STANDARD TIME (ALTERATION OF STANDARD TIME) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 June 2011.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:51): I rise to speak to the second reading of the bill. The Liberal Party's position is that it will not be supporting the bill. I think it is fair to say that, as with some other issues, there is a broad church represented by our members, in particular, the Eyre Peninsula seats. Certainly, Liz Penfold as the member for Flinders was a very strong advocate within our party room, as was the Hon. Caroline Schaefer.

I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire referred in his second reading explanation to a 1995 select committee which recommended a move to Central Standard Time. Caroline Schaefer chaired that particular select committee, and Caroline's original home, of course, was Eyre Peninsula as well. Certainly, a very strong view is shared by a number of our members, and I suspect a similar view will be held by our current member for Flinders, Mr Treloar. Some of our other regional members, as well, have supported a move to Central Standard Time.

This issue of time zones is a perennial one for South Australians. Business SA has long been an advocate for a move to Eastern Standard Time.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: And GM crops.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We won't get into GM crops; let's stick with time for the moment. In my research for this, I was reminded that the Australian Labor Party took a policy to the 1993 election to move to Eastern Standard Time. It was obviously looking for bold policy initiatives in the light of the State Bank debacle, and it moved to Eastern Standard Time for whatever reason. It went through the Australian Labor Party caucus.

The PRESIDENT: That was at the time when Marcus Clarke was on—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, that is right. As you would well know, Mr President, your current Premier described him as brilliant and it was a major coup for South Australia that we got Marcus Clarke to run the State Bank of South Australia. Anyway, I will not be diverted by your interjections, Mr President—out of order and unruly as they are—doubly so coming from the Chair.

This is about a potential move to Central Standard Time. The point I am making is that there are forces within South Australia, including at some stages the Australian Labor Party caucus, Business SA and others, who have argued strongly to move to Eastern Standard Time. Equally, there have been others—including a select committee in 1995 and, in particular, many regional people and many regional members of parliament—who have supported the move to Central Standard Time.

In the end, as with many of these things—and it is a similar debate, I suspect, in part, with daylight saving, although that is not part of this bill—the innate conservatism of South Australians is such that, with those arguing we should either move ahead half an hour or back half an hour, for many years we have stayed exactly where we have been for a long, long time, and that is certainly the position adopted by the Liberal parliamentary party. Although, as I said, if this was to be debated in the House of Assembly, I am sure there would be some members who may well express a different point of view.

There was a similar proposal in 2005, I think moved by the former member for Flinders, Liz Penfold.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: A good member, she was.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: A very good member. I am comforted, as I look at the debate in 2005 and the voting on that particular bill, that amongst the strong majority of people who voted against that proposal to move to Central Standard Time was one R.L. Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: What was the date?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: 16 February 2005.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, because—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: We were told what to do like a puppet.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire may well be speaking of the Australian Labor Party, which he might have some passing knowledge of, but he is certainly not talking about the Liberal Party, which prides the independence of the individual and freedom of conscience. If I can remind—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: Apparently you didn't, according to him.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Sometimes Mr Brokenshire's memory is just slightly deficient; it's those early mornings with Daisy, Maisy and Clara Bell.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If I could remind the Hon. Mr Brokenshire that 12 Liberal members actually voted for the bill, so the issue of cabinet solidarity, including—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: That's the best solidarity you've ever had!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It was a perfect example of a very broad church, because about half the Liberal Party voted for it and about half the Liberal Party voted against it, including cabinet ministers and backbenchers. But there boldly voting against this initiative of Central Standard Time was R.L. Brokenshire. I am assuming that is the same Hon. R.L. Brokenshire that is moving this particular bill.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: No, that's my brother.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Times change. Indeed, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has moved from the Liberal Party to Family First, and with that his views on time may well have changed. It may well have taken him back half an hour in terms of his perspective on life and on this issue. As I have struggled to come to grips with this issue and as I was trying to work out how I would vote and what I would recommend to the party room, I went back to this debate and there I saw R.L. Brokenshire, I assume then the member for Mawson. He was representing a city electorate in those days, I assume, in a marginal seat.

I am leaping to conclusions here, and when the Hon. Mr Brokenshire wraps up the debate he can indicate his position, but perhaps he took the view that the majority of his electors strongly supported the status quo and did not want to go back half an hour in time. He was in good company, because the motion was defeated 34 votes to 12, a majority of 22 votes for the noes.

Let me conclude by summarising that we are a broad church. We were a broad church in 2005 and we were certainly a broad church in 1995 when the select committee looked at this. It is one of the fundamental features of the Liberal Party that our members are entitled to express their views. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire was entitled to express his view in 2005 and I would have defended his right to that position in 2005, and now that he has moved parties he is entitled to do what he likes in terms of these issues.

The Liberal parliamentary party position on this is not to support a move to eastern standard time or to support a move to central standard time, but to support staying where we are.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (22:00): I rise very briefly to say that the Greens will not be supporting this private member's bill. We have some sympathy for the reason the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has brought this bill before us in terms of its purpose to change current SA time back to what would be a more natural time zone, especially with regard to the west of the state.

I note that communities in particular around Ceduna are in fact suffering in terms of school children having to get up in the dark, sunrise there being as late as 7.50 am, which makes it very difficult for families, not only those with small children who have that difficulty of trying to deal with the wants of a small child who does not find it easy to get up when it is dark and struggling to get them off to school and so on, but also correlating that with the needs of other work and life demands.

I note that some of the community there, particularly the mayor who has been quite vocal, have pointed to the fact that it is the length of daylight saving that is compounding some of the hardship that is being caused by this current situation. I would also note that in 1990 in this state daylight saving was of only 18 weeks duration, whereas in 2008-09 it was 26 weeks. That is quite a big jump to have happened in a reasonably short time frame.

I also note that the former minister Caica has stated that the extension of daylight saving has received widespread public support and has been extensively consulted on. I, for one, do not remember it being consulted on. I know that while some people might enjoy being able to go to the Fringe and the Festival in March in Adelaide in the light rather than the dark, that is not necessarily what should be driving our choices about how long daylight saving is.

I would say that daylight saving probably needs more public consultation and a better mechanism because if I did not notice that it was apparently being consulted on then I am sure that many other South Australians did not either, but this bill does not address the issue of daylight saving. So, while we have great sympathy for those who are finding this current situation very difficult, we will not be able to support the bill today.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (22:04): While it is acknowledged that some sections of the community, particularly those from western rural areas of the state, do not support the current time zone arrangements in South Australia, the government does not support the alteration to our time zone as proposed in the bill introduced by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC.

The issue of the South Australian time zone has, in recent years, been debated in the parliament on at least two occasions. In February 2009 both houses, with the support of the opposition, passed the Standard Time Act 2009, which set the current time zone to 9.5 hours ahead of coordinated universal time, maintaining the half hour differential with Eastern Standard Time.

In July 2009, the House of Assembly debated a motion moved by Mr Ivan Venning MP, member for Schubert, to change the time zone to ensure that South Australia was nine hours in advance of UTC and one hour behind Eastern Standard Time. The house did not support this motion. This bill aims to achieve a similar outcome. However, there does not appear to be significant community support for changing the current arrangement.

It appears that only a minority of the population supports the proposed change, mainly from the sparsely-populated western region of the state. It is also worth noting that there is a sector of the public that supports the adoption of EST by the state, particularly those members of the business community represented by Business SA. The government considers that any shift in time zones would cause short-term problems and possible costs that are disruptive and unnecessary.

Any shifts like the one proposed, which is often referred to as shifting to true Central Standard Time, would create an additional time zone in Australia. This is because the Northern Territory has enacted legislation setting its time zone half an hour behind EST, similar to the current arrangements in South Australia and, presumably, intends to retain this time zone.

The honourable member has not indicated whether the Northern Territory government would be prepared to similarly alter its existing time zone to retain consistency with South Australia if this bill was passed. The extra time zone could further confuse international visitors and businesses, and would not be consistent with the Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) focus on reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, as it does not assist in providing uniformity for business activity across state borders.

Additionally, an hour's difference in time zones could create additional problems in the Riverland and South-East for those who regularly traverse the eastern border of the state. The government, after fully considering all the issues involved with moving to a different time zone, has decided that the current arrangement should be retained, with South Australia remaining 30 minutes behind EST.

In speaking to the bill, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire noted that South Australia's original time zone was designated at nine hours ahead of coordinated universal time (or Greenwich Mean Time, as it was known then). However, it is important to note that this arrangement only lasted for four years, with the current time zone arrangements having been in existence since 30 April 1899 when the parliament at the time recognised the commercial benefits of maintaining a time zone which was half an hour behind EST.

The government is not in favour of an arrangement whereby EST is one hour ahead of the state and will not support the bill for this reason. However, the government will continue to monitor community sentiment and the relative merits of various proposals in relation to time zones and will continue to liaise with rural communities in the west of the state regarding the impact of daylight saving.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (22:09): I thank all honourable colleagues for their contributions. Based on the contributions it appears that, once again, support for moving to Central Standard Time is not going to be supported by a sufficient number of members of the Legislative Council to be able to get my bill passed. I accept the democratic process within the Legislative Council, and I thank all honourable members for their contribution. However, I am disappointed that there has been a focus on retaining the status quo. As the Hon. Tammy Franks correctly said, this bill is not about getting rid of daylight saving at all. This bill is about Central Standard Time. It would actually put us one hour behind the Eastern States.

I know that Business SA, and particularly the CEO, Mr Peter Vaughan, has always been pushing ever since he came from Victoria to have the same time zone as Victoria but, quite frankly, Mr Vaughan, in my opinion, needs to understand that he is now in South Australia and that South Australia, rightly, has its own laws, its own parliament, and its own destiny and business plan. I did not think that that business plan meant incorporating South Australia into Victoria or New South Wales.

Of course, I had a few days in Queensland not long ago with my wife on a bit of recreation leave, and you try daylight saving as a proposal in Queensland, particularly northern Queensland, and just see what happens there. Sir, on your 43^rd wedding anniversary on 23 November, I recommend that you take your wife to the Whitsunday Coast for a bit of recreational leave.

Just getting back to the main thrust of the debate, in 2005 circumstances were far different from those today. The Hon. Rob Lucas is right. I have seen the light: I am now with Family First and we are prepared, as a party that has its seats in the Legislative Council, to represent constituents from right across South Australia. I no longer have to represent only the constituents of Mawson, albeit that I do still represent a vast number of constituents in Mawson. The key difference now is that what has happened since 2005 is that we do not have four months of daylight saving: we now have six months of daylight saving.

For half the year now, we are into daylight saving, and I am not sure whether honourable members have been out doorknocking constituents at 7.30 or 8 o'clock on an evening in April or March, but I would recommend that honourable members, particularly in the major parties, get out and actually doorknock Adelaide residents who are trying to get their kids to bed at that time of the year when we have had six months of daylight saving. You will get an interesting reception if you raise the issue with the parents, as you hear the children running around totally worn out. I suggest to all colleagues that all of us are tired and tempers start to fray a little bit after six months of daylight saving.

What is the compromise? The compromise is to go to Central Standard Time. I hope that we see enormous growth in economic opportunity with our exciting trading partners like China, Japan, South Korea and the like, and by going to Central Standard Time we would actually align ourselves with where our growth in trading opportunity is. There is far more growth in trading opportunity there than I see in Victoria and New South Wales.

Like all colleagues, in between debates—and I think it is important to put this on the public record—we have been in our offices doing emails at 10 o'clock at night. You can get up at 5 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning. Some of the really hardworking members I am sure may be up even earlier than 4 o'clock in the morning on their computers doing business with constituents and other people right across the world.

From that point of view, time is irrelevant now compared with what it was way back. You do not have everyone in a situation where you are trying to coordinate with the Eastern States or, indeed, London to do some business or wait for a telegram or whatever it was. We have IT available to us 24/7. Business happens 24/7 now, so what I am suggesting, and what a lot of constituents want, is a balance between daylight saving and a reasonable lifestyle.

I will not spend much more time on this now, but I want to say that both in this house and from the viewpoint of government we have to govern for the whole state. The West Coast is outnumbered, there is no doubt about that. However, there are plenty of people in Adelaide—and even in the South-East—who would prefer not to have the daylight extended so far into the evening. In the middle of summer it is 9.30 before it starts to get dark.

I also offer an opportunity of a lifetime to all colleagues in this house, and I invite them to come down to my farm for a barbecue breakfast at 6am on 15 March 2012, and I will ask them to take the tractor, with the equivalent of 30 old square bales of hay up the main Victor Harbor Road at 7.15 in the morning to just see what a risk you put yourself at because it is still dark. In fact, it is darker at that time of the year than it is in July, because we have daylight saving extended to six months.

They are the key differences and the compromise position would be everybody giving a little bit to give a lot of people, certainly from Whyalla through to the Western Australian border, an opportunity for a better lifestyle. I wrote to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and at this point have not had a response. Whether they work at a snail's pace up there I am not sure, but I have not even had an acknowledgement from the Chief Minister, which is quite disappointing and concerning.

In conclusion, I thank colleagues for their contribution. This issue will not go away, I assure members. There has been a discussion about consultation and whether it was true consultation. I do not think there has been proper consultation on this. I think you might get a shock if options were put to the community. On the second Saturday in March 2014, I propose that when we go to the election the government puts up a referendum—

The Hon. A. Bressington: I thought you were going to have a barbeque.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —and I invite members to come the day after to look at the results of the referendum and we will have a barbie on the farm with the girls, who are less than impressed sometimes about being woken up earlier than they have to.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Cows. In conclusion, the least we could do is request the government—and closer to the election I will formally ask the new premier—to have a referendum to see what South Australians really think about Central Standard Time in comparison with the current six months of daylight saving. I finish with this one point: nature sets it so that at midday the sun is at the highest point. If we went to Central Standard Time we would be in line with nature and it makes a lot of sense. We have artificially interfered with all that simply to appease some people but to put a lot of others at a disadvantage. I look forward to further debate in future on this important matter.

The PRESIDENT: Coming from the sunny South-East, where the sun gets up two hours before daylight, I could not support it.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Two hours before daylight?

The PRESIDENT: That's right.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: How the hell does that happen?

The PRESIDENT: Work it out son.

Second reading negatived.