Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

To briefly recap: to facilitate the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings being hosted in Sydney over the week of 2 to 9 September 2007, the New South Wales government has declared—and I stress: the New South Wales government has declared—a one-off APEC public holiday for the Sydney metropolitan area on Friday, 7 September. This bill ensures that all employees in the federal workplace relations system to whom the APEC public holiday applies receive on that day the public holiday entitlements provided under their industrial instrument.

The bill provides that any reference in federal industrial instruments to a public holiday is taken to include the APEC holiday. That is, it deems 7 September this year as a public holiday for these instruments. This means that all federal system employees who are affected by the APEC holiday will receive the same public holiday entitlements for this day as they would receive for other public holidays under their instrument.

Can I refer to the contributions that have been made in the form of the amendments. First of all, the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate referred to industrial law changes. Part of that referred to the failure to recognise the adverse impacts that these laws have had on working Australians. I suppose such impacts include the creation of 380,000 new jobs in this country, the lowest rate of industrial disputation since records were taken and a 20.8 per cent increase in real wages under this government. If they are failures, we are glad to own them.

In relation to the foreshadowed amendment by the Greens, can I say that, as I understand it, the Mayor of Sydney is supportive of APEC and the New South Wales Premier is supportive of APEC. You have the three levels of government—local, state and federal—supporting it being held in Sydney. In those circumstances clearly it does have the support of the people, albeit that there will be some inconvenience associated with it.

The Greens are suggesting that businesses should be compensated for the economic loss caused by holding APEC. It will be interesting to see whether they are also supportive of businesses that make substantial economic gains as a result of the bonanza they will be reaping from APEC—such as the transport sector, restaurant sector, hospitality sector, hotel sector—somehow having to make an extra contribution to the Australian government. I think not.

In relation to the question of user pays with these conferences, basically it is user pays, because you do not have APEC in Sydney each and every time; it goes around all the various countries, so at the end of the cycle each country has borne, if you like, the financial burden—if there is such a burden. I think there are many positive economic spin-offs. If I can use this term, the love is shared around all the various APEC member countries. As a result I do not think that is a valid argument, with respect.

I indicate that the government commends the bill to the Senate and opposes the second reading amendment and the foreshadowed amendment.