Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007. I indicate that Labor will be supporting the bill because it relates to the security arrangements surrounding APEC. Australia was a foundation member of APEC and Labor were a driving force behind its establishment, so we are strong supporters of APEC and we welcome its return to Australia. But we acknowledge that there are serious security implications with holding it in Australia. This bill provides for a public holiday on 7 September 2007 to allow for the smoother and safer running of the event in Sydney. We will be supporting the bill so these arrangements can be put in place, which include the public holiday in the relevant local government areas. This bill seeks to recognise the public holiday for people under federal industrial instruments, to ensure that they are entitled to the public holiday. I understand that the state parliament will be doing a similar thing for those who are under state industrial arrangements.

Of course, the complexity of this is multiplied by the Work Choices legislation and the concerns about those whose entitlement to public holidays has been affected. We are moving a second reading amendment which seeks to highlight the concerns about Work Choices and, more importantly, about protection of public holidays and penalty rates for working on public holidays. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

                 “but the Senate condemns the Government’s failure to:

             (a)    ensure fairness at work and fairness beyond work through its inherently unfair Work Choices laws;

             (b)    provide proper protections from important Australian national public holidays, such as Anzac Day; and

             (c)    recognise the adverse impacts these unfair laws have had on working Australians, their families and the wider Australian community”.

Given the time, I will not delay the Senate by speaking to that at any length. I note, however, that the government have a range of amendments, which seems to indicate that there are still some concerns about this legislation and whether they have got it right. I will reserve my remarks on that until I hear what the minister has to say about that. Perhaps those amendments have already been incorporated—I am not sure. Anyway, Labor will be supporting the bill, and I have moved the second reading amendment.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens also support the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007, which is to ensure that public servants who are in the area affected by APEC on 7 September when it is officially declared a holiday get their due entitlements.

However, it is a proper time to assess whether or not this enormous disruption to the city of Sydney is warranted when there were such good alternatives available. Australia is much bigger than downtown Sydney, but to close down downtown Sydney—and there will be added disruption now because President Bush is coming two days early: it turns off your mobile phones automatically in some places as he sweeps by—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank goodness.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Thank goodness,’ says Senator Evans, but I suspect he will not be in Sydney. The cost of closing a city of the size and importance of Sydney, including its financial district, is extraordinary. It will run into hundreds of millions of dollars. It ought to be accounted for. APEC is a conference which could be described as, amongst other things, having a commitment to globalisation and market forces—that is, user pays—but there is no user pays involved in this at all. There is going to be an enormous cost on the community but no recompense for that. Part of the cost is involved in this legislation before us today. As an amendment to the opposition’s second reading amendment, I move:

At the end of the amendment, add:

“and considers that businesses should be compensated by the Federal Government for the economic loss caused by holding APEC in Sydney”.

On behalf of Senator Nettle I foreshadow a further second reading amendment, which is:

At the end of the motion, add:

“but given the enormous disruption and cost, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference should not have been held in the central business district of Sydney”.

This is common sense. There has to be some common sense brought into play, particularly in an age when such enormous security measures are taken. We have a fence being built in Sydney now. In the olden days they had the Great Wall of China. Then somebody came up with the Berlin Wall. Now Israel is partitioning Palestine. So Sydney suddenly gets a wall because President Bush is coming. Really? It is all so avoidable. Australia has such splendid places for conferences like this to be held without shutting down the business district of its major business city—excuse me, Melbourne. Maybe the supply of four-star hotels would do, if there were not enough five-star hotels. I understand that is one of the problems—really.

When the public domain, and the private domain on this occasion, is taken over in this way, there has to be some consideration taken. The Prime Minister is good on plebiscites. I wonder whether he considered a plebiscite with the denizens of central Sydney over this particular proposal. No, he did not—no consultation was taken here at all. I think we could have got a much better outcome, and a much more comfortable time here for the leaders from overseas, at other venues in this wonderful, great country of ours.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to 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.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Bob Brown’s amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Acting Deputy President:

The question now is that Senator Evans’s amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

“but given the enormous disruption and cost, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference should not have been held in the central business district of Sydney”.

In moving this amendment I point out, for Senator Abetz’s assistance, that the estimation of the cost of the APEC conference to Australia by the New South Wales Business Chamber has been put at over $1 billion and the negative impact on business has been estimated to be as much as $327 million.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.