Skip to content

In another time

6 February, 2007
by

Hon PETER FOSS: In speaking to the amendment, I would like to put to bed the concept that, if the house sits earlier, members will get more sleep. That rationale is very much like the daylight saving argument. The amount of sleep we get is determined by the amount of time available between the house’s rising and the time it commences. It is fallacious to say that we will get more sleep if the house starts earlier and rises earlier. It is almost as good an argument as that which claims the curtains will fade because of daylight saving.

Hon Kim Chance: I think I said it would get us home a little earlier.

Hon PETER FOSS: It will get us home a little earlier, but it will get us out of bed a little earlier, so we will come back to Parliament half asleep; we will have the potential for an accident on the way to work rather than on the way home. That is wonderful.

Hon Derrick Tomlinson interjected.

Hon PETER FOSS: Yes, then we would not have to go to bed at all. The government’s reasoning is fallacious in two ways. When I was in practice many years ago, and as the state would not have daylight saving, I started my own daylight saving by coming into the office an hour earlier.

Hon Derrick Tomlinson: And your curtains faded.

Hon PETER FOSS: The funny thing was that I went home at exactly the same time as I did without the daylight saving. I just worked an extra hour every day because the signal to go home was when it went dark.

Hon Kim Chance: Did you find your milk went sour?

Hon PETER FOSS: The milk went terribly sour and the curtains in my car were totally faded, but –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash): Hon Peter Foss is speaking to the issue of the deletion of “2.30 pm” and the substitution of “3.30 pm”. I cannot understand where the milk comes into it, but I will allow a little leeway. In the end, members, Hon Peter Foss is entitled to speak to the amendment, and only that.

Hon PETER FOSS: I was referring not to milk, but to the hour. The change from 2.30 to 3.30 pm will be sensible. The entire concept of starting earlier in order not to sit later is fallacious. The amendment not only has the advantage of enabling a party room meeting of upper house members, which is highly desirable in trying to deal with things, but it gets away from the fallacious argument that starting earlier will provide more sleep. It will not. In fact, I expect the opposite to be the case.

Hon Kim Chance: We are going to agree to the amendment.

Subject: Standing Order 61(a), Sitting Times [Legislative Council – Motion]

Date: 27 April 2005

Hansard reference: pp. 721c – 731a [online (pdf)]

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: