Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 deals with the question of a public holiday to assist with security arrangements around APEC. Under Labor, Australia was a foundation member of APEC and Labor was a driving force behind its establishment. Labor welcomes the return of the APEC summit to Australia in 2007 but notes that, based on other profile summits held in Australasia and southern Asia, it presents security challenges. Labor supports arrangements to ensure the security of the APEC summit, including the provision of a public holiday on 7 September 2007 to allow for the smoother and safer running of the event. Consequently, Labor will support this bill, the purpose of which is to make the arrangement so that 7 September 2007 can be a public holiday in relevant Sydney local government areas under various federal industrial instruments—generally those industrial instruments made prior to the commencement of the Work Choices changes.

Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 employees in the federal industrial relations system are generally entitled to public holidays declared by or under the law of a state to be observed within a region of that state. However, this general entitlement does not extend to employees employed under certain types of federal instruments that were made before or upon the commencement of the Work Choices changes to the Workplace Relations Act. Employees employed under those instruments are entitled to public holidays only in accordance with the terms of the instrument. Many of those instruments may only provide for public holidays that are declared for the whole of the state. As a result, the localised APEC public holiday would not necessarily be treated as a public holiday under those instruments. This bill addresses that situation to ensure that the APEC public holiday will be treated as a public holiday under those instruments. Usually this will mean that employees will be entitled to a day off or penalty rates of pay under the instruments, if they work. I will come back to the matter of penalty rates shortly.

Employees affected are those employed under the following instruments in the federal industrial relations system: a transitional award—that is, an award that covers employees of employers who were part of the federal system prior to the Work Choices changes but, because they are not constitutional corporations, are excluded from the mainstream industrial relations system; a pre-reform AWA—that is, an individual Australian workplace agreement made prior to the commencement of the Work Choices changes; a pre-reform certified agreement—that is, a collective agreement made prior to the commencement of Work Choices; a section 170MX award—that is, a limited award made prior to the commencement of Work Choices when arbitration followed the termination of a bargaining period for a collective agreement, usually for reasons associated with industrial action that might harm the economy or the safety, health or welfare of the population; an old industrial relations agreement—that is, an agreement made prior to the commencement of the 1996 changes to the Workplace Relations Act that is binding on employers that, because they are not constitutional corporations, are excluded from the mainstream industrial relations system; and, finally, a preserved state agreement—that is, an enterprise bargaining agreement made under state laws prior to the commencement of the Work Choices changes as it applies to employers who are now part of the federal system. If you are confused, Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like the rest of the Australian community, have cause to be. The Howard government promised, when it introduced the Work Choices changes, to introduce a simpler system to this country. I defy anybody following this debate to say that this is a simpler system. With all its mind-numbing complexity, it comes with $1.8 billion of bureaucracy as well—the heaviest burden of bureaucracy from industrial relations that this country has ever borne.

Clause 7 of the bill provides that regulations of a transitional saving or application nature arising out of or relating to the provisions of the act may be made that provide, for the purposes of a law of the Commonwealth or an instrument made under the law, that the APEC public holiday is taken to be a public holiday or taken not to be a public holiday. Clause 7(3) provides that those regulations may be made retrospectively. The explanatory memorandum says that this provision is required because:

It is possible that under a particular law of the Commonwealth, or under an instrument made under such a law, anomalous circumstances could arise which have not been provided by the provisions of the Bill, or in which the provisions of the Bill would have unintended consequences. Proposed subclause 7(2) would allow regulations to be made to remedy any unforeseen or unintended consequences that may arise.

This, of course, is a complex piece of machinery in terms of the regulations, and I do note that the explanatory memorandum does not provide any examples of the unintended consequences that could arise. It is likely that regulations will need to be made under clause 55 of schedule 8 to the Workplace Relations Act to ensure that section 612(4) of the act operates in relation to notional agreements preserving state awards—the so-called NAPSAs—in the same way that it operates in relation to awards and workplace agreements. If those regulations are not made, a term in a NAPSA that is contrary to the entitlement to the APEC public holiday, subject to a request to work, could have effect. Yes, complex indeed!

We note that the government is going to move a series of amendments to the bill, having apparently twigged to the problem that, despite all of the complexity which this bill comprehends and the complex industrial relations system of the government’s making that it is relating to, there were remaining issues about penalty rates and whether or not people who are required to work on the APEC public holiday would have an entitlement to penalty rates—that is, whether or not any entitlement in their underlying industrial instrument would be sufficient to deal with the question of penalty rates for them. Of course, Labor welcomes any clarification on the question of proper payment for people should they be required to work the APEC public holiday because they are in occupations where it is necessary for them to work through. Having said that, one would be entitled to a bit of bemusement at this grand irony that the government should, in a pre-election bill, be turning its mind to the question of penalty rates and their provision to people when, in the design of Work Choices itself, the government made sure that there was a system that could have people working without penalty rates.

We have to remind ourselves—and it is now a matter of public record in the Prime Minister’s biography—that, when the Work Choices legislation was submitted to cabinet and considered around the cabinet table, the government knew that there would be losers under their new system and they determined to proceed with it in any event. Indeed, that was not a simple act of omission, a question of there being some things that they could remedy which would have ensured that there were not losers. It was fundamental to the design of Work Choices that people could lose. The government, in its so-called information booklet for Work Choices, which of course was nothing more than a piece of propaganda, invited employers to strip entitlements off employees by giving the example of Billy, who had a minimum-wage job and who had lost all of his entitlement to penalty rates and overtime. So this government invited employers to make such agreements, having made them perfectly lawful, and then propagandised on their availability.

The government likes to criticise everybody else’s research, as we know and as we saw the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations do today when he criticised research about women and Work Choices. We also know that this government has never opened the books to tell Australians the full story about what its Work Choices changes have done to the working conditions of Australian families. It has deliberately covered up the Australian workplace agreements that have stripped penalty rates and other conditions. What we do know on the public record—not because the government gave the information voluntarily but because either it was forced out of them at Senate estimates or it subsequently leaked—is that, of the Australians who have signed Australian workplace agreements, 44 per cent have had stripped off them all the conditions that Mr Howard’s very expensive advertising told them would be protected by law. There is some grand irony that the government is now scurrying around making amendments relating to penalty rates when it has created a system purpose-designed to enable entitlements to things like penalty rates to be stripped away.

Mr Hockey, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, is out there trying to give the community the impression that these matters are now resolved by the latest changes to Work Choices. Of course, that is not true. Even under the government’s so-called fairness test—the recent changes to Work Choices—there is no guarantee that an employee will be granted full compensation for lost public holiday penalty rates. The employee’s compensation for lost penalty rates will depend on what the employer decides to tell the Workplace Authority about the employee’s obligation to work on public holidays throughout the five-year life of the agreement.

The Workplace Authority’s own policy says that employees will only be contacted if the lodgement does not contain sufficient information—that is, the employer puts in all of the information, including the information about public holidays, and from the point of view of the Workplace Authority, except in the exceptional case, the views of the employee about the fairness of these arrangements will not even be sought. From what we know of its operations, the Workplace Authority will not even take a critical view of the information provided and it will not contact employees if it doubts the veracity of the information provided; it will only contact them if there is not sufficient information. The Workplace Authority is not required to provide information to employees on why it reached a decision that an agreement passed the so-called fairness test, so an employee might never know that he or she is being ripped off in relation to their public holiday penalty rates.

By its design of Work Choices the government has shown the Australian community that it has no respect for public holidays and other important conditions of hardworking Australian families. Under the government’s workplace relations legislation, an employee is only entitled to refuse to work on a public holiday if the employee can prove that the employee had reasonable grounds to refuse the public holiday work. In determining the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal, regard must be had to a lengthy list of factors set out in the legislation, including the nature of the employee’s workplace, whether a workplace agreement might require the employee to work and the nature of the work performed by the employee.

As we know, the government is enforcing that all employers hand out a propaganda sheet, curiously titled a ‘workplace relations fact sheet’, by 20 October to each employee. If they do not do this, of course, they will be dragged through the courts and fined. Nowhere on that fact sheet does it mention that employees are entitled to refuse a request to work on public holidays. Somehow employees are expected to be aware of sections 612 and 613 of the government’s obscenely lengthy and complex industrial relations laws. The government claims that it is providing employees with information, but it is very selective about what information it provides.

In terms of the lack of regard by the government for public holidays in this community, it should be noted that all government members voted against amendments moved by Labor in connection with the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill that provided special protection for employees who have religious or ceremonial commitments on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day. For example, an employee wishing to attend religious activities on Christmas Day or Good Friday would, under Labor’s amendment, have been taken to have reasonable grounds for refusing a request to work on those days. Each and every member of the government voted against that.

Under Labor’s amendments, an employee wishing to attend commemorative events on Anzac Day or wishing support the attendance of a family member at such events on Anzac Day would be taken to have reasonable grounds for refusing a request to work on Anzac Day. The government members, to a person, each and every one of them, voted against that. So it is on the record in Work Choices itself and in relation to the government’s response to Labor’s amendments that the government does not believe it is appropriate to provide Australians with proper protections for public holidays.

Once again, the government shows contempt for the legislation-making process by including, as I have noted, a broad, retrospective regulation-making power that could potentially reverse employees’ entitlements to public holidays or payments on public holidays, and why this is required has not been adequately explained in the explanatory memorandum.

As we know, the government’s Work Choices legislation is riddled with examples of the government using regulation-making powers to circumvent the legislative process. For example, the content of agreements made between parties is subject to the whim of regulations made by the government, and this is unfair to both employers and employees. Similarly, the government can simply determine in regulations whether an agreement provides a more favourable outcome than the Australian fair pay and conditions standard in a particular respect. Labor will ensure that Australians get proper protections for public holidays in a fair and balanced industrial relations system, one that ensures that these important conditions can be relied upon by Australian workers and not stripped away.

Whilst I have made those critical remarks about Work Choices and about this government’s lack of respect for public holidays and for the ability of Australian families to take those public holidays together, Labor will be supporting this bill because of the security arrangements surrounding APEC. However, I will at the conclusion of my remarks move a second reading amendment about the question of fairness and balance at work and beyond work.

I have given notice to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education at the table that my colleague the member for Cowan, Graham Edwards, when he speaks in this debate, will make a series of broader remarks. As we all know, Graham is not contesting the forthcoming federal election, whenever that may be, and will use this opportunity to make some remarks in what may be one of the last sitting days before that election is held. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence—and I understand the minister has no difficulties with this indulgence—to record that, as members of this House are undoubtedly aware, and particularly members on the Labor side, Graham has a long and distinguished record of selfless work serving his community, his state and his nation. Both Graham and I were elected to this place in October 1998—we are part of the class of 1998—Graham coming in as the member for Cowan and me as the member for Lalor. I would very cheerfully concede he came to this place as someone with far greater life experience than I or I think any other member of the class of 1998.

Graham has served at all levels of government. It is a trifecta. He served as a councillor with the City of Stirling and as an officer with the Commonwealth Department of Defence, the Commonwealth Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. Between 1983 and 1997, before his election to this place, Graham was a member of the legislative council of the Western Australian parliament—an achievement which many people would have thought was more than enough without coming to this place in 1998 and serving the years in between. When he was in state parliament Graham served as the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Minister for Racing and Gaming, the Minister for Youth, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Minister for the Aged over a period of four years between 1987 and 1991. Recording the breadth of those ministerial offices shows just how much of a contribution Graham made in state politics to his home state of Western Australia. Graham has made a great contribution here as the member for Cowan serving his local community but also as a very valued member of the Labor opposition—a man with a breadth of expertise across defence matters particularly but also well beyond.

As I think is fairly well known in this place, Graham served this country in the Regular Army for three years between 1968 and 1970, during which time he engaged in active service in Vietnam as a member of the Pioneer Platoon, 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. During that service Graham lost both his legs in a landmine blast. On returning to Australia, having received what anybody would have defined as the blow of a lifetime, instead of simply turning inwards Graham turned outwards and commenced a life of contribution to public service, and in particular a life of contribution specifically to the affairs of Australian veterans and their families. There would not be too many people who, for a lifetime, can say that they were presented with such adversity and overcame it. Graham can certainly say that.

Before moving the second reading amendment, I refer to a letter that Graham wrote to the member for Brand and then Leader of the Opposition last year on Vietnam Veterans Day and the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. In that letter, which I think summarises Graham’s inherent sense of decency and forgiveness, he said:

In closing Kim I want to say I am proud to have served my nation and proud of all who served with me. I am proud of my mates and the contribution they made to Australia. I take pride in the mateship. I don’t need anyone’s apology for that.

We are proud to have served with Graham in different circumstances. That is a very heartfelt contribution from the Labor caucus, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have recorded those remarks.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been very good of the minister to give that indulgence. I might say, while you are considering that amendment, I have served in this House from 1996 with the member for Cowan. In this last parliament it has been my great privilege to serve with him on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. He has been a wonderful deputy chair of that committee. In having the great honour of serving as the Deputy Chair of the Defence Subcommittee, it has been fantastic for me to work so closely with Graham. He has been an absolute adornment to the parliament. He knows how to fight and fight hard. He has always fought at every level for his constituents, and he has fought for his country and given everything that he could. I am glad to be in the chair to thank him for his service to this House. With that, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might wish to move her amendment.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. To conclude, I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

condemns the Government’s:

(a)

failure to ensure fairness at work and fairness beyond work through its inherently unfair Work Choices laws; and

(b)

failure to provide proper protections for important Australian national public holidays like Anzac Day; and

(2)

further condemns the adverse impacts these unfair laws have had on working Australians, their families and the wider Australian community’.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the federal member for Ryan, it is a pleasure to speak on the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 in the House of Representatives today. I am delighted to support this very important bill. Hosting the APEC meeting is an enormous undertaking for any nation, even for a country such as ours which has the experience and the skill of running enormous operations such as the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games. I am very confident that all our professional security forces will do a superb job in ensuring that the APEC event in Sydney runs very smoothly.

In total, between January and September this year, Australia will host 100-plus days of meetings across the country. All the preparation and meetings will culminate with the APEC Economic Leaders Meeting, which commences on 2 September 2007. The APEC Economic Leaders Meeting is the most significant international gathering of an economic kind that Australia has hosted. At the conclusion of the discussions, the leaders will issue the APEC Economic Leaders Declaration, which will contain the shared vision of the leaders and set the strategic directions for APEC for the next year. The focus of the 2007 APEC Economic Leaders Meeting will be not only on economic development and trade but also on regional security, job creation and, importantly, climate change. One of the reasons I am very pleased to speak on this bill is that I am passionate about promoting freer trade and greater liberalisation of the world’s economies. I think that is the most effective way of bringing prosperity and opportunity to the peoples of the developing world.

APEC will be attended by 21 world leaders, over 40 ministers, 400 international business leaders—a handful from the Ryan electorate, I might add—6,000 delegates and support personnel, as well as over 1,000 media representatives. It will involve over 35 VIP aircraft, 300 secure VIP traffic escorts and 30 hotels. During APEC Leaders Week, meetings will take place at venues in and around Sydney’s CBD, including our famous Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, and Government House. Hosting the likes of the US President, George W Bush; the Chinese President, Hu Jintao; the Russian President, Vladimir Putin; and, from our own region, the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Shinzo Abe, I think is a great honour for this country. Of course, it is critical that we ensure the security of those leaders from those respective countries.

We have enormous confidence in the security forces of our country to carry out their job with professionalism and skill. In the 2006-07 budget, the Howard government allocated $70 million over four years for security related purposes, together with some $600,000 for additional and ongoing operating costs for transportation. The funding has supported the coordinated and whole-of-government security preparations for all APEC events and includes: $56-plus million for the Protective Security Coordination Centre and the security costs associated with hosting the APEC Leaders Week in September; $4 million to the PSCC to purchase armoured VIP limousines; $7.2 million for the Australian Federal Police to establish 22 firearms and explosives detector canine teams to conduct firearms and explosives searches at the Leaders Week and the relevant ministerial meetings; and $900,000 for Emergency Management Australia for the development of consequence management plans for an incident that might arise during the APEC Leaders Week. Altogether, the government has committed more than $300 million to host APEC.

In addition to this funding there are a number of practicalities which will be implemented during the Leaders Week to ease the disruption to the lives of those who live and work in Sydney. These practical measures include operating parts of Sydney under event time, traffic controls and access arrangements similar to those in place during the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, and also declaring a public holiday for the Sydney CBD on Friday, 7 September 2007. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said:

The purpose of the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 is to ensure that employees in the Sydney metropolitan area receive a public holiday on Friday, 7 September 2007 if they are covered by certain pre-reform industrial instruments, including transitional awards, pre-reform AWAs, pre-reform certified agreements and preserved state agreements.

This public holiday is necessary to facilitate the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings that will be hosted in Sydney over the week of 2 to 9 September 2007. The APEC Economic Leaders Meeting is one of the most important annual meetings of world leaders.

We all know that the New South Wales government has also introduced relevant legislation. But the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 will ensure that all employees covered by federal industrial instruments receive public holiday entitlements for the APEC holiday.

The Australian taxpayer, I think, is entitled to know why the government is investing such a significant amount of their money in APEC. It is appropriate that all of us promote this important gathering, because of its benefits not only for Australia but also for the world at large, particularly the 21 APEC member economies. The benefits are enormous; indeed, they are profound. I think it is important for me, as the member for Ryan, to explain to my constituents something of APEC. Many in the business community would know that APEC is the pre-eminent forum for facilitating economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. It is the only assembly that brings together a range of developed and developing economies from the region. APEC was established as an Australian initiative in 1989 by the Hawke Labor government, and it is to be commended for that. I think Canberra hosted 12 members on the first occasion. Initially, it was just a consultative dialogue on trade negotiation objectives and since then APEC has grown to include 21 member economies and is now the subject of leaders’ discussions which are both formal and informal and cover an enormous range of areas, including trade, energy, climate change, security, health and regional development.

I know that the residents of Ryan would be very keen to know that the 21 APEC member economies represent 40 per cent of the world’s population, 56 per cent of global GDP and around 48 per cent of trade. APEC is also very important to our country and to Australian jobs. Sixty-nine per cent of Australia’s total trade is with APEC economies and they include eight of our top 10 trading partners. I know that Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton would be very keen to convey how important trade is not only to our nation but also to his electorate. APEC nations account for 40 per cent of inward investment in Australia and 70 per cent of international visitors to Australia—and we all know how important the Australian tourism industry is to Australian jobs, particularly the jobs of young Australians. APEC nations buy 95 per cent of Australia’s beef exports, 89 per cent of Australia’s medicinal and pharmaceutical product exports, 84 per cent of Australia’s petroleum exports, 82 per cent of Australia’s iron and steel exports, 77 per cent of Australia’s non-ferrous metal exports and 64 per cent of Australia’s very important coal exports.

APEC is a unique organisation in that it is the only intergovernmental grouping in the world committed to reducing trade barriers and increasing investment without requiring its members to enter into legally binding obligations. I believe that this structure in our part of the region is fundamental to understanding APEC’s success hitherto. It is this informal, unbinding obligation that I think best fits the identity or personality of many of the member economies of APEC. Of course, this in no way diminishes the clear fact that we all share common space on this globe and some common problems. It is an opportunity for the leaders of these nations to share issues and ideas. Trying to set a common agenda for solutions is something that would be well received by their respective peoples.

Over the past 15 years, APEC economies have outpaced the rest of the world in reducing barriers to trade and delivering economic growth. As I said earlier in my speech, I think that all nations should try as much as they can to tackle the trade barriers that exist around the world, because it is only by making a big impact on these trade barriers that we will be able to bring prosperity and opportunity to the peoples of the developing world. Of course, people of developed nations such as ours also stand to benefit enormously.

Average tariffs have declined from some 16.6 per cent in 1988 to 6.4 per cent in 2004 and no tariff barriers have been substantially increased. The real GDP for APEC economies has increased by some 46 per cent from 1989 to 2003, compared to the performance of non-APEC economies, which increased by some 36 per cent. I just want to comment on the developing APEC economies. They grew by some 77 per cent, more than double the economies of the countries that are not members of APEC. I think this is a very good reflection of the benefits that APEC has delivered to their respective economies.

By hosting the 2007 APEC meeting, Australia has a very special opportunity to forge stronger relationships in the region. I think that the Doha Round is a very significant element of the global architecture of international trade and international trade liberalisation. I congratulate the Prime Minister for bringing forward the issue of the Doha Round and trying to promote greater liberalisation in this particular APEC meeting. In June, at the annual Asia Society dinner in Sydney, he talked about the advantage of Australia’s chairmanship of APEC to press leaders for a strong statement of support for the conclusion of the Doha Round.

International trade has always been tied very significantly to our national prosperity. One of the first examples of the benefits of trade to Australia was way back in the 1860s, when the gold rush encouraged large-scale immigration and created a massive wealth effect from gold exports, which of course made Australians at the time amongst the wealthiest in the world, per capita. Unfortunately, protectionist policies fuelled by the Second World War led to a rise in tariffs. Our ranking among the world’s richest nations dropped from fifth in 1950 to ninth in 1973. A lot of that can be put down to an inward-looking world. We must never return to such a state, as it is not a formula for bringing jobs, opportunity and prosperity to the people of the world. I should say that, from 1970 until 2001—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that the members opposite share my view of promoting prosperity and a liberalisation campaign. I even want to take the opportunity of commending Labor governments for trying to wage liberalisation campaigns. I only wish that they would continue to step up their efforts in this respect and support continued industry assistance. I take the shadow minister’s commitment to continuing to promote trade liberalisation very genuinely. Indeed, he has a staff member with whom I had an opportunity to share some time at Pembroke College, Cambridge. I remember debates with him about free trade versus protectionist policy. I am not sure what sorts of policies he is now advising the shadow minister on in his portfolio, but, rest assured, I very much stood on the side of greater liberalisation. I am sure that he would convey wise words to the shadow minister and those opposite. Indeed, the Ryan constituency very much supports greater free trade and greater job opportunities for Australia.

Let me just say that, if Australia had not reduced tariffs on passenger motor vehicles, average working families would be paying an additional $10,000 on a $30,000 family car. That is certainly something that all of us here would not want to impose on working families. It is fortunate that they have a job in the first case, given that under the Labor government a million working families did not have jobs.

More importantly, the Howard government has reduced national government debt from $1 billion in 1996, which hung over the heads of all Australians. I mention this because businesspeople seeking to export to the world and be part of the global economy certainly were not in a position to expand their businesses when they were paying massive interest rates in their business operations. Not only have reforms led Australia to now be ranked third in the 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, above the United States and the United Kingdom, but below Hong Kong and Singapore. Reforms have opened up Australian businesses of all kinds and sizes to the world market. You do not have to be a BHP or a Rio Tinto to reap the benefits of trade.

According to the ABS, around 86 per cent of exporters in Australia are small and medium sized enterprises. They account for some 30 per cent of Australia’s GDP. We must do all we can to promote their successes so that they can connect into the international economy and continue to provide jobs and opportunities for Australians. There are approximately 3,815 Australian exporters selling to China, 1,800 selling to India, 425 selling to Brazil and 291 selling to Russia.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members of the opposition might adopt a quieter tone at the moment.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Deputy Speaker for his encouragement of his colleagues to support my presentation, because we are all about promoting prosperity and greater economic engagement. That is precisely what APEC does and it is precisely what the Prime Minister will be doing when he chairs APEC and talks about the success of Australia’s policies in plugging into the region and the world.

Many countries coming here will be very envious of the 4.3 per cent unemployment in our country. They will be very envious of the zero government debt that we have, and I am sure they will be seeking to learn as much as they can about Australia’s national economic success story over the last decade. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be talking to them about how important Australia’s success in trade has been in that endeavour. Australia does punch well above its weight, and I hope that every shadow minister and every other Labor member will talk about how significant Australia has been in the last decade and how important it has been in punching above its weight. I hope that they go back to their electorates and promote Australia, instead of talking Australia down—as was done in a shadow minister’s blurb, which he ended up sending to my electorate instead of to his own constituents. I found that very interesting in terms of the competence of the shadow minister in that case.

Australia’s population is 0.3 per cent of one per cent of the global population, yet our economy totals over $1.1 trillion, making Australia the 13th largest economy in the world. That is some 50 per cent larger than it was in 1996. In 10 short years, we have grown some 50 per cent and are punching well above our weight and our size. Put in comparative terms, our population is around 1.5 per cent of China’s, but our per capita GDP is four times as much. We can and should be very proud of this picture of Australia. Indeed, as the OECD says, Australia is now ranked eighth in the OECD’s standard of living rankings, up from 13th in 1996, and it is third out of 177 countries on the 2006 United Nations Human Development Index, which takes into account things like achievements in education, GDP growth and life expectancy.

Unfortunately, my time to speak is coming to an end. I did want to talk about—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to hear the warm and generous support of my colleagues in the parliament! I know that, deep down, many of them want to be Liberals, like the aspiring Prime Minister. Indeed, the shadow ministers and the aspiring Prime Minister have arrogance; the federal opposition leader came into the Ryan electorate a few weeks ago and talked about my arrogance in representing the Ryan electorate. He deep down wants to be a deep blue Liberal. I like the blue tie he is wearing, reflecting his support of—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members of the opposition!

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to waste my time here. I know that the opposition are trying to sidetrack me from talking about my strong representation of the Ryan electorate, which has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. I should say that, because many of the Ryan businesses export to the region and indeed to the world.

I end my remarks on this point: the world must never return to protectionist policies. It must never return to an inward-looking approach to our national and international policies. The wealth of our nation and, indeed, of our globe will continue to rise and expand if we can engage with the world. I commend a very interesting and significant book called The World is Flat by Tom Friedman. For anyone who might be listening, I commend the very interesting chapter on free trade to them. It is chapter 5, and it talks about how significant it is for economies and for societies to be able to connect with the rest of the world. That is the best formula for delivering opportunities and jobs to the people of those communities—in particular, to the people of the developing world. I want to continue to promote innovation and entrepreneurship, particularly in the Ryan electorate. I know that many businesspeople will be watching the success of the APEC meeting very closely—(Time expired)

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Prior to calling the member for Cowan, I would like to welcome Mrs Edwards, friends and family, members of the Vietnam Veterans Association and Senator Webber from Western Australia for what is to be, as promoted, the member for Cowan’s last speech. I would also like to thank the member for Deakin for allowing me to stay in the chair during that speech. I call the member for Cowan.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your kind words earlier and note also those of Julia Gillard, which I really appreciated. I must say, after listening to the member for Ryan speak, that that is probably the best speech that he will ever make in this House but, having heard it, members might understand why I really will not miss this place when I go!

In talking to the amendments to the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 and in making probably my last speech in the House, I want to take the opportunity to cover a range of issues. Firstly, as this bill relates to APEC and as I will be attending APEC at the invitation of the Prime Minister in my capacity as deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I want to comment on some of the activities of that committee—a committee, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton, of which you are a notable member.

The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is probably the most interesting committee in the parliament. As a joint committee, it is a busy one; not only does it require attendance at an additional seven meetings in a sitting week but it also requires attendance at a number of meetings outside of sitting times. The committee has been fortunate enough to travel to and visit our troops on the ground in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, it has become somewhat of a tradition for committee members to visit our troops in the field.

Whilst we on this side do not agree with our involvement in the Iraq war, I have had the opportunity to tell troops in Iraq that the parliament gives them strong bipartisan support and that we on this side stand behind them and their families during their service and on their return. In that respect, I think our nation has learnt much following the Vietnam War. Our committee has also produced a number of well-researched reports, and we are about to finalise our report on the air superiority gap issue, which has come from an inquiry requiring much work. I want to recognise the staff of the committee and give particular thanks to the Defence attaches we have had over the years. I thank the committee staff and those personnel for the kind personal support they have given me over the years. I know that without that support I would not have been able to visit Iraq and Afghanistan.

Being a Vietnam veteran has given me a responsibility to pursue veterans issues. I have done so willingly and sometimes aggressively. I make no apology for that, as I firmly believe that, if this nation has the capacity to send young men and women overseas to fight in foreign wars, it certainly should have the capacity to support them when they return and in later years.

Back in 2000 I brought to the attention of this House the suicide of Ken Freeman, a former member of the Special Air Services in Perth. His widow did not want his suicide to pass without something being done to try to help veterans with similar issues. Tragically, suicide within the veteran community has continued. I recently raised the issue of the suicide of another former member of the SAS in Perth on behalf of his partner. She too did not want his suicide to pass without something happening to assist other veterans who may be facing similar problems. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, facing pressure from a number of issues relating to that suicide, announced an inquiry but neglected to consult with the veteran’s partner. She was only advised of the inquiry through the thoughtfulness of a member of another ex-service organisation.

Who can forget that the same lack of courtesy and consideration was extended to war widow Kylie Russell when the President of the United States laid a wreath in honour of her husband at the National War Memorial but this government neglected to advise or invite her? Here was a young mother grieving the loss of her husband, tragically killed by a mine in Afghanistan. She felt a great sense of injustice and pulled the government on over the treatment of war widows. She sought nothing for herself but to win improvements for other widows who would face similar issues in the future unless changes were won. Because of her strong stand and because of the strong support she received from many sections of the veteran community, the government backed down and did indeed make changes.

I have been prepared to confront successive ministers and the government on a number of these issues over the years. I have done so in the knowledge that I have had strong support from people like Blue Ryan, National President of the TPI Federation, a man who has done an immense amount of work for the veteran community. It is beaut to see Blue in the gallery of the chamber tonight. I have also had strong support from the Vietnam Veterans Federation, particularly from blokes like Tim McCombe and Graham Walker and it is beaut to see Graham here tonight as well. I have an immense admiration for Graham. I have appreciated all the support and I know that these ex-service organisations—these two in particular—believe that they exist to represent the needs of their members, they do so without fear or favour and they do so regardless of the politics of the government of the day.

I have been a member of the RSL since I joined the Scarborough branch in Western Australia in 1971, the branch that my father was a member of. I am currently a member of North Beach branch. I have great respect for much of the work done by veterans on behalf of veterans in the branches of the RSL. What has disappointed me over the years, however, has been the deafening silence of the RSL at the state and national levels over some of the issues which go to the heart of the wellbeing of the veteran community. Perhaps the time is coming when the RSL needs to elect its national president from the rank and file of its membership.

I also believe it is imperative to re-establish the national veterans advisory council to ensure that the veteran community does have direct and clear lines of communication with the minister of the day. It is also important that the minister has the capacity to consult with the veteran community in a transparent and accountable way. I hear the minister of today saying, ‘I have consulted with the veteran community over a whole range of issues.’ But I know many veterans heavily involved in the veteran community who have never been consulted. Indeed, most of them wonder whom it is that the minister has consulted. We need to make the actions of the minister accountable and transparent.

Last Friday Alan Griffin and I visited the Pe-ac-ed With Love quilting exhibition here in Canberra. This is an exhibition put together by widows, partners and families of Australian war veterans. What a moving exhibition PVA have put on, with the partners’ theme being unity, love, peace. It was a wonderful exhibition, I congratulate PVA for the tremendous work that they are doing, and I wish them well for the future. Indeed, under a Rudd Labor government I hope that they will be given a voice in national veterans issues and it is a delight to see some of the members of the PVA here tonight. I hope, at some stage in the future, that the wonderful exhibition they put on might be displayed at the War Memorial. I think it is one of the best exhibitions of veterans paraphernalia that I have ever seen.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognise the great work done on behalf of veterans by my mate Ric Giblett. Ric and I joined up together and he has worked with me for one day a week on veterans advocacy. I want to say thanks, mate, and well done, cobber. The first bill I spoke on in this House was the bill introduced by the government to ratify the Ottawa Convention. For me this was the continuance of a journey started as a member of the Pioneer Platoon in the 7th Battalion, RAR where we were taught to lay mines. Having stood on one in Vietnam and been lucky enough to survive and then to have joined the movement to campaign against them is a continuing part of that journey. I am currently patron of the Australian Network to Ban Landmines and I want to recognise their wonderful work and pay tribute to their commitment. I know that their priority now is to extend the ban to cover antivehicle mines. I wish them well in their work and I assure them of my continuing support in the future.

Today I want to direct some comments to the people of Cowan. I simply want to say thanks. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to them for the privilege, courtesy and opportunities afforded me over the past nine years as their federal representative. I hope I have returned the trust placed in me. Australia faces many challenges into the future beyond the current mining boom. It is recognised that the Prime Minister, John Howard, is a clever politician. However, like many Australians, I am not convinced that he has a vision for the future of this nation beyond the next election. As a proud Australian, a father and a grandfather, I have a number of concerns for the future. These include mortgage stress brought about by high interest rates, despite John Howard’s pre-election promise to keep interest rates at record lows. They also include the high cost of living, lack of provision of health services, declining aged care, lack of job security, high home rentals and the declining opportunity for young Australians to achieve the dream that my generation grew up with—that is, the dream of homeownership.

As the only veteran in the Australian parliament, I also have taken a strong interest in defence and security matters, including the wellbeing of Australia’s veterans past and present. Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war has been shrouded in lies and deceit. I fail to see how sending young Australians overseas to fight in that war has in any way enhanced the world’s or Australia’s security—indeed, I fear the reverse. I look forward to the time when our political leaders no longer require young Australian men and women to be sent overseas to fight in unnecessary wars that do nothing to improve security in our own country or our own region.

I believe Kevin Rudd does have a vision for the future of this nation, a vision which includes a fair go for all Australians, and I will be strongly supporting his bid to lead Australia into the future. This is a view shared by Liz Prime. Liz has been selected by Australian Labor to replace me as the ALP candidate for Cowan. Liz is currently director of nursing at Joondalup hospital. Liz has a proud record of involvement in community organisations in our northern suburbs. As a mother she knows the challenges facing families as they struggle to balance family commitments, work responsibilities and making the family budget stretch from one payday to the next. Liz is a fine person with a commitment to the future of this nation, and I will be working hard to see her elected.

I have spent most of my life living and working in Perth’s northern suburbs. In retirement I intend to continue to work with and support a number of voluntary organisations that are doing great work in our community. To all of the people in Cowan: I wish you and your family peace, security and a fair go into the future.

In Cowan we have a number of wonderful organisations. One of them is Wheelchairs for Kids. This organisation constructs wheelchairs for kids and sends them to many overseas countries including East Timor, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Bosnia, Vietnam and Iraq. I recently attended a ceremony to mark its 10,000th wheelchair. It has now sent 11,402 wheelchairs overseas to 57 different countries. Wheelchairs for Kids is run by a group of former Christian Brothers with the support of Scarborough Rotary and other volunteers, including a group of Vietnam veterans. Wheelchairs for Kids have 150 wheelchairs ready to go to Iraq. The wheelchairs are demountable and take up little room. Wheelchairs for Kids have approached Senator Ellison’s office in Perth to get government support to send these wheelchairs to Iraq to the 150 kids who have already been identified. The government has told Wheelchairs for Kids that it is unable to assist. I find this incredible, and I call on the Minister for Defence, Minister Nelson, to review this decision. I want to congratulate Brother Ollie Picket, Bob Sheridan, Gordon Hudson and all of the volunteers at Wheelchairs for Kids, who do a tremendous job. I say to them: you really do epitomise the spirit of volunteers, and I salute you.

One of the important issues facing Australia is the need to foster and increase the spirit of volunteerism. Many adults, facing increasing uncertainty in the workplace and a lack of job security, coupled with longer working hours and rising costs, are turning away from community involvement. P&Cs, sporting groups, service clubs and a host of other community organisations are feeling the pinch, with a lack of volunteers making their time available. Often the same family groups are involved in more than one community group, which means that they face burnout. I want to encourage the Labor Party to look at incentives to keep families involved in community groups.

I often say that the three most important principles of sport and recreation are participation, participation and participation. As young people seem more vulnerable to obesity or spending more time in front of personal computers and less time exercising, and as parents work longer hours, it seems to me that participation in healthy sport or recreational pursuits is declining or at least becoming more expensive for families to maintain—indeed, prohibitive for many. Being involved with your children in the community is crucial. I urge Labor to look at incentives to help keep families involved in community sporting and recreational clubs. The future health and wellbeing of young Australians depends on this participation in healthy lifestyles, and that practice needs to start from a young age. I say to parents that the time spent with your children in community groups is important for them and you. I also believe that young children like to see their parents involved and helping out in a volunteer way with the club or group they are involved with. I believe that we must look at tax incentives to help break down the cost of family involvement in junior sport. We must also take steps to rekindle the wonderful spirit of volunteerism which is the backbone of all community groups in this nation.

In conclusion, I want to thank the staff of Parliament House for the tremendous support afforded me since my election. Indeed, the friendliness of all staff here, including the security people, guides and Comcar drivers, has gone a long way to making my job here so much more enjoyable.

I am not the sort of bloke who makes friends easily, but I have appreciated some great friendships in Canberra. I particularly want to say thanks to Gibbo for his mateship. Steve is a committed member for Bendigo, and I doubt that there is a more dedicated local representative in this place. To Annette Ellis, who is indeed a fine and delightful lady, I also say thanks for your friendship and advice from time to time. To Kevin Rudd: well, all I can say, mate, is that it is all in front of you and the party, and I wish you well. I listened to your speech to the Christian group, replayed last night on the ABC. Kevin, you certainly represent the values of the ALP and our hope for the future of this nation. To Jenny Macklin I also say: many thanks for the advice, for the many times you have been to Perth and for the friendships you have extended to me and my family over the years. To Kim Beazley, a great man and a great Australian: it is my privilege to have served with you, Kim, and I wish you all the very best for the future. I know that you will continue to make a great contribution to this nation. To Ruth Webber: thanks very much for doing me the honour of coming here tonight. I also want to thank Roger Price and his staff for their consideration and support since he has been in that position. To all of my colleagues I say: thanks for your support, and I wish you well for the future.

We all know that our reputations and electorate offices depend on the calibre of the people involved. My electorate office does have a good reputation. This is a reflection of my staff, and I want to thank them. I thank Maurene, who has been with me for over 20 years and has carried the brunt of many issues and many difficult constituent problems. That she has lasted so long is testimony to her professionalism, dedication to the job and enduring capacity to put up with a grumpy boss. My thanks to Lisa, who is as quiet as a church mouse in the electorate office but who has a tremendous passion for righting the wrongs of the world and pursuing a fair go for people, particularly in areas of migration. To both Tony, the Dockers supporter who has stuck his head into the lions den, and to Simon, who came, left and returned, I also say thanks for your professional approach and your conscientious care of constituents. You have both been great assets to this office. I know that this has been a challenging time for my staff, with some uncertainties in the future, but you all have well-deserved high reputations, and I know that your futures will be secured.

Lastly, to my family: you simply cannot do this job without the love, support and encouragement of your family. To Noelene, who has been with me every inch of the journey, I say thanks. Our marriage has survived Vietnam, politics and her support for Collingwood Football Club. Hopefully we can look to the future, enjoying our family and our retirement for many years to come. To Kerryn, our eldest daughter, her partner, Paul, and our delightful little grandson, Jake, I say g’day. I know that they would like to have been here tonight, but that was simply not possible. Likewise to Jaynie—who would also like to have been here, but who has just started her prac as a teacher and is unable to be here—I send all my love. To Rosemary and Billie, my sister and her partner—my brother-in-law, a Kiwi—who are here, I also send my thanks.

The most important structure in our society today is the family. I know that the ALP goes into the next election with a leader with policies that recognise this. For the future of my children and their children, and thousands of other Australian families, I know that a Rudd Labor victory at the next election is imperative. Just as I have lived my political life loyal to the principles of the ALP and loyal to the catchcry that I grew up with—’A fair go for all’—so will I end my political career with my strong commitment to see a Rudd Labor government elected.

I thank the ALP for the opportunities they have given me. I thank my colleagues who are here tonight for their support. I look forward to the future. I look forward to future challenges. I look forward to a world which will be better for my grandchild and all the grandchildren in the world. If I could leave with one thing in this House, it would be that which the Partners of Veterans Association captured in their quilt show. It is simply this, for all the kids in the world: unity, love, peace.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Cowan. As with the first speech, given that this is the last speech, the relevance, of course, is that the member for Cowan is facing his own public holiday. In summing up the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007, the question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I wish to thank the House for its elasticity and indulgence, and the member for Deakin for his consideration.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are very elastic, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton. To briefly recap, to facilitate the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings being hosted in Sydney over the week of 2-9 September 2007, the New South Wales government has declared a one-off APEC holiday for the Sydney metropolitan area on 7 September. The APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 ensures the employees in the federal workplace system to whom the APEC public holiday applies will receive on that day the public holiday entitlements provided under their industrial instrument. This means that federal system employees who are affected by the APEC public holiday will receive the same public holiday entitlements for this holiday as they would receive for other public holidays under their instrument. I commend the bill to the House.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Lalor has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.