HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [8.42 pm]: I do not wish to make extended remarks, but I will put on record a few issues with this bill. This is one of the most extraordinary debates in which I have played any part in this place. The whole development of this bill has been unlike any other. It seems to have gathered some sort of momentum that defies logic. I can only assume that something strange is happening with the planets, because there is no other really good explanation of why we are debating this bill at this time and the nature in which we are doing it. The bill seems to have been dreamt up on the back of an envelope, given some sort of time synchronicity and brought into being to assist a couple of members to regain some public profile.
Hon Graham Giffard: You cynic!
Hon GIZ WATSON: One must be slightly cynical about this. I am not usually a cynical person, as members will understand. There is the question of momentum. Enough people in this and the other place have decided that this bill will get some priority; that it will roll along; that there is some urgency; and that people are hanging on to find out whether it will be voted on tonight or tomorrow. I have never known anything quite like it. Quite frankly, I think the debate is largely contrived for a whole range of reasons. However, having said that, we are having the debate. The Greens are again in a situation of being asked to consider a bill that is not ours. We are usually considering government bills, but this is a private member’s bill. We would be delighted if our private members’ bills were given the same degree of acceleration and interest.
Hon Graham Giffard: Send 12 000 e-mails!
Hon GIZ WATSON: That could be organised, I believe. As other members have said, at a personal level I do not mind one way or the other. I and many people believe there are pros and cons for daylight saving. My major concern with this bill is that it proposes a trial. I might as well indicate at this time that I will support the bill, because it proposes a trial and it is not as though we are deciding with this bill that Western Australia will have daylight saving forever and a day. I also acknowledge that the last time we had a trial with a referendum was 14 years ago and that a considerable number of people in this state have not had the opportunity to try out daylight saving. However, what worries me is that we are not looking at the issue in any considered way, by which we would have a baseline and then assess the trial on the basis of what daylight saving would do to energy and oil consumption, its social and health impacts and its effects on cancer rates. If we were to have a trial in any sense of the word, it would be really useful to assess all those sorts of criteria. My scientific training says that a trial needs something. This is to be a trial without any parameters other than that people can judge it based on their own experiences. It does not tell us what it does on a whole lot of important parameters such as economic, social, environmental and health parameters.
I reiterate the point made by other members that this bill is misnamed. It is not about daylight saving. The concept of daylight saving arose in the Northern Hemisphere, an area with many people in high latitudes. It was introduced to extend the amount of daylight available to them. Our concept of daylight saving is about shifting the clock versus the available daylight. It is not a properly named bill. As other members have pointed out, a lot of members do not know how to spell it on their e-mails. There is certainly no shortage of daylight in summer in WA. The bill is misnamed for that reason.
I will not re-visit the arguments that have been put to me about the advantages and disadvantages of daylight saving. People from both sides of Parliament feel very strongly about it. Those who have strong feelings against introducing a trial of daylight saving have articulated their arguments much more clearly and have gone to much more effort than the people who have argued the yes case. E-mails and phone calls have inundated my office and bored everybody rigid for the past few weeks because, as members of a minor party with the balance of power in this chamber, we are required to do so many other things.
Polling in the North Metropolitan Region shows that 90 per cent of constituents are in favour of daylight saving. For that reason, I feel that I should support the bill. Because the Greens do not have a policy on this matter, because I do not feel strongly about it and because it does not involve any strong principles that we need to consider, I am willing to give it a go. We polled the membership of the Greens, given that we do not have a policy position on this matter. Interestingly, the result was almost 50-50, give or take one or two people. Not surprisingly, more people in the country were opposed to daylight saving. I put on the record that our party has quite strong, divided views on it.
I have some degree of cynicism as to why we are debating this bill at this point. It seems to be convenient for various political agendas. It has become apparent to me, after being lobbied on this issue, that some underlying plot has been driven along, certainly by people within the major parties, although I do not know quite who they are; it is another interesting phenomenon associated with this debate. With those comments, on behalf of the Greens and my constituents in the North Metropolitan Region, I am willing to support the proposed three-year trial and then the issue being put to a referendum.