Time Zones

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (14:09): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: On 5 February this year, the government of South Australia asked the public to consider whether there was merit in changing our state's time zone. There had been several attempts in recent decades to address the value and relevance of the half-hour time zone: was it a barrier to our social and economic progress, or was it, as our legislators believed in 1899, a positive point of difference?

The state government chose the broadest possible path of consultation, investigation and decision-making. Some of our fellow legislators have revealed that they have no such appetite for a considered and orderly consideration of the matter. The initial phase of community consultation revealed a broad range of arguments for and against change. Many of the issues—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: They're all living in the past, sir; they're all living in 1899. The anti-everything brigade, sir, there they are.

The SPEAKER: The minister—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Sorry, sir.

The SPEAKER: —will not taunt the opposition.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Sorry, sir, I got carried away; I will regain my composure. The initial phase of community consultation revealed a broad range of arguments both for and against change. Many of the issues raised had emerged for the first time in the context of time zone economics, technological change and transport. Some issues presented opportunities for South Australia, others presented complexity.

In June, the government released a report into the community consultation titled 'What we heard'. As has been reported, it showed a very loud and forthright group from the West Coast had very serious concerns. Regardless of the outcome of the time zone debate, the concerns relating to the West Coast community will be addressed. Flexible school hours, business opening times and other options would be considered.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: There he is, the captain of the anti-everything brigade. Mr No. Is there a policy idea over there, Mr Speaker?

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr GARDNER: Yes, 128 identifies what the Speaker is available to do when ministers defy the Speaker's rulings and instructions.

The SPEAKER: He is taunting you a second time.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I was overcome by the intelligence of the interjections, sir, and it just swept me away.

The SPEAKER: Then regain your composure, minister.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Very well, sir. The state government has done a thorough analysis of the arguments for and against change. A yet to be released economic study into the value of South Australia's export activity has shown that a huge number of South Australian jobs are dependent on exports, and I would ask members opposite to listen carefully because there are 203,000 jobs in South Australia linked to activities outside the state and of these the majority—the vast majority, 113,800—are related to interstate exports. Our largest economic partners are our fellow states. These are the facts. It has always been the view of this government that whatever change might be made to the time zone, it would need to be for the social and economic benefit of this state. That process requires rigour.

I recently flew to Dubai for meetings with international airline executives to drill down into the pros and cons for our international connections in and out of Adelaide.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Listen to them. Calm down. I can reveal today that the government had completed a draft bill and new research for consideration by cabinet and ultimately by parliament. It was drafted because we had shattered some myths about time zone shifts and developed possible solutions for West Coast and other communities—solutions that would have worked well—and then the heavy hand of negativity shut the door. Incoming, the captain of the anti-everything brigade. Before they had even seen the bill and without a skerrick of investigation, the opposition declared today that they would say no. There was a leak. Apparently they resolved formerly to block a matter that had not even been introduced.

The consultation had been completed, information had been gathered and its veracity tested. Debate was set to start, but members opposite closed their eyes, blocked their ears and turned their backs. What this process has shown is that many people in our community are passionate about democratic debate, yet there are some who just watch things. They just sit there and let the world pass them by.

The decision by those opposite to vote against a measure before it has even been introduced into the parliament is just extraordinary. There is a government in this state that is looking to the future, and then there is the alternative, looking endlessly into the past, back to 1899. Gee, they miss it. The political opponents of the time zone proposals have slept through the sunrise, and today they are just left to ponder the sunset. I regret to inform the house that the draft bill will not proceed if the opponents of change—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: What's the point? If the opponents of change—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Here they go. There is a bit of ill-discipline over there, sir. They are leaking, they are arguing—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Point of order?

Mr GARDNER: If the minister has completed his ministerial statement, I am not sure what he is doing anymore.

The SPEAKER: Has the minister finished?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Almost. One final sentence, and it is this simple message. If the opponents of change ever develop the courage to advance our state, the government remains willing to reopen the process. Have a think about it.

The SPEAKER: Arising out of that ministerial statement, I call to order the members for Chaffey, Mount Gambier, Davenport, Morialta, Hammond, Finniss, the deputy leader, the leader, Hartley, Kavel, Adelaide, Goyder, the Treasurer, Newland and MacKillop. I warn for the first time the members for Chaffey, Davenport, Hammond, the deputy leader, Kavel, Morialta, Finniss, the leader, Adelaide, Hartley, Goyder and Mount Gambier. I warn for the second and final time the members for Chaffey, Hammond, the deputy leader, Morialta and Finniss.