Standard Time (Alteration of Standard Time) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2015.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (20:08): I rise to give the government's response to this bill, and that is to oppose it. This bill seeks to make South Australian Standard Time 30 minutes closer to Western Australian time and 60 minutes behind Eastern Standard Time.

Members may be aware that in February through to April 2015 the government undertook a public consultation on three options for changing South Australian Standard Time. The three options were to align South Australian Standard Time with the Eastern States, move closer to Western Australian time, or retain the current time zone. There was considerable consultation with community and business, consideration of individuals' submissions and economic analysis.

I would like to quote some important facts raised in a report from 2015 titled 'Report on community consultation over South Australia's time zone—What we heard'. It states South Australia's first legislated time zone in 1895 was GMT plus nine hours, half an hour behind the current time zone, which was later adopted in 1899.

According to The Advertiser of 1 May 1899, the move forward was due to 'agitation by commercial men' about the need to be closer to Melbourne time for business purposes, in particular to alleviate the one-hour advantage held by eastern states in sending cablegrams, supported by cricket and football circles also to obtain a half-hour extra daylight at the end of the day. These arguments made in 1899 in favour of a shift in time zones are similar to those made in 2015 and, interestingly, as I understand it, a lot of the push for these changes was actually initiated by Business SA.

One option outlined in this report is for South Australia to move closer to Western Australian time—that is, coordinated universal time +9 hours (UTC +9). Comments in support of this option state: South Australia would adopt its natural time zone to align with the state's geographical location; South Australia's closer alignment with time zones of our major trading partners in Asia such as Japan and Korea (both UTC +9) and China, Singapore and Malaysia (UTC +8) could potentially increase business activities with those partners. It also allows South Australians to overcome existing wellbeing effects felt in the west of the state associated with the current time zone and daylight saving such as health, tiredness and behavioural problems.

A number of comments opposed this time zone shift including: we will exacerbate problems associated with interstate travel, particularly for business travel to the Eastern States, in some cases requiring travel the night before rather than early in the morning; for those who have been involved in travel interstate quite often—as I was in a previous life—one would realise that it is far easier travelling from Adelaide over to the east coast than it is the other way because of that half-hour difference.

It will create yet another additional time zone across the country, as no other state or territory currently uses UTC +9. It would exacerbate the current issues with such things as time delay in broadcasts. It would result in darker evenings with implications for leisure and sporting activities. The natural time zone argument, while it may be valid for primary agrarian societies, is not convincing for modern societies with widespread availability of artificial lighting. They point out that the majority of time zones around the world are not properly aligned with natural time. Many jurisdictions more often are biased towards light in the evening as a consequence of what have become normal working hours for the majority of the population.

The internal analysis shows the economic interaction with the Eastern States is significantly larger than with international markets. It is believed that 9 per cent of South Australian jobs are related to overseas exports while 16 per cent are related to interstate exports. New South Wales and Victoria are more important economically to South Australia than Asian markets with the great majority of interstate exports going to the three states of the eastern seaboard.

The report looked at the business survey conducted by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies of the University of Adelaide on behalf of Business SA in 2008 to determine the degree to which businesses would be affected by move to Eastern Standard Time. The government asked the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies to carry out for comparative purposes a similar business study in 2015 but also considered a shift to UTC +9. They found advantages of moving to UTC+9 in the survey: no advantages, 39 per cent; minor advantages, 16 per cent; and major advantages, 12 per cent. Disadvantages of moving to UTC+9: minor advantages, 21 per cent; and major disadvantages, 16 per cent.

The time change would significantly affect primary producers working to daylight hours. One survey conducted by Primary Producers SA with 1,174 respondents found that 42.5 per cent of members favoured one hour behind Eastern Standard Time, with only 5 per cent in support of time changes to Eastern Standard Time and 52 per cent of respondents happy with the current time zone. Many comments stated a change would impact family life negatively and concerns around sleep deprivation and morning travel.

Finally, what I will say is that it became very apparent to the government that the proposed changes would not gain the support of this chamber and, as such, the government determined it would not proceed with changes to alter standard time in South Australia in either direction. As I said, it would be worthwhile if the member who proposed this bill had actually read this, but I suspect he has not so, as I said, the government opposes the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:16): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to speak to the second reading of the bill. As briefly referred to by the Hon. Mr Kandelaars, the genesis for this debate, I suspect in part, was driven by the exercise started by Premier Weatherill and announced on 5 February last year when, for some strange reason, he gave minister Martin Hamilton-Smith responsibility for managing the process.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: What's strange about that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, the man is incompetent. It is a pretty simple answer to that particular question.

The PRESIDENT: I would just like to remind you that you do not refer to people by their name; he is the member for Waite.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I did not refer to him; I just said 'the man is incompetent.'

The PRESIDENT: No, you mentioned the honourable—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No.

The PRESIDENT: I think you did. That is what I heard.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I said it was a bizarre suggestion to give it to the Hon. Mr Hamilton-Smith and the Leader of the Government said, 'What's wrong with him?' and I said, 'The man is incompetent.'

The PRESIDENT: You do not refer to him as—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As 'the man'?

The PRESIDENT: —Martin Hamilton-Smith; you refer to him as the minister from another place.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I said 'minister Martin Hamilton-Smith', and in response to the interjection, out of order I might say, from the Leader of the Government—

The PRESIDENT: Totally out of order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —totally out of order—who had said, 'What's wrong with him?' I just said, 'The man is incompetent.' If you actually wanted to get something through a house of parliament, something complex and complicated, with strongly divided views in the community, which anyone who has been through this particular debate before knows, why would you put a person in charge of it who is such a divisive personality, a person with a record of incompetence, a person with a record of not being able to achieve anything—even the most simple task—let alone a complicated task?

It was a bizarre decision by Premier Weatherill to put minister Hamilton-Smith in charge of what was a complex complicated process and, true to form, it turned into an unmitigated disaster. It cost a lot of money—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, he spent a lot of money and he did a lot of travel. Of course, minister Martin Hamilton-Smith loves doing a bit of travel and loves spending a bit of money, but in the end the record was that it was an unmitigated disaster. It was so bad that the government and the Premier decided not to even proceed with it in the house of parliament.

There are many issues where the government knows they are not going to be successful in terms of legislation. I suspect the bills trying to gut, neuter, the Legislative Council as a chamber in this parliament are likely to face the same fate when debated in this chamber, but the government says that it believes in it and that it is going to persist with the particular debate.

The handling of this bill was such an unmitigated disaster by the minister, and the Premier was so embarrassed by the whole process, he just withdrew it. He just took his bat and ball and went home: flew the flag up, spent a lot of money, and kept the minister busy for a while. Maybe that was the purpose: it gave him something to do.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is a bit like those make-work schemes that I am sure the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and others would know of, that when you have a surplus public servant in the Public Service, for example, they have been declared excess to requirements, but in the end you have to keep them on for a while, you have to find jobs for them to do. You have to find projects for them to do.

I suspect Premier Weatherill said, 'What are we going to give minister Hamilton-Smith to do to keep him out of trouble for a while? I know what, we'll give him this job about daylight saving. It's never happened before, he's not going to be able to achieve it, but it will mean he has to drive around the countryside, fly around the countryside, spend a bit of money and talk to people. In the end it will turn to nothing, but what the heck?' Maybe that was the clever strategy from Premier Weatherill in relation to all this. The sad fact is, of course, the taxpayers of South Australia had to pick up the cost of the debate at the time. As I said, this process started back in February of last year.

The Hon. T.T. Ngo: He delivered the submarines.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: He what?

The Hon. T.T. Ngo interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Delivered? Minister Hamilton-Smith did? Another out of order interjection, I might say, Mr President. I am being harangued by frontbenchers and backbenchers viciously—the Government Whip, no less, defending minister Hamilton-Smith, saying he delivered the submarines. He had a big smile on his face at the time, so I suspect he did not really believe it when he said it. My understanding is minister Hamilton-Smith never even actually met the federal Minister for Defence, never actually had the chance to lobby the federal Minister for Defence, so what influence might he have had in that particular area? Mr President, I am being unreasonably diverted by unruly interjections from the government benchers.

The PRESIDENT: Do you want protection?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I am going to ignore them.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Sit down for a second, Mr Lucas. The Leader of the Government, the Hon. Mr Lucas deserves the same protection I give any person in this chamber. The Hon. Mr Ngo, keep it in mind as well that the Hon. Mr Lucas has every right to deliver a speech in silence. The Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr President, I am forever indebted to you for your protection. I am being verbally bludgeoned by government interjections over there. So, that is the background to this debate. If we turn to the substance of the debate, about which, of course, you can have a sensible discussion, and I credit the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I know in the past he has expressed these views in different fora and has expressed these views again on this particular occasion. He will know, as I do, that within the Liberal Party and within the community, there are people who share the view of turning back the clocks half an hour. It is an unfortunate analogy in the current parlance about turning back the clocks, because, in essence, it conjures up a picture of negativity, going backwards, but there is a sensible, rational debate that you can have about the time zone that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has put forward.

He knows that there have been, in the past in particular, and there continue to be members of the Liberal Party who share the view. If they had a blank slate, if they were starting fresh at the start of South Australia, in terms of the time zone, there is a sensible discussion and debate in relation to moving the clocks back half an hour. I know my former colleague, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, was one of the number. She served on a parliamentary committee and had a very strong view—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: A good member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: A very good member. She had a very strong view in relation to moving the clocks back an half an hour. Of course, originally she came from the West Coast, the Kimberley region, and reflected the views of her community. She argued the views of her community powerfully within the Liberal Party room and also within the parliament on occasions.

There remain today members of our party room who have a variety of views in relation to time zone. I am not sure that there are any (there might be some) who support a move forward to the Eastern Standard Time. There are none that I am aware of, but there might be. Certainly, within the broader Liberal Party membership there may well be members because there are members in the business community who support the move to Eastern Standard Time, and they have certainly reflected that view.

There are certainly members in the broader Liberal Party membership and the Liberal parliamentary party who, if they had a blank slate, would be arguing the case for our clocks being moved back half an hour. In part as a result of the ineptitude of the way the government and minister Hamilton-Smith handled this whole process, the position that our Liberal parliamentary party room adopted at the time of the debate about moving the clocks forward, and now in terms of moving the clocks backward, is that the majority view of our Liberal Party room—and a very strong majority view of our Liberal Party room—is that there is no major problem with the status quo. There is no major problem with the situation as it sits now.

Yes, there are people who would argue for a change either forward or backward, but that is the majority view of our party room and we believe the majority view of the community, as a number of the surveys conducted during the exercise last year indicated. Even the surveys that the primary producers association did of their membership reflected in essence a relative degree of comfort with staying with the status quo at that particular time.

For those reasons, the Liberal parliamentary party room, as it adopted the position in relation to moving the time zone forward, is adopting the same position in relation to moving the time zone backwards, or indeed in any direction. We are taking the view that the majority position of our party room is to support the status quo, and for those reasons we will not be supporting this particular measure.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (20:27): As a Dignity for Disability member, you have a reputation for supporting the underdog, and that is why I am happy to support the Hon. Mr Brokenshire on this particular occasion.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: An old dog and an underdog.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I will not respond to that interjection, Mr President.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Nor that one. I will speak briefly to indicate that Dignity for Disability will be supporting the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's bill on this occasion which seeks to alter South Australia's time zone by putting our clocks back half an hour from where they currently are, or in other words plus nine hours Universal Time Coordinated (otherwise known as UTC). In so doing, we would be aligning this state more with our actual longitude, or true meridian, in terms of South Australia's location. It would be of particular benefit, as I understand it, to people to the west of Adelaide in our state, including many primary producers, and to those in our community conducting business with Asia.

It is also a position that I understand from my reading of the YourSAy website the majority of commenters supported, second only to maintaining the status quo. The idea that we move our clocks forward half an hour so that we are lined up with the Eastern States, and therefore up to date with TV, I think merits some consideration, but perhaps not enough to sway a particular view on this topic.

I might just mention a submission that was made by a community member on the YourSAy website during the consultation last year that is quite pertinent to this debate and summarises several issues at once quite well. The submission was made by Clinton Garrett, and I believe it makes some valid and reasonable points. He states:

Globally, our correct time zone should be based on 135 E longitude, which would place us 9 hours plus UTC.

Canada has 6 time zones for a population which is…65% larger than Australia's.

The USA has 4 time zones in the lower 48 states, where most of its 319 million people live.

I understand that both of these countries span a wider range of longitude than Australia does, but it is quite clear that businesses in both of those countries are able to cope with multiple time zones. This causes me to ask why is it that our businesses claim that their lives are made so difficult by having to deal with just 3 time zones.

We now live in an electronic world where information/requests etc can be transmitted instantly at any time of the day. For that reason there is less need for businesses to have voice contact in order to place or query an order…with the rest of eastern Australia, due to the fact that Queensland does not move to daylight saving [time] when the rest of Australia does.

I have not noticed that the economy of Queensland collapses in these 5 months when they are not in sync with the rest of eastern Australia. South Australian businesses need to learn to use the technology that is now available.

If there is to be any movement of our time zone, it should be to +9hours UTC, [and] not to Eastern Standard Time, which is…10 hours UTC.

I think that really makes the point quite well. With those few words, I indicate our support at this time and commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:31): I thank all honourable colleagues for their contribution, and with your concurrence, sir, I would like to conclude with a few remarks and hope that there may be a change of thought between the two big parties here. First and foremost, I thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for her contribution, I thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars for his contribution on behalf of the government, and I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for his contribution on behalf of the Liberal Party, as the opposition.

First and foremost, I want to put on the public record the fact that we are actually in the 21^st century and that this is not about going backwards: this is about going forwards. The reality is that we do not have carrier pigeons anymore; we do not have telex machines anymore. We actually trade 24/7. The fact is that when on my motorbike and getting my cows in at 3 o'clock in the morning, I have my iPad with me and I am looking at text messages and emails. As we slowly walk the cows in—sometimes it takes a half an hour, depending where they are—I can be doing transmissions to constituents at 3am on the motorbike. That is where we live today.

We do not send carrier pigeons ordering a part for a piece of farm machinery to Sydney or Melbourne anymore. We have actually advanced. So, I say we are not going backwards: we are going forwards. Why are we going forwards? It is a pretty simple thing: No. 1, we would actually be governing for all South Australians.

The Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith had a brainwave because over the Christmas break Premier Weatherill said to his ministers, 'We've got to get reinvigorated; we've got to actually start to show that we are a progressive government and that we are going to have a strong opportunity to deliver for South Australians.' That was code for, 'The government is tired and stale and has been in too long.' That is what it was code for. Of course, Martin Hamilton-Smith then brought back the old chestnut that he had when I was with the Liberal Party, and that was this argument about doing business with the eastern seaboard—well, we are doing business.

We are doing way too much business with the eastern seaboard. Businesses are closing here, and we can hardly get a postage stamp let alone a gearbox for a seeder in Adelaide anymore like we used to. You have to actually bring it over on Toll or StarTrack at night. This was Martin Hamilton-Smith's big baby. As the Hon. Rob Lucas said, a lot of money was wasted and a lot of people were misled. People from Eyre Peninsula were ringing me and saying, 'The Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith was over here, and he is pretty good because he said he is going to listen to us and deliberate.' What a nonsense! The point is we would be going forward by going to our true meridian for three key reasons.

The first and most important reason, I believe, is we would be then governing for all South Australians. As far as Family First are concerned, Eyre Peninsula is as important to South Australia as any other part of South Australia. The absurd comment made by the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith when he was defeated was, 'They can have their own time zone.' What a joke, what a disgrace, what an insult! This is rubbing salt into the wounds of our great Eyre Peninsula people who deliver so much economically to this state. I will leave it at that. They can make their judgement to their cousins, their relatives and their mums and dads who have retired in Waite or live in Waite, who can vote against Martin Hamilton-Smith just on that alone.

Coming back to the key couple of points, secondly, where is our future? A lot of our economic future is in Asia. That is where our strong economic future is. I commend Premier Weatherill for taking delegations to China and Asia because that is where our future is. My friend, the Hon. Tung Ngo, is from Vietnam. There are all of those places. We can grow closer relationships with those areas of growth if we go forward in our thinking and go back to our true meridian.

The third key point is that if you talk to the medical scientists about how you develop the best health they will tell you to work in your natural time zones, as that is how you develop your best health. At high noon—that is, 12 o'clock—and that is when it is best for the body clock. No-one in this chamber, and no-one anywhere from what I have read, can disprove the fact that medical science has said that if you work at high noon, in your body clock's natural time zone, that is best for your health.

We fought the good fight. I just want to say, because the Hon. Rob Lucas touched on it, have a look at what was said when the government was absolutely steamrolled on this. Make no mistake that if I were the Premier there is no way I would be going to the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith and asking him for a brainwave anymore because do you know what that brainwave delivered for the government? Egg on their face—that is all it delivered, nothing more and possibly less. I can tell you that they went onto their website called haveyoursay.gov.au or whatever it is. They are doing it again now on other things.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: YourSAy.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: YourSAy? Thank you. I actually had constituents have their say on our website, and I can tell you that the absolute majority of them either supported staying as we are or going to Central Standard Time, and the absolute minority of them said go to Eastern Standard Time—the Marty muddling model, the marbles model of Marty. That is what the absolute minority said.

Won't this government be happy when they do not have him in the cabinet anymore? They only have to put up with him for a couple more years. Be very careful, by the way. I just warn them that if things get tough, he will leak. He will leak just before the next election. Mark my words, I know all about it. If you reckon minister Hunter has a problem with leaks and bursts, wait until you get close to the election and see how Marty leaks because he will always put himself before the people or the party he represents. To come back to the key point—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Let's get a little bit of order in this house. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: To come back to the key point, the bottom line is that one thing I learnt at Urrbrae Agricultural High School is that you cannot trust city-centric governments, so I say to the people of Eyre Peninsula, the Mid North and the large percentage of people in Adelaide who wanted a change—and the Hon. Kelly Vincent picked it up, and I congratulate her for supporting her constituents. She was actually focused on what she believed in, and I congratulate her for that. To come back to my final point, a lot of city people are sick of mad March, they are sick of extended daylight savings, and this was a good balanced compromise.

An honourable member: They are sick of daylight savings?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, the extended daylight savings. They have had a gutful of it, all for mad March. Economically, mad March should be spread across the 12-month calendar period, not just for four-year cycles at election time. At least the racing industry is realising that and putting pressure on the government.

I want to finish with this: we fought the good fight. The other thing I learnt at Urrbrae was that I can count. I learnt a bit about arithmetic, and I am not going to beat the two major parties tonight. However, we will be back, and at an appropriate time I will bring this debate back to the parliament. I commend the bill to the house and I hope, with those few words, that they will support the Hon. Kelly Vincent and myself, change their minds on the run and support a fair go for all South Australians and our future. I commend the bill to the house.

Second reading negatived.