HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-02-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Industrial Relations Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 February 2024.)

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Roads, Minister for Veterans Affairs) (15:49): I would like to make a contribution to support the bill before the house today. In my opinion, ANZAC Day is our nation's most solemn day—a day when we pay tribute and give thanks to those who have defended, and continue to defend, our country and our way of life.

Military service and the veterans community have long held a very important place in my life and in the life of my family. I am the son of a World War II veteran and brother to a Vietnam veteran. I also have a younger brother who was in the regular Army for a short period of time. As a young man I served in the Army Reserve in Port Pirie and then in Port Adelaide. It is a great privilege for me to serve as the Minister for Veterans Affairs in this government.

I understand that nothing in the act passed by the state parliament last year changed that ANZAC Day would continue to be commemorated on 25 April every year. Nevertheless, I understand that, to avoid any doubt, the Premier announced on 4 December 2023 that the legislation would be amended to include the names of the public holidays that fall on all the fixed dates. The bill before us today fulfils this commitment. This will mean that in addition to the ANZAC Day Commemoration Act 2005 that enshrines the commemoration of ANZAC Day on 25 April, we will now also include the name of our annual ANZAC Day public holiday.

The veterans community is a very special group of women and men who have worn our nation's uniform. It includes their families and others who support them. I have always been very grateful for the services of those who have fought in defence of our country and the values that we hold dear to us today. Since becoming Minister for Veterans Affairs I have gained a deeper appreciation of the sacrifices made by the families and surviving members of our Defence Force.

Data from the 2021 Census indicates that 47,852 South Australians have served or are currently serving in the Australian Defence Force. It would be a very terrible shame if any of those proud South Australians suffered a single moment of stress or worry because there are people around who say that the government wants to cancel ANZAC Day. That is what I have heard out in the communities.

I meet regularly with members of the veterans community, including the state President of the RSL, Mr Dave Petersen. He himself is a 37-year-old Australian veteran who served from 2006 until 2017, including a deployment in Afghanistan in 2012. Mr Petersen is a very impressive representative of the veterans and a proud resident of regional South Australia. He lives currently in Crystal Brook, which of course I am very familiar with.

The member for Cheltenham, I understand, has already mentioned during his remarks on the bill the impressive contribution that Mr Petersen has made in calling for calm when there were veterans out there worried that their most important day may be cancelled. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate Mr Dave Petersen on his wise and measured public statements.

As I am sure many members in this house are aware, our veterans do not like it when we play politics with these sorts of things. Quite frankly, our veterans deserve better. I can assure you—everybody here and the community—that ANZAC Day is enshrined as a public holiday in South Australia, and will remain as our most solemn day of commemoration forever and ever. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (15:53): I rise to speak in support of this bill. I have been watching with interest some of the contributions that have been made. Those contributions are made in the shadow of the debate that was had about this exact same step last year in this place and in the other place. I have been surprised by the continued arrogance of those opposite to keep pushing forward that their perspective is best and now everyone has just misunderstood what was put forward. I think what those opposite should really recognise is that they are out of touch with their community and the expectations of their community.

What we heard, even before this was voted on, was that people were questioning why: questioning why these names were being removed. What is the motivation behind it? They were questioning the reasons that the Labor Party and government have decided to take these definitions out: for what reason? It was not something that we came to in hindsight, like those opposite seem to have. When this legislation passed through the parliament last time, we did not hear these sorts of words from those opposite; instead, we heard jeering and sneering.

I would especially like to highlight the words that were said and the way that my colleague the Hon. Heidi Girolamo in the other place was treated for bringing up her community, our community's concerns with the changes that were made. The level of vitriol, the level of bitterness that was aimed at her amounted to bullying. I would encourage everyone to review that Hansard, to review those videos where those on the other side of politics treated her with the utmost disrespect and hatred and to reflect on that now, reflect on that in the shadow of a mistake being recognised. It took the Premier to come in and say, 'What's going on? No, we need to do a backflip on this,' for there to be a little bit more context to the words that were spoken.

We on this side were trying to be constructive. We said that at the time. I remember when we were debating this bill, we were putting forward constructive amendments to make sure there was no doubt about the motivation of the legislation, but, in fact, those who were putting the legislation, either out of incompetence or out of conspiracy, kept on boring through. They have come now in the new year—'new year, new me' they say—and backflipped on this. They have not done it in a way that is contrite, they have not done it in a way that recognises their failings but in a way that we have seen with those opposite: full of arrogance, full of aggression, full of hatred because they got caught out.

I would also encourage people to reflect on the Hansard,the words that were spoken by the member for West Torrens yesterday. If you were watching like I was and hearing those words, he was trying to pretend there is some sort of aggressive culture war. In the opposition, we were trying to put forward constructive corrections to the legislation. But as I was listening, as I reviewed the Hansard, I saw the words of arrogance continue on because the Labor Party got caught out—got caught out in a mistake, got caught out in misreading the South Australian community.

Instead of being humble and recognising their shortfalls, they have doubled down. They said, 'There is no real need for this change, but we will do it anyway.' If the member for Stuart was listening to the members of the Returned and Services League all around regional South Australia, he would have very clearly heard that those members of the community at the grassroots level thought that it was wrong. People who would not ordinarily have any sort of insight into what was going on in state parliament were coming up to me and saying that it was wrong. I am glad that there was a recognition from the senior leadership in the Labor government that it needed to be fixed.

I have been surprised and I have been disappointed with the way that that recognition of their failings was articulated as part of the debate. South Australians value those days which had their names erased on the first pass of this legislation. We have heard about the importance of ANZAC Day. We have heard about the importance of Christmas Day. We have heard about the importance of Australia Day. As I said, this is what people who ordinarily would not even give a casting, fleeting thought to what is happening in this place, people at the grassroots level, are telling us in our communities. But when things like that impact them, they start to question the motivations, the reasoning, and they start to question their decision-makers. That is exactly what happened.

The people of the community of South Australia said, 'No. You have gone too far. You need to step back.' I commend this bill, I support this bill. I supported the changes when they first were put by the opposition. I challenge the government to reflect on the way that they have gone about this process and, as I said, reflect on the way that the Hon. Heidi Girolamo in the other place was treated through this debate, and perhaps even consider being a little bit humble through this process.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (16:00): I will take some short time to speak on this as well because, of course, once this bill is passed, if in fact that is the will of the parliament, we will actually get to acknowledge properly ANZAC Day on 25 April. Of course, it came into existence in 1915—

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs: You weren't planning to? You were going to boycott it, were you?

Mr PATTERSON: Well, that's what it seems was written.

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs: You were going to boycott it?

Mr PATTERSON: Maybe that was going to happen, and that is why in the upper house the Hon. Heidi Girolamo—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please! Member for Morphett, resume your seat. Members on my right, if the member for Morphett can be heard please.

Mr PATTERSON: As I was saying, in the other place the Hon. Heidi Girolamo made some constructive amendments to actually know that these dates are more than just dates on a calendar: they actually mean a lot to so many people. As I was saying, ANZAC Day is an example. We should note that when she tried to make those constructive changes back in November there was vitriol, bullying and aggression directed at her: the arrogance that this could just be rammed through and no-one would be paying attention, and how dare people call into question what was being put through, change to dates.

We now find three months later, when it has been revealed and there has been public scrutiny and pressure, that those changes have been brought in under this guise and, as has been said by others, not in a humble manner but by saying, 'These aren't really necessary anyway. We are just doing them as well.' But it is important, as I said, that the naming of these holidays is put in there, too, because of what they mean to people.

On ANZAC Day each April, on the 25th of course, we have the dawn services. It is a time when we do remember the sacrifices that were made, not only on that morning in 1915 but in other conflicts since. Also, we see other days being rightfully named as well. Christmas Day, after the passing of this act, will be acknowledged in the legislation as Christmas Day; Australia Day also will be put in as 26 January in the statutes.

I noticed in the minister's second reading speech that he steered clear of mentioning Australia Day. He gave other examples, but he did not go so far as to acknowledge that Australia Day has been put in here, which is again—as I spoke about probably 30 minutes ago in one of my contributions—a day of celebration. It is a day where people's service to the community is recognised by citizen awards, by community groups and what they do. Of course, they want to see these days recognised. They do not want to see them just passed off as a date in the statutes. They want it acknowledged and written down. So here we see on this day of backflips, another piece of legislation coming through—

The Hon. J.K. Szakacs: The day of backflips was yesterday. Today is just getting on with it.

Mr PATTERSON: This is another day of backflips; it continues. Thank you for highlighting that. Two days in a row of backflips—good point: backflip Tuesday, backflip Wednesday. So I just confirm and add my support. I know on this side of the house we have had a sustained position on the naming of these public holidays. On that side, we hear them again chiming in, trying to heckle, flipping around, being dragged kicking and screaming—they are still kicking and screaming—to the realisation that this is important to people, and so that is why we on this side support the naming of these public holidays.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:04): I thank members for their contributions, those opposite, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport who I think quite succinctly and eloquently put on the record the attempts of those opposite to enliven culture wars and to bring into question, as more than one of them did, the notion of disrespecting or being less than good Christians because of a nomenclature in the bill which passed this place.

Mr Teague: That was a straw man if you were following. Nobody did that. The member for West Torrens made it up.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Do you want to keep going because if I respond, it goes on the record, but Josh it was you. It was you, Josh.

Mr Teague: Who did that?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It was you. Did you forget?

Mr Teague: How? Have you read the Hansard?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I was sitting in here.

Mr Teague: Have you read the Hansard?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Which one? Heidi's? Because I am going to get to Heidi's Hansard.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. I just remind members that the debate is through the Speaker and not across the chamber. I also remind the minister—

Mr Teague: It's extraordinary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, while I am speaking, I would appreciate if you did not speak or you can leave the chamber, one of the two. Okay? Minister, you have the right to reply uninterrupted. You also have the responsibility not to refer to members by their first name.

Mr Teague: And refrain from misleading the house—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, you are warned for the second time.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Mr Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw that egregious comment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I didn't hear it. I have been advised that if you are going to accuse a member of misleading the house it has to be done by substantive motion. If not, you need to stand up and apologise and withdraw your statement. It is your choice.

Mr TEAGUE: The words that I used, Deputy Speaker, were to admonish the member for Cheltenham, asking him to refrain from misleading the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is an accusation. My interpretation of that comment is that you have accused him of misleading the house. I have outlined to you what the remedy is. You can choose to use it or not, and, if you don't choose to use it, I will have remedies.

Mr TEAGUE: I withdraw in the circumstances.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: There are a few matters that I wish to touch on, particularly the Holidays Act, which has been much debated through the last short period of time in this place and particularly on the public record; that is, the Holidays Act that the former government who spent four years administering had no concerns about. They did not call out the great takeover of the woke brigade. Sorry, they did actually. That was their backbenchers talking about their leaders and the right of their party talking about the woke takeover of their own party.

They administered this act for four years. That is context. That is important context that cannot be lost in the consideration of what has been, both in this place and outside of it, the absolute fearmongering and politicisation of an extraordinary matter. The logic that you follow from those opposite was that this was some less than clandestine attempt by our government to ban Christmas Day. Let's digest that for a moment: we are, as a government, hellbent on banning Christmas Day. Or, as was so disgustingly put to our veterans: that we were hellbent on dispensing with the most reverent of days, ANZAC Day.

It has been brought to this house's attention in this debate that not only are those comments and the logic that has been put forward by those opposite total nonsense, but there are other substantive pieces of legislation on our statute books here in South Australia that deliberately and expressly protect the relevance and protect the integrity of those days—of ANZAC Day here—a bill that the Minister for Infrastructure informed the house and reminded the house was brought in by the Labor Party in government, I think in 2005. So not only is the logic nonsense, it is factually incorrect.

There was also some suggestion that there was this wholesale ripping out of names, as has already been put, as this clandestine culture war, woke, vanguard revolution to get rid of the most extraordinarily important of days in so many of our lives, and that is Christmas Day.

I know the member for Morphett came into this place just a moment ago, talking about the fact that now he can celebrate it again. I do not know what he was doing a couple of weeks ago. His kids would be pretty annoyed. Notwithstanding his own boycotts—we know the Liberal Party love a boycott or two—this is just nonsense.

This bill is doing the right thing to ensure that those people in our community who felt personally aggrieved by the mistruths and the nonsense that was put out there can be absolutely satisfied at law about just how serious our government is about not cancelling Christmas Day, about not cancelling ANZAC Day, about not cancelling Australia Day, all of which, particularly ANZAC Day and Australia Day, are confirmed within law in other pieces of statute notwithstanding the Holidays Act.

I also note that maybe every member, certainly a vast majority of members of the opposition, referred to the contributions of the Hon. Heidi Girolamo in the other place. I think there was some commentary around the way that they feel that debate occurred. I must admit I did not, and if I am really honest, I do not often sit in my office and watch the debate of the Legislative Council, but I was invited by a couple of members to read the Hansard, which I have.

At the vanguard of the opposition's attempt to politicise, disrupt and cause chaos for those people in our community who had no right to feel aggrieved in the way they were because of the nonsense that was put out there was the Hon. Heidi Girolamo. Such was her passion for that counteroffensive that she was mounting in the pursuit to save, in their eyes, our government's attempt to ban Christmas, this was her contribution.

A question, notwithstanding the commentary made by members opposite, by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, I think, certainly on my reading of it, is reasonable, and I quote from the Hon. Connie Bonaros to the Hon. Heidi Girolamo:

Some might like a history lesson, but my question is: what is the threat in this bill and what is the need for this amendment? What is the mover concerned is going to happen that has brought about the need for this amendment?

The response from the protagonist in general, the Hon. Heidi Girolamo, was as follows:

In regard to this bill, we feel that this is an opportune time, given the changes that are coming through for the Public Holidays Bill, to ensure that Australia Day remains on 26 January to recognise when Captain Cook first came through.

If the person running the argument for the opposition feels so passionate about an administrative nomenclature in a bill that she does not even know what 26 January symbolises, or is in recognition of, then I think we really do demonstrate the lack of integrity of the opposition and just how foolhardy they have been in the pursuit of this fear campaign.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: As a precursor, did the government consider any other titles for this bill?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Not that I am aware of. I understand it is a portfolio bill and it is common practice.

Mr TEAGUE: In the same vein, I heard the minister responsible for the carriage of the bill in this place read in a contribution that described the contents of this bill as being suitable for a portfolio bill because the amendments that it contains are of a minor or technical nature. Does the minister want to update or correct the record in relation to that observation?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: On the title, is it standard practice for an amendment bill to not actually in some way describe what the major amendment may very well be in the bill? It is certainly my experience in the last 18 years in this place that there is some ability to be able to have some understanding as to what the amendment bill is about, before actually going to the content of the bill. Is this a practice that is common, where there is no clue as to what the bill is about in its title?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I cannot speak to the member's comments that he or others would have no clue what the bill was about. I would anticipate that they read past the title, but it is a common portfolio bill and my advice is that it is common practice to use this nomenclature for the title.

Clause 1 passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr COWDREY: My question is more specifically on subclause (5) in regard to the capitalisation or not of ANZAC Day. I am being very genuine here, in terms of the question that I am posing. In the debate to this point, government members have referenced quite frequently the existing legislation around ANZAC Day that is in statute. In that act, the reference to ANZAC Day uses an entirely capitalised ANZAC.

While I am certainly aware that there is guidance from the federal government in terms of the use of a capitalised or non-capitalised version of ANZAC Day, I am seeking to understand why there has been a divergence from the existing use, and the difference between the existing act and the bill that is before us today. Is this a result of any work that the government has done in terms of consultation with the likes of the RSL, with veterans generally?

I do have an amendment drafted, if that is going to be helpful for the government to deal with this. I do not necessarily seek to move that, depending on the answer and the suggestion from the government in terms of the reasoning for this and why the divergence from the existing statute. Can you explain, firstly, if any consultation was undertaken with regard to reaching the use that is contained within the current bill and, secondly, the government's reasoning in using the non-capitalised version?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised there was no direct consultation on the bill other than broad consultation with the RSL. With respect to the capitalisation of ANZAC Day, I am not aware of any specific consultation. As for why it was in this form as opposed to an alternative form, the best advice I have is that the drafting was on advice from parliamentary counsel. For the purposes of brevity and collegiality, we would be not opposed to an amendment if the member chooses to move it. I do not have any advice, if that were to be moved, about whether there would be any issues. It was largely, if not exclusively, a matter that was arrived at through the drafting by parliamentary counsel.

Mr COWDREY: That being the case, I am not necessarily of the view that we should move it in this house. I think it would be useful for the government to go away and consult with the RSL to determine whether that is the best use or characterisation, for lack of a better term, of ANZAC Day for inclusion in the bill, and if that is something that we need to change in the other act and legislation on statute and whether that can be done in the other place. I think it is entirely sensible to have this conversation in the context of where we are and where we have arrived at today if there is no genuine reasoning for why the amendments were drafted up to the original bill that the government presented to the house in November.

I, too, obviously sought the assistance of parliamentary counsel in drafting the amendments at that time. I note for interest more than anything else that parliamentary counsel use the capitalisation of ANZAC in the version that I was handed and in the amendments to the bill that were moved in November. Perhaps it would be a helpful suggestion that the government reach out to the RSL to determine and seek their position on what version of ANZAC Day would be useful for inclusion in this bill, and we can make that change in the upper house if the government is so minded.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I note the member's comments. I undertake to seek for the Attorney, who will have carriage of this bill in the other place, to engage in a way that can provide some clarity for the member and also particularly with the Minister for Veterans Affairs.

Mr TEAGUE: For the benefit of the committee, I reiterate that the opposition's amendments brought by the shadow treasurer, when those amendments were moved, had ANZAC in what a person may regard as the appropriate form, recognising, as it does, that ANZAC stands for the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

I will only add, for the purpose of the current debate, that reference has been made to the South Australian act which also adopts the capitalisation. I see in all references in the Hansard to the debate in the course of the debate of this bill also use of the capitalised form of ANZAC Day. I commend the shadow treasurer for the approach he has taken and commend the government's further inquiry into adopting that form should there be no impediment to doing so.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thank you, and I note that with a couple of members making statements it has given me time to do some quick research. I can advise that both the RSL and the Army use the capitalised ANZAC when it is standalone—not referring to ANZAC Day, but ANZAC as a standalone word—and in their written form, where ANZAC Day is written, they use capital 'A' and lower case 'nzac'.

Mr COWDREY: I hate to use my last contribution on this, but there is a guidance note provided by the federal department that looks after this saying that it can be used interchangeably. While I have noted the use on the websites, in particular, there is also further guidance that suggests it is up to interpretation as to which is used. I just suggest that whichever we land on, whichever is preferred through a level of consultation, perhaps that can be cleaned up as part of this portfolio bill. We may as well have consistency if we are going to go to the effort of ensuring we have these names in the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can the minister advise if there is a protocol when referring to the Sovereign's Birthday as a public holiday, or for any other purpose, and whether that protocol was followed with the removal of the Queen's Birthday holiday and then the insertion, in the amendment to the act, that is now the Sovereign's Birthday?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: My advice is that we are not aware of a protocol. I am further advised that different jurisdictions use different forms. This bill uses the Sovereign's Birthday, as do other jurisdictions, and some other jurisdictions have used the Queen's. I am not certain whether there have been any amendments that have updated to the King's. However, the preference that has been taken in the parliamentary counsel drafting of this has been the Sovereign's Birthday, and I am advised that is not inconsistent with any protocol policy.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Was the Palace advised of the removal of reference to a sovereign's birthday in the bill that is now an act of parliament? Was the Palace advised that reference to the Sovereign's Birthday was removed for the June holiday that was traditionally known as the Queen's Birthday when the bill became an act, when it was proclaimed?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Can the member advise which palace?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The palace where the sovereign resides, and their office.

The CHAIR: I just remind members that the standing orders of this house were amended to use the word 'sovereign' rather than 'king' or 'queen' last year. That was agreed to by the house, and I am not aware—

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: That's right, as approved by the Governor, as well. The changes were approved by the Governor, as well.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am not aware whether the Attorney-General or his representative have contacted the Palace. I would suspect that has not occurred, and I would also hazard a guess that the Palace would be better consumed with other matters of state. But I can give the member some reassurance that the previous Holidays Act had neither the King's Birthday, Queen's Birthday or Sovereign's Birthday noted. It was simply noted as the second Monday in June.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can you advise whether SA Unions were consulted about the removal of the name Labour Day for the October long weekend and whether any contact was made by SA Unions after the bill had passed the parliament?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The answer to the member's question regarding whether SA Unions were consulted is no, they were not, but I can confirm for the member that the previous bill that passed SA Unions were very supportive of. In particular, it would be of no surprise that they did and always will oppose the attempts of the Liberal government to reduce the pay of low-paid workers.

Mr TEAGUE: Turning to subclause (2) for a moment—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has the floor.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Unley! I think you have the call, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks very much, Chair.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have been warned a second time. The third time I will ask you to leave.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, I suggest you just listen.

Mr TEAGUE: I just go to subclause (2) in particular. Was the Australia Day Council consulted about the additional reference to the name of the public holiday on 26 January reinserted as Australia Day? Is there anything that the Australia Day Council in that case has indicated that the minister might like to put on record in the course of the debate?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can confirm that the Australia Day Council were not consulted in respect of the insertion of the words 'Australia Day' and so I have nothing to add regarding their commentary. Again, I note that under the bill and in the Holidays Act the name 'Australia Day' was not previously mentioned. It was '26 January'.

Mr TEAGUE: We have ticked off a number of these. It might in completion be good to ask a general question. Was any interested party? We have had an example for subclauses (6) and (2). I do not know that we have specifically addressed subclause (3). We have obviously addressed it at some length, and there has been considerable focus in the course of the debate on subclause (5). Was really anybody consulted about clause 6 and its contents prior to the government bringing this bill to the house?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can confirm that Racing SA made recommendations to government in respect of the March public holiday and put their view that Adelaide Cup Day should be noted.

Mr TEAGUE: Arising from that, and in general, I wonder what form that took? Is the minister able to enlighten the committee as to the form that took and any particular issues that were raised by Racing SA?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Other than that, I am advised, they made a representation, I am not advised or able to provide any information now on what form or whether other matters were canvassed. I would suspect and suggest that may be a matter that can be dealt with between the houses and that the Attorney, as the carrier of this bill, will be able to illuminate.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (7 to 9) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:36): Thank you for the opportunity, Deputy Speaker. I just take a moment to respond to contributions in the course of the second reading debate, particularly from the member for West Torrens and, more latterly, from the minister responsible for the bill, the member for Cheltenham.

In terms of what I have described informally in the course of this debate as a series of straw men that were introduced into the debate by the member for West Torrens first yesterday evening, what I want to emphasise is that in making the contribution that I made to the debate it is particularly important that when we bring legislation to the house and when we engage in debate, we do so in terms that are genuine and thoroughgoing and addressing the subject matter before the house. I was critical of the minister for characterising the bill in terms of it being minor or technical, and it was a matter that I raised again in the course of the committee debate just now.

The contents and the character of my contribution to the debate were focused on taking the opportunity when these matters arise to put up in lights those values that we hold dear. Far from insinuating anything, far from looking to cast aspersions upon any member of this house and the extent to which they share in values that underpin these important days, the words that I used at all times were directed towards the identification and promotion of the importance of those days. I am pleased to see that the house has seen fit to name those days.

I have identified the fact that many of them are nationally important. Some of them are of particular importance to the people of the state of South Australia and yet some of them have particular significance even more locally. There was quite a lot of emphasis in the course of the debate on just how comprehensively ANZAC Day meets that description—a national, state and local day of commemoration of great significance.

I do take objection to a characterisation of anything that I said in the course of the debate that somehow involves character assessment or insinuation as to the views or values of any individual member opposite. Of course, that is not to be found in the contents of my remarks and in those circumstances I was moved to admonish the member for Cheltenham in the course of the debate.

These things are important. It is important that we take the opportunity that the original bill presented to re-emphasise, as the Australia Day Council I think so succinctly and appropriately reminds us each year on Australia Day, to reflect and to respect and to celebrate, and I think that can apply to days that reach the heights of being referred to and being included on the statute book of the public holidays of South Australia. Long may we celebrate them. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT