genuine opposition should be and what the people of South Australia actually deserve.

During the one full term of opposition that Labor has faced this century, we seized the opportunity to participate in a genuine contest of ideas, putting forward to the South Australian public our strong, well-developed policies that laid the foundations for Labor's vision for the future of this state. Importantly, we were a constructive opposition. We did not criticise or obstruct unnecessarily.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the then opposition leader and now Premier offered unprecedented and bipartisan support, it showed the people of South Australia what a genuine opposition can do.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It showed the people of South Australia what a genuine opposition can do. Labor in opposition showed how constructive opposition can work to better the fortunes of South Australia, in a complete and utterly contrary manner to what we are seeing from the current opposition.

The now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Black, promised us all in May 2022 that they would let us know what the Liberal Party's vision was for South Australia, and this vision would be in step with the people of South Australia and what they want from an alternative government. Two years down the track and the question still remains: is there a vision? Are there policies? What does the alternative government actually stand for?

I dearly wish I could point to a single policy from the opposition that gives any indication about what they stand for. On health, they are blank; on housing, nothing; cost of living, zero; and on energy, no policy.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the opposition for proving the point I am trying to make here very well. It is all yelling but no policy—not a tiny little bit.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is disappointing but not surprising that the Liberal Party is so utterly rudderless when it comes to policy. I do not like to give advice to the Liberal Party. I do not like to help them out.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If I was taking this very narrowly, I would say it is not in our political interest to have an effective opposition, but that is not good for this state and that is not what I want for South Australia. I would like to see an opposition who has released a single policy. I would like to see an opposition who is effective. I think that is good for South Australia. Although it is not in our own narrow political interest, I think that is what South Australians deserve.

But it is not surprising. We have a Leader of the Opposition who does deals that are totally antipathetic to our state's interests, described in a royal commission on the Murray-Darling Basin as doing deals that are totally adverse to the interests of South Australia. So it is hardly surprising that, when you do not have the interests of South Australia at the forefront of your mind, you do not have a single policy for South Australians at all yet.

We have a Leader of the Opposition who capitulates, capitulates so severely to the Eastern States that a royal commission found he was almost certainly in breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. It is not a leader fit to provide the opposition that South Australia deserves, and it is not a leader that is fit to go to the 2026 election, who capitulates in such a way. South Australians deserve a choice. They want to have representatives who want more for our state and actually have a plan.

Under this Labor government, South Australians can see that we have a plan for this state. In our one full term in opposition this century, we laid out a positive plan. We were a constructive opposition that put ideas forward for South Australians. On the other hand, we have a so-called alternative government that is busy fighting against themselves.

We remember that, very recently, they fought a culture war against the former version of themselves. Who could forget the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council focusing so solely on the one issue they cared about, the thing that they were willing to go on the hill and die over—fighting against gender-neutral language in the standing orders—finding out that they had been beaten by their own former wizard of woke, Rob Lucas. They were fighting the ghost of Rob Lucas from 20 years ago, who had done the exact thing that they were willing us not to do. This is how focused the opposition are on themselves: fighting with the Hon. Rob Lucas from 20 years ago. It is hardly surprising that they have nothing to say about South Australia, hardly surprising at all.

This is a Liberal Party captained by the great capitulator, the great capitulator who so fundamentally misunderstands our century-old system of government that previously, when addressing a church congregation, he said, 'The idea of the separation of church and state—forget about it.' Forget about it—the idea of the separation of church and state. If only the Liberal Party were as passionate about upholding the fundamental pillars of democracy in the Westminster system, or even holding true to their core values that we saw way back in the last century, that they would not fight themselves from 20 years ago on standing orders.

This is a Liberal Party that we have seen in recent times completely steered and taken over by the anti-vaccination crew, who are all too happy to pick battles and stop the most senior woman in federal parliament—from the Liberal Party in SA—and be relegated under someone who leads the anti-vaccination political movement in South Australia.

Their Senate preselection process on the weekend tells you every single thing you need to know about why they are so unfit, so dramatically unfit, to even be an alternative government, let alone be a government. It is a Liberal Party that so spectacularly failed in its duty and its promise to offer credible alternatives, to offer ideas, to offer policies, and to offer South Australians what they so deserve in an opposition, that we will be supporting this motion.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:35): I move to amend the motion:

Leave out all words after 'That this council calls on' and insert 'all parties and members to work hard to fulfil their obligations to the people of South Australia with dignity, prioritising the needs of our communities at all times.

I rise to very briefly speak on behalf of the opposition on a motion that is partisan, a motion that I do not believe is in the spirit of this place and a motion that, quite frankly, should make the people of South Australia concerned about the motives and priorities of One Nation and the Hon. Sarah Game in this state. This motion is juvenile and it is not fitting for any member in this chamber. We are privileged to stand in this place to represent those who provide us with an incredible opportunity, and for us to be wasting time on such a motion shows a lack of respect to this place and to the people of South Australia.

If the Hon. Ms Game knows anything about politics, she should know that political parties tend to consult with communities, they tend to consult with industry and they tend to consult with stakeholders before releasing policy, something I would suggest she does with her own water trading policy. It seems the member clearly does not understand the difference between water buybacks and water trading in the consumptive pool. I would suggest that she speaks to some stakeholders, as I have done, and I am sure many would be happy to speak to her to ensure that she understands this process.

The member alludes to the fact that I am down the corridor. My door is always open, but the member did not seek to walk down that corridor to my door to ask for my opinion and my advice on her water trading policy before putting it publicly into TheMurray Pioneer. Yet, she has the audacity to accuse me of not consulting with her before responding to that public policy by the same means. This is an absolute nonsense motion, and we do not believe it is worthy of a vote.

As members of this place we should always be striving to lead by example, to create a positive vision for this state, to be constructive in our criticism, and to accept differing policy views. We need to be able to play the policy, not the person or the people. The Hon. Sarah Game and One Nation would do well to focus not on their own personal vendettas but on the real and pressing need of South Australians who she has been elected to represent here.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (17:39): I rise to speak briefly today in favour of the Hon. Ms Game's motion, and I do so more in sorrow than in anger. The grand old Liberal Party has fallen on tough times and, 80 years after its founding, it looks little like the party that Sir Robert Menzies would recognise. In just the past few weeks, we have seen members opposite sink to new lows, casting aspersions under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, and the internal dramas that we have all come to expect have now blown up on the federal stage. The talented SA federal Liberal frontbencher, Anne Ruston, has been unceremoniously demoted to number two on their Senate ticket by a male colleague better known for his so-called recruitment than his policy acumen.

But I do rise in sorrow as the public of South Australia deserve better. They deserve better than the continual infighting that we have seen over decades within the Liberal Party. They deserve better than the lack of drive we see so often on the opposition benches, and they deserve better on the policy front, with little to see from those opposite. Fortunately, this Labor government continues to strive forward with an eye on the future for all South Australians. With big ideas, a raft of talent, and a dedication to serving the public of South Australia, this state under Labor is in good hands.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:40): I rise to support a One Nation bill. I never thought I would actually be sitting here saying that.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: A motion. That is very nice that they are paying attention on the other side; that is very good. Just two short years ago, three-quarters of the parliamentary Liberal Party downstairs voted to support its leader in the other place by a margin of 18 for the member for Black and six for the other male candidates. With its fairly, I think, pie in the sky promises of a fresh and diverse attitude to leadership and a few jokes about maybe needing television subtitles to understand him, the Liberal Party cast itself into a fairly traditional mould, at least for this state, to serve for another term on the opposition benches.

Frankly, after two years, sadly I have to say, I am kind of pleasantly surprised by how things are going over there. If anyone has ever seen the film Moneyball, there is a quote in that film that I think bears some good listening to, and that is, when your opposition is making mistakes, do not interrupt them. They are giving you an out, say thank you. So I guess it behoves me right now to say, thanks, guys.

There is something very odd about wanting to be elected to get behind the wheel of our state but then taking your hands off that wheel in your approach to doing it. The comparison is pretty stark when you look at the preparation of Labor after two years in opposition, and the preparation of this Liberal Party as it stands right now. From health to education, public transport to water, the environment to energy, to even the very nature of who might actually get a say in this parliament, the Labor Party had announced policy while in opposition.

Two years out, we stood in this place and we said, 'We're ready.' There was no doubt in the community, we were ready. The Liberal Party as it stands right now cannot say the same. The Liberals are yet to release a policy on health—pretty critical that. Instead, their leader describes ramping as, quote, 'a political opportunity'. That is right: a political opportunity. Did he mean it? You bet he did. The opposition leader further said that Labor's policies of opening more beds and rebuilding the health system are probably wasted money—probably wasted money.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: 'Ask any South Australian', says the Hon. Ms Lensink. What has changed? What has changed since the Liberals cut nurses and hospital funding when they were in government? Very little it seems. Worse than this, it is truly unclear what they actually do stand for. So in two years, the Liberals have opposed rental reform, education reforms and buybacks in water. The Liberals have opposed tax reform, opposed popular events like the Gather Round, LIV Golf or the Adelaide 500, and they said we could not hold Westfield to account for car parking in shopping centres.

Whatever it is, whatever the policy issue, it seems that the Liberal Party will be against our ideas. Apparently, sometimes they decide they are actually not that keen to do much of anything about it, unless of course it is a policy issue that provides them with a political opportunity. Indeed, as recently as this week, all other real issues of normal people aside, in the lead-up to a by-election no less, we see the Liberals openly fighting amongst themselves about positions on a Senate ticket.

It is bizarre that there are reports that the leader will put his job on the line over something as remote to the average South Australian's consciousness as a Senate ticket spot, but will not put his neck out for putting forward actual policy that his party can take to the people of this state.

The question is here. It has arrived in the minds of many, both in here and outside of here. What have the Liberal Party and its opposition leader actually been doing? South Australians know. We do not need a leader that sees political opportunities when confronted with genuine, meaningful problems like ramping, like people wondering where their children might live or how people will afford to feed their family.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: You can hear them, Mr President—lots of opinion, no policy. You can hear them. We hear them here every day. The Leader of the Opposition is happy to say these problems are important, just like they are here. He is happy to admit that they are complex. But what would he do to address them? You know what? He does not know. He is actually not sure, which must be so deeply frustrating, so very deeply frustrating for those on the opposition benches who actually have ideas that they might otherwise seek an opportunity to put forward.

But ideas really are not this opposition's thing under the current leader. Does anyone think taking a hands-off approach to hands-on problems actually works? You cannot shrink your way to growth, and you cannot hide your way into government, and if the Leader of the Opposition takes the Liberals to the next election—if he makes it that far—he will find that out for himself.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:46): I think I am going to be brutally blunt here. I must say I am disappointed and gobsmacked at the depths that this motion reaches. It is bizarre, it is embarrassing, it is puerile, mindless political sniping that achieves nothing and reflects badly on the already poor image of parliament, and on this chamber and its members, and on the other place. It serves no purpose, and I am sure the public of South Australia would be outraged listening to this debate and to the level it has descended to, wasting all our time when there are far more serious issues impacting on our community right now.

Cost of living is foremost in the minds of every Australian and South Australian families. They are our constituents who cannot afford to buy groceries, pay their rent or mortgages, fearful of the next power or water bill rolling up into their letterboxes. For young people, their dream of buying a home is now an impossible dream. Homelessness is at levels never before seen. There is a skill shortage, which means all those major projects that Labor keeps trumpeting about, like AUKUS, will be desperate to find qualified people to fill those crucial jobs.

Our health system is bursting at the seams and is on life support. Construction companies and small businesses are closing down or going broke. Just take the story of Sandip Silwal in today's Advertiser. He is so desperate to keep the doors open of his Italian restaurant, Rusco & Brusco on Magill Road, that he now has to do everything. He cooks, he serves, he washes the dishes just to try to keep those doors open.

Retailers and shopkeepers are in the grip of a shoplifting epidemic, something that I have not even seen in my years as a journalist or since serving in this place. There are problems in aged care. I could go on listing the most pressing things that are hurting South Australians right now. Do you really think they give a toss about what Ms Game thinks about the opposition's performance or even One Nation's Trumpian politics? 'Haven't they got anything better to discuss or debate instead of flinging mud at each other?' people would say listening to this debate today. Does the honourable member think she is the only one here pulling their weight?

Her motion is political grandstanding for the sake of getting in cheap shots and a headline or a spot on Sky. Then of course there are her cheerleaders gleefully throwing their grenades from the government benches. I just cannot believe the amount of air the Hon. Sarah Game blew into the tyres of the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis. There is so much air in there—or hydrogen maybe—that they would need to anchor him down so he does not float across South Australia.

I have often spoken about improving the standards of parliamentary conduct and trying to retain a skerrick of respect from the people we have been elected to serve. I feel honoured and proud to be in this position that carries great responsibility. I have always strived to do my best, representing the interests of South Australians and the constituents who seek my help when they have nowhere else to turn. Let me correct the honourable member in her speech. This is not a two-party system. There are actually two other parties in this place.

As I said, I just do not understand what the purpose of all this whining nitpicking is—you have to question the timing of it all with a by-election coming up—or just what her sulking words are all about. Perhaps there is a clue in those sulking words that she does not seem to see eye to eye with the Liberal Party.

I cannot support this motion. I would not have even supported if it was reversed and targeted at the Labor Party or the government. I just could not do that, simply because of the level that this place has descended to. All I can say is that, while I will not be supporting the motion, I will support the Liberal one because that is what we are trying to achieve in this place: a level of conduct to win back the respect of the people of South Australia.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (17:51): I was not going to speak today, but I find myself ever so wanting to. I guess we have spoken a lot today about policies and directions that a government can take when leaders take bold decisions—bold decisions like creating a position for the assistant minister to be a world leader, having a role that is not in any other government anywhere else in the world. You would think that would be something that would be celebrated. In South Australia we have a government that is willing to focus on the largest disability group in our state, where we have the largest autistic community anywhere in our country as a proportion. Unfortunately, that is not reflected by this opposition.

In an interview, the leader of the Liberal Party in the other house said very clearly that it is virtue signalling when you do things like creating the role of Assistant Minister for Autism. He said, 'You know…the idea that governments pick certain things to appease a particular cohort of people.' Particularly trying to appease a cohort of people who are the largest disability group in our state is not what I would say is virtue signalling, but that is what the leader of the Liberal Party said.

Further, he says, 'it is the responsibility of education and the education minister and to an extent the health minister and the disability minister'. His thinking that it is the education minister's responsibility to support the autistic community really does show that this is a person who does not understand the autistic community. You are born autistic, and you will pass away autistic. It is beyond the role of the education minister. He further goes on to suggest, 'But the idea that we have one minister for that doesn't sit with me particularly comfortably, and that's why I haven't reflected that in my shadow ministry.'

So to the autistic community I say that the Leader of the Opposition does not think this role should be here and that they should not have a voice in the community. I think everyone here should be very concerned that we have been able to become a nation leader, a world leader, in what we have been able to achieve for the autistic community here but that we have an opposition that does not think it should exist.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:54): I rise very briefly to support this motion. I note that it calls on the Liberal Party to be a legitimate opposition. I observe that in this place we spent countless hours wasting time, I believe, because of lies told to the community about Australia Day and ANZAC Day supposedly being cancelled by previous legislation of this place when it was patently not cancelled.

Indeed, I note the words of the Leader of the Government in this place who reflected on the angst this caused with the RSL, particularly in late December and January just past, in the summer break. Minister Maher spoke to the President of the RSL in South Australia, Mr Dave Petersen, who had spoken also on radio talking about his frustration that veterans were calling him late into the night thinking that ANZAC Day had actually been completely cancelled. When it was explained to the RSL and Mr Petersen what had actually happened, he then posted on the RSL website:

The new legislation, despite suggestions otherwise, was not intended to, and did not, strip ANZAC Day of its name. Rather the legislation is for the administration of public holidays regarding industrial relations law (i.e. how much someone gets paid for working on ANZAC Day).

The RSL's attempts to console their members—because they would have been rightly outraged had we in this parliament somehow cancelled ANZAC Day—needed to be even further clarified by this parliament revisiting that legislation to give comfort to the public of South Australia that the Liberal Party's lies over summer were not true. So if you want to talk in this place about wasting parliament's time that is my first example that leads me to give support to this motion today.

The second example is the so-called picnic tax. I have read out in this place the letters from Judy Potter, the chair of the Botanic Gardens relevant body—I cannot remember the exact title of that—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Board.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, the Hon. Ian Hunter—the chair of the Botanic Gardens board, who wrote not once but twice to the member for Bragg asking him to literally stop lying and saying there was going to be a picnic tax when there was never going to be a picnic tax, again causing fear and trepidation in the community through illegitimate means.

I note also that it is hard to tell the difference these days between the Liberal opposition and One Nation at the best of times, with not just the wizard of woke, who got rid of gender-neutral language some decades ago, the Hon. Rob Lucas, but all sorts of shenanigans where they are far less likely to talk about the cost of living than they are to be talking about culture wars. It is hard to recognise the moderates in this Liberal Party that we find before us, and certainly those days of talking about a blue-green alliance are long gone.

I note also the resignation from the Liberal Party in the other place of the member for MacKillop, citing dark factional forces, and I ask the Liberal opposition in this place whether those dark factional forces are a useful thing to bring to the floor of parliament or whether they are better kept in the back rooms of the Liberal Party machine.

It is a strange sort of machine right now. I make no comment on whether or not Senator Alex Antic or Senator Anne Ruston are at the top of the ticket. That is for the Liberal Party to decide in their wisdom. It was done through democratic means. But what I would say is that we have spent a lot of time talking about these things and very little time talking about policy in the Dunstan by-election.

I would love to have seen the Liberal Party back the Greens' call for the Kent Town pocket park, which would be the only piece of green space for the residents of Kent Town, who are closed in on all sides by a lack of green space and are desperately calling for all political parties to quarantine that little bit of Bureau of Meteorology land to give them some space so that they can have a bit of shade, give their children somewhere to crawl or toddle on the grass, and enjoy what nature has to offer in that particular part of the electorate. But no, for the seat of Dunstan, what we have seen in this place is the tabling of the Labor candidate's personal Gmail correspondence between herself and her husband. That was certainly, I think, not a legitimate political tactic.

I also call out and note that in conversations about whether or not the Greens should support this motion, I was asked whether we would support a similar motion on the Labor Party. I point to, and I can see, two members here on whom I have voted no-confidence motions: three times for one member and one time for the other member. It is time now to co-design a new engagement paradigm and bring the standards of this place up to ensure that picnic tax lies, ANZAC Day lies and lies about supposed culture war intentions of benign pieces of legislation are no longer the standard debate in this place and that we get back to the business of things like the cost of living and the climate crisis.

With that, the Greens will support the motion, strange as that may sound. The wording of the motion is something that we can see our way clear to supporting because, at the moment, the Liberals are not a legitimate opposition. It does not reflect, of course, on the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, who is currently one of the few Liberal members of parliament who I do have a reasonable amount of respect for. It does, however, reflect on the way that this Liberal opposition is currently operating with other members of this parliament, and so I think it is a legitimate wake-up call.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Game to conclude the debate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Sorry, I am not listed to speak.

The PRESIDENT: No, you are not listed.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Well, I would like to.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:01): Thank you, Mr President. I note that I did not get the same reception that the Hon. Tammy Franks just received when she stood on her feet to speak, but I thank you again for the opportunity.

I start by saying that anything we say today in this place in response to this motion, from where I sit, pales into insignificance compared to the headlines that we have seen in recent days involving the Liberal Party during a by-election for a seat that I consider the Liberals desperately need to keep hold of. It pales into insignificance compared to some of the comments that have been made publicly by members of the Liberal Party amongst their own members. I, like the Hon. Tammy Franks, make no judgement about who takes what preselection in the Liberal Party—that is a matter for the Liberal Party—but I do note that, once again, we have this ventilation of those issues at the worst possible time.

I will say at the outset—and I am making these comments listening to what other honourable members have said—that I, for one, have enjoyed a strong working relationship with the Leader of the Opposition in this place, just as I have a strong working relationship with the Leader of the Government in this place. I have not taken that for granted at all, and I do not intend to take that for granted.

I would be lying if I said—and the record speaks for itself—that I have not come in here time and time and time again to ventilate my frustrations with the Liberal Party, not as the Liberal Party but as the opposition that we have before us. I think I did so when we first came to this place after the election and we lost a Liberal member from the floor of this place. I think I did that again in recent months when we debated the university merger. I think I did it again when we debated the Supreme Court bill. I think I did it again—in fact I do not think, I know I did it again and again—when we debated IR laws.

I did it again when we copped the flak for changes to the Public Holidays Act and changes to the picnic tax, based on so-called facts that were aired publicly by the Liberal Party, which I know I had to defend—and the Hon. Tammy Franks also said she had to defend—publicly because our position in here was misconstrued by the Liberal Party. I do not have to agree with the reasons the mover of this amendment has put this motion. In fact, I support the Leader of the Opposition's position when it comes to water entitlements and I think that is a good position to hold. I do not have to agree with her motives for moving this motion. I certainly do not have to agree that we come in here all the time using our time wisely.

If we refer and reflect back on the debate that happened all of two weeks ago, there was a line-up of members opposite who were willing to have a crack over changes that we made. I think one of the members during that time heard from me what I thought about her comments in relation to the way she refers to people in this place, but there was a line-up of speakers who were willing to misconstrue our positions when it came to the public holiday debate, a debate again that we had to publicly defend outside of this place. There was no mention then of the time that was taken in this place.

The reality is that this is politics. We come in here, and we do not all share the same ideologies. The only partisanship that exists is when we put our minds together and come together on good, meaningful reforms. Aside from that, yes, we share different ideologies and do not always agree. It would be absolutely naive of any of us to come in here and say that we support or do not support this motion for reasons based on partisanship. This is, after all, politics. I do not share, obviously, the views of the mover in relation to issues she has ventilated today around the Voice or water buybacks—I do in terms of the water register amendments we put through. Everyone has a different position in this place.

But do I think we have had an effective opposition in the state? It has been hard work with the opposition in this state since this government took power. There is no denying that. I have said that this Premier rules with an iron fist. I have said that in this place time and again—he does. This is a well-oiled machine, and it is hard to get traction when you are working in this environment and do not as a crossbench and an opposition come together on issues. That has been reflected in this place through the votes time and again.

It would not be fair of me to stand up and say that I think we have had an effective opposition, because many of the things we lose on each and every day stem from the fact that we simply cannot get them through this place with the numbers that we need to get them through. Notwithstanding that, I make the point that I appreciate the leader's position in this debate, but this is, after all, politics.

I point to the fact that we have a by-election going on at the moment, and what was a Liberal seat is up for grabs. In the moment that you would think we would see some unity from the opposition and some rallying together, the headlines have been nothing but. From where I sit that is disappointing. It is disappointing that we have these issues time and again being aired publicly in the way that they have been at the expense of someone I consider to be a candidate who probably would make a good member in parliament. All that is overshadowed by what we have become used to, and that is a lot of infighting at the expense of, sometimes, what I consider to be good public policy.

I note that the honourable member is moving an amendment to this and I note again for the record that I do not see this motion as an affront to the Leader of the Opposition in this place or the working relationship that many of us have shared with her, but my position in relation to that amendment—and I will make that clear now before we get to it—is simply that I will not be voting on the amendment. I will choose to abstain from voting on that amendment today. I make that clear for the record now. The rest will be what it will be.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (18:10): Thank you to the honourable members who contributed. I just want to comment briefly on some of those contributions. Regarding the contribution from the Hon. Frank Pangallo about this being a waste of time, I do feel that I need to state that the Hon. Frank Pangallo has almost wiped out the entire parliament by keeping us here for many hours, away from our families and almost non-functional the next day, so I do take objection to the fact that I cannot air my concern about such an important topic as ensuring we have democracy and a viable opposition.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo also stated that there are more important issues, such as cost of living, the housing crisis and so on. I do agree that they are very important issues. They require members to fully fulfil their role in this place, which is why I brought the motion forward. I thank the Labor government for expressing their shared concern.

To the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, I would say that it makes me sad actually to see hurt feelings. That is never the goal, but I will say that it does seem there is one rule for the Liberal Party and one rule for everyone else. The Liberals have thought nothing of isolating One Nation when they should be collaborating for the public interest. I would ask the Liberal Party to make clear their position for the public on repealing the State Voice were they to obtain government, because that is not clear from my consultations. I hope that we can see the Liberal Party pick themselves up, carry on and improve.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 9

Majority 2

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 12

Noes 7

Majority 5

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus carried.