Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to research by Professor Drew Dawson, head of the University of South Australia's Centre for Sleep Research, staying awake for 17 hours has the same effect on performance as having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent and, after 21 hours awake, people demonstrate the same deterioration as having a blood alcohol content of 0.1 per cent. Many people begin to show signs of mental fatigue later in the working day and tasks seem much more complicated, concentration wavers and mistakes can be made. Late nights spent working can cause mental fatigue, making it harder to recollect information and affecting the ability to think clearly.

As representatives of the Australian people, our role is to make decisions on the passing of new laws and amendments or changes to existing laws, debate legislation and policy statements and make decisions on what we believe is right for our electorate and for our country. We make decisions on how we should be spending taxpayer's money whether we are in government or opposition. The quantity of information that can be processed by the human mind is limited. The mind tires and begins to ignore or forget information. How many of us have sat listening for hours at information being delivered, yet at the end cannot recall most of what has been said. In psychology, decision fatigue refers to the deteriorating quality of the decisions made by an individual, after a long session of decision making. It is now understood as one of the causes of irrational trade-offs in decision making. Decision fatigue can be caused by continual mental effort such as making decisions and brain overload where the brain cells have become exhausted. Although we do not feel physically tired, the more choices we have to make throughout the day, the more fatigued we become and the less likely we are to make hard decisions but go with the recommendations of others or no decision at all.

In a recent article in the New York Times, John Tierney talks about decision fatigue, the newest discovery involving a phenomenon called ego depletion, a term coined by the social psychologist Roy F Baumeister:

No matter how rational and high-minded you try to be, you can't make decision after decision without paying a biological price. It's different from ordinary physical fatigue—you're not consciously aware of being tired—but you're low on mental energy. The more choices you make throughout the day, the harder each one becomes for your brain, and eventually it looks for shortcuts, usually in either of two very different ways. One shortcut is to become reckless: to act impulsively instead of expending the energy to first think through the consequences. (Sure, tweet that photo! What could go wrong?) The other shortcut is the ultimate energy saver: do nothing. Instead of agonizing over decisions, avoid any choice. Ducking a decision often creates bigger problems in the long run, but for the moment, it eases the mental strain. You start to resist any change, any potentially risky move.

Work schedules that require people to work for extended periods of time disrupt circadian or body clock rhythms and increase the risk of fatigue. A person suffering from fatigue may in turn experience difficulty in concentration, impaired recollection of timing and events or judgment, reduced capacity for effective interpersonal communication, reduced hand-eye coordination, reduced visual perception, reduced vigilance and slower reaction times.

British researchers have found that, through a long-term study done on 10,000 civil servants, working more than 11 hours a day increases the risk of heart disease by 67 per cent compared to working a standard seven- to eight-hour day. It was thought that working hours alongside other factors like blood pressure, diabetes, exercise and depression, could help doctors work out the risk of heart disease. Another recent study has also shown that people who work more than 11 hours a day are 2.4 times more likely to suffer depression. The British study found that working long hours may affect your mental health because of difficulties in unwinding after work and prolonged increased levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

The less control one has over potentially stress inducing events and the more uncertainty they create, the more likely people are to feel stressed. Even the typical day-to-day demands of living can contribute to the body's stress response. The long-term activation of the stress-response system and the subsequent overexposure to cortisol and other stress hormones can disrupt almost all of the body's processes. This results in an increased risk of numerous health problems, including heart disease, sleep problems, digestive problems, depression, obesity, memory impairment, worsening of skin conditions such as eczema, and it depletes the human immune system, increasing the risk of cancer and infectious disease.

I appeal to my political colleagues from all parties to support this motion not only for their own health and wellbeing but for the health and wellbeing of the staff of this parliament, for whom we all have a shared responsibility. Thank you.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that this is first day that we have sat in this chamber now that it has been called the Federation Chamber. Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to acknowledge the fine work that has been done by Dr Mal Washer in trying to make the hours of this House more reasonable, rational and sane. His voice has been the one voice out there all the time arguing that human beings cannot function effectively without sleep. We work really long hours in this place. A member may get in at eight o'clock and leave at 11 o'clock. Not too many people in the community work those sorts of hours. As members of parliament, we are role models for the community. If we cannot have reasonable hours and demonstrate to the rest of the community that reasonable hours are the way to go, how can we expect reasonable hours to be the norm for the community as a whole?

I am not sure that the wording and the points in the motion are exactly the way I would like to go, but the sentiments that have been expressed are the ones that should be adopted by this parliament. We need to introduce some rational hours into this place. Dr Washer—and I emphasise 'Dr' Washer—is a man of science, a man who has researched this issue fully. When he puts to the parliament the impact the lack of sleep has on an individual and he recites his sources and the research that has taken place, it demonstrates that this is a fact. In a former life, I actually worked with people as a rehabilitation councillor. I worked with people who were injured at work. One of the factors that often caused injury at work was the fact that the person had worked very long hours, was over tired and had made that mistake. A mistake in some environments can cause serious injury or loss of life. In our work environment, I think that poor decision making can impact on a lot of people's lives, not just on the lives of people in this parliament but also on the lives of the Australian public as a whole. It is an obligation of our office to ensure that we consider legislation and issues before the parliament in a rational, sound way.

The research that I have read also demonstrates the impact that these long hours have on individuals. It is well known that people who do shift work and rotating shift work have severe problems with sleep, and that also tends to manifest itself with physical and mental disabilities. There has been a lot of research done in the area of rotating shift work and the underlying effect of people not having standard sleep patterns. They are not able to work, rest, recover and then come to work the next day and make sound, rational decisions. You need to be able to have a balance in your life.

As I mentioned, the impact of sleep deprivation is well researched. Dr Washer quoted research that indicates that 17 hours without sleep equates to 0.65 alcohol content in your blood. My daughter-in-law works as a nurse at one of the hospitals in the Hunter. She does night shifts all the time. Sometimes, her husband has to go and pick her up because she does not feel that she can safely drive home from work. She is unable to drive her children to school and to day care after she has worked a night shift. It really does impact on a person's life and impacts in a number of ways. It does lead to long-term psychological problems.

It is well researched that constant lack of sleep leads to depression and other forms of mental illness and anxiety. People are much more likely to have a stress response to a situation. In this parliament, we work in a very combative environment and late at night I have noticed that people tend to have a much shorter fuse. Communications is a vital part of our job in this parliament. If you are tired, if you lack sleep and if you are stressed then you are not going to be able to communicate effectively. Dr Washer made the point about sleep disorders and the impact of the lack of sleep on a person's life is very well documented in all the research. The other issue I would like to touch on is one that not only affects us, as members of parliament, but also affects the staff of each and every one of us. I know that when my staff have been here into the early hours of the morning and hop into a car to drive home they are quite concerned about their safety as they drive home. I can remember a six o'clock or seven o'clock morning here, and I would not have trusted myself behind the wheel of a car. Isn't it an obligation on us, as members of parliament, to ensure the safety not only of our staff but of all those staff who work here in Parliament House—the people who look after us in the chamber, the people who come here early in the morning and then maybe go home the next day at 10 o'clock.

There are rules in place about how long a person must have off before they can return to the workplace. You cannot do an overtime shift in which you work from nine to five, then do overtime and then turn up the next day. There are laws that regulate the amount of time you need to have off work. In this parliament we do not look at the impact that continuous sittings and work have on all those involved in this place.

I know that Dr Washer has had a long-term concern about this issue. He has highlighted the psychological impacts, the physical impacts and the short-term and long-term physical impacts of sleep deprivation. He is a man who cares for the interests of this House, the members and all the staff who work here at the heart of this nation. It gives me great pleasure to support him and his efforts to try to bring some rationality to the way this parliament sits.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, let me acknowledge the work of the member for Shortland's daughter in her night shift. It is not only your daughter who is working that night shift but also paramedics of Australia and policemen, people who work in the water industry, truck drivers and others in transport working late at night, child protection workers, firemen, and the list goes on. These people all contribute out of hours to this nation. That is not what we are here for. I will give you some background. There are two people in this room who have been here since 1990: the member for Banks, Mr Melham, and me, the member for McMillan. From 1990 we have been through many nights where the parliament sat through the early hours of the morning and into the very, very early hours of the morning.

We thought that with this new parliament those days were gone—finished, history, it will not happen again—but we had an occasion a few months ago where we filibustered into the night, and that is all you could call it. On a very serious issue in this parliament we filibustered into the night and it was totally unnecessary. But with this parliament as it stands, as a hung parliament, you cannot give leave to your team to go home while the small team bats on. We are all here, we are all in it, and a vote can be held at any time, called by one side or the other, so we have an obligation to be standing in this House on behalf of the constituents who elected us. We accept that. So, why can't we come to a resolution whereby the parliament, in good commonsense, comes forward as we have here? Why didn't it go through the Procedure Committee, or to the whips, or to the leadership or to the Prime Minister to get this outcome? The reason is that it would not have happened, because people have vested interests and they do not want to take away the opportunity to take account of what is happening on the other side at any given time and call a vote. That leaves us with only one option now, as Dr Washer very expertly put it. If you want a technical reason for what we are doing, read Dr Washer's speech. If you want a reason for what we are doing—out of common sense and because of the real world we live in—listen to what I am saying. The members of this House do not perform well after 11 o'clock. I have been here since 1990 and I have never seen backbenchers or frontbenchers performing well at all after 11 o'clock at night. In fact, on occasion—and I am looking at you all at the moment—some of your performances have been atrocious after 11 o'clock at night. That was the inspiration for this bill: that this parliament should not be looking at very serious legislation that is before this House and that impacts on every person in our community, often the children and the generations ahead, at that time of night. I say that having heard the evidence put forward by Dr Washer and having listened to the concerns of reasonable members of parliament in this place.

I know the general public will say: 'What are they complaining about? They have it easy.' I spoke to a woman this morning who said: 'I have had two lives, Mr Broadbent. I have had a life in the Public Service, where I was getting ministerial briefs up to people like yourself all the time.' I said, 'That would have been hard work.' And she said: 'It was hard work, and intense sometimes. But I've got this other life now, where I'm actually watching, very close hand, what politicians do. I have a changed opinion of you as a group.' I said, 'Thank you very much.' It is not known, other than by those closest to us—our staff, our family and the other occupants of this building—what politicians actually do, the work they do on the behalf of their constituents and the time that can often take. That is extremely important. So is the business of government. I want to make the business of government so important that we knock off at a reasonable time and come in the next day with a greater opportunity to do the best on behalf of this nation that we can possibly do as individuals.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour and privilege to represent my electorate. It is an area where I have lived all my life. I was born there. My family has lived there for generations. Just over 1,000 people have been elected to the House of Representatives since this country came into existence. My observation in the four years I have been here is that politicians of all persuasions and political parties work hard in their electorates. They are not working from 9 am to 5 pm; they work six and often seven days a week. Those of us who campaign regularly know that it is required in a marginal seat. Our staffs work very, very hard. Sometimes I think there is a special place in heaven for our staff. They work just as hard as we do when we are here in Canberra; you can see that: staff leaving at the same time as politicians at the end of a long session. And what about the attendants? What about Hansard, and the other staff here? They have to work those hours as well. Thousands of people work in this building. It is not just the 150 in the House of Representatives and the 76 in the Senate but all those other people as well, all the ministerial staff and the public servants.

So I think we have to have some degree of reasonableness and common sense about the hours we work. My first job in life was as a cleaner in the meatworks. I worked a night shift. When the foreman asked me to work other than during university holidays, for example, when I was a full-time student at law school at the University of Queensland, I found it extremely difficult and could barely do it. So I used to restrict my work hours in the meatworks to university holidays.

Let us get realistic. It is not as if we actually start work at the hour prescribed in the standing orders. I get picked up at 6 am and I go for a run and go to the gym. I see many politicians in there getting those few hours of exercise—it is for their mental health, as well as their physical health. I see the member for Ryan here. She and I have had the privilege of making more speeches than any other Queenslanders in the House of Representatives, but it takes time to do that when you are down here. You do your constituency work as well and there are endless meetings. For example, I am more tired after Monday than I am on any other day during the session. I am pretty fit. I run regularly and I lift weights. There are a lot of people in this place who do the same. But I know on Tuesday that I am extremely tired because, generally, we have made lots of speeches and it takes work. We do lots of representations made to ministers.

If you cannot do your work properly, you cannot serve well the people you are elected to represent. I have heard speeches from those opposite and I have heard our speeches in the wee hours in the morning. Some of those speeches are not their finest hour. But it is not just the speeches; it is the decisions that they make. I think the long hours currently in our standing orders and the fact that we seem to more often honour them more in the breach than in the observance, result in the fact that there is more irritability and erasability amongst politicians on both sides. We agree on about 80 or 90 per cent of the legislation that goes through. We disagree violently on lots of issues. I think we are always right and they are always wrong, but they think exactly the opposite. That is what it is in a democracy.

Let us be an example and let us show compassion and understanding. If we believe in good workplace health and safety not for just ourselves but for the staff of the parliament, the public service, the ministerial advisors and our staff as well, let us think about good industrial practices in this place. On our side of politics, we pride ourselves on a simple, fair and flexible workplace arrangements. We might disagree on a few issues on the other side such as industrial relations but I think in their of hearts that they know their employees should also be cared for.

Most small businesses are family business, but most big businesses have human relationship advisors as well because it is important. This place needs to have a bit more emphasis on mental health, not just for the politicians, but for the staff who work with us as well. It is important that we be physically fit and also be mentally fit. The Prime Minister and the cabinet make decisions which affect people's lives every day as do backbenchers. I applaud the member for Moore and thank him for the way he has looked after me at various stages when I have been ill in this place.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support this motion, not to make our lives easier by any stretch of the imagination, but to make them more effective. My understanding—and I am sure the member for McMillan and the member for Banks can tell me—is that, when this Federation Chamber we are in today under its current name was created, the purpose was so that we could get through more work in reasonable hours. I am sure that was the purpose of facilitating the Federation Chamber. It was acknowledging that we had a big workload, acknowledging that we had many bills and many motions to get through but also acknowledging the fact that, once you get late into the evening, you are past being able to perform appropriately and effectively. That is why we have the second chamber. I have to admit that, while I have been in this parliament, I think there has been only one or maybe two occasions that we have actually met after 11 o'clock. I would also suggest that no politician is saying that their life is not 24/7 on call. At all levels of government, as members, we are there when needed for our constituents, probably local government more so than any other level, where we are able to respond. What we have today in the form of a motion from the member for Moore, Dr Washer, is the fact that we do not perform well when we have had long days. Just as we exhort drivers to stop and revive, this is what we are saying. We are not performing at our best if we are working long hours.

In particular, I wanted to speak today in agreement with the member for Blair about the support staff. It is not about us. I remember working long hours in small business. Who has not worked through the night getting the BAS statement done? Who has not worked through the night getting that tender in? Often, when you check it the next day, you have missed some obvious points because you have been tired. But here in this chamber and this House are the staff. As the member for Blair said, it is not just a handful of staff, our personal staff, but literally hundreds of staff who are here for as long as we are. Those staff have to turn up again the next day. Those staff have families. Those staff have homes that they need to go to, and they do not sign on to work the long hours that we do. We know some of the pressures we are under but the staff who work in this wonderful parliament, who make things go smoothly for us, also have pressures. Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, we can look here to the clerks who assist you with your speaking responsibilities and their officers and also those of the whips. We can also look to the drivers. We talk about being so tired that we do not want to drive ourselves home but we have drivers who are in the Comcars to take us home so that we can front up the next day. We have security staff who work around the clock for us, and of course the Hansard staff who have to be here for as long as we keep speaking or putting motions. In fact, there are a whole range of people who are here supporting this parliament whom we need to be mindful of. And isn't that what the job of politicians is about? It is about thinking of other people and the effect of our decisions on them. That is why I very strongly support this motion.

We talk about our role in speaking in the chamber and participating in the votes, but in this great electronic age we also have hundreds of emails sent to us. When we come down to Canberra we cannot stop doing our work. As the member for Blair said, we have speeches to write and committees to work on but we also have our constituency work, and that must continue as well. As Dr Washer pointed out, if we are going to cope with all of our various roles we do need to draw a line in the sand at some time during the day. I believe we should lead by example. Indeed, the member for Melbourne, I note, in an inquiry into work-life balance, talks about the need for flexibility. So I think everyone in this parliament is probably in agreement that we are not at our best after 11 o'clock at night and so, in the interest of making good decisions and in the interest of supporting the very hardworking staff in this parliament, I urge everyone to support this motion.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 24 March next month I will have served in this place for 22 years, having been elected with the member for McMillan at the 1990 election. In that time I have served on and off on the Procedures Committee. I was actually a member of the Procedures Committee when Neal Blewett was the then chairman and brought down the report that led to the creation of this chamber, which has subsequently been picked up by the House of Commons. As the member for Ryan has alluded to, this chamber was brought about to make us more efficient and more productive. Non-contentious legislation was to be referred to it, and so it was a better way of managing the affairs of the parliament. The trade-off was better working hours. At that stage we were successful.

I led the charge within the government party room for better working hours in terms of the legislative program. We succeeded in having parliament in the main finish at 8 pm of an evening. Of course, on the last sitting weeks of each session or at Christmas we knew that we would sit longer. Sadly, that structure was abandoned on the election of the Howard government. The then Prime Minister John Howard and Ian Sinclair—there is no dispute about this; it was well intentioned—preferred the older hours. I think that was a mistake. The current sitting practice is a mistake, and I said so at an informal gathering of members of parliament of all political persuasions before the last Procedures Committee report—it has not, as I understand it, been picked up.

The current sitting practice is bad for health. I agree with everything that the honourable member for Moore has said in relation to health, amongst other things. I know why he is adopting the minimalist approach but I do not support the motion because it takes a minimalist approach. I am only speaking for my actions here. I think there should be a complete overhaul. It does not mean less work for members of the parliament. It means better conditions for staff and members of the parliament. It means better productivity. I think all the private members' business that we have as backbenchers is a mistake. We do not need an hour's adjournment every day of a parliamentary sitting. The whips on both sides have to get people out to do the adjournment speeches. There are other ways that we can offset some of this so that government business time is not lost.

I am someone who has always championed private members' business and private members' opportunities, but do not mistake an hour of adjournment debate on a night as quality debate or as providing quality speeches by members of the parliament. When I was shadow minister I was here at five o'clock in the morning and, during the native title debate I was here late at night, night after night, and at seven o'clock in the morning making speeches. We are walking around this place like zombies. That does not serve the parliament well. I think it is high time that the executive, the opposition executive and the backbenchers sit down and have a rational discussion in relation to our hours.

The problem with this particular motion is that an automatic adjournment can create problems for the government of the day. To me the automatic adjournment should be at 7.30 or eight o'clock of an evening, not 11 o'clock, and there should still be that flexibility where, if the government needs to go a little bit further, it should. It is not about working fewer hours.

I was a legal aid solicitor and barrister before I came into this place. On one occasion I had 24 briefs to appear in front of the court on sentences and a mention. I did three trials in three days, three trials in four days. I coped well. In terms of making speeches I was more tired as a shadow minister and sometimes when I was a more active backbencher because of our sitting hours than when I was actually representing people whose liberty depended on my advocacy. Why? Because of the way we have structured our hours. Our hours are Monday to Thursday, then we leave and go home to our electorates where we have different hours. Then we come back, again, to different hours from the weekend hours, to a variation in relation to the way we conduct our business. Then we have two weeks off, when we are in our electorates and we are at functions late at night.

I oppose the honourable member's motion because I do not think the motion goes far enough. This is my personal view; it is not the party's view. I do not think it is productive. I do not think it is good for business. I think that we have made sacrifices in this second chamber. It has worked well. There will be occasions where we need to sit beyond eight o'clock, which everyone can live with. But this automatic 11 o'clock at night adjournment is a joke. It is insane; it is madness. No-one else would cop it. We should not cop it.

Debate adjourned.