Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. Labor supports training that helps people gain work experience and increase their opportunities to get a job. We agree that there is value in engaging unemployed people and empowering them with skills that they need to get a foot in the door with an employer. We also see merit in targeting environmental, conservation and heritage projects to deliver these practical work experience programs and teach people new skills. That is why Labor has a record of support for programs that share the core aims of the Green Army Program. Indeed, it was the Keating government that established the Landcare and Environment Action Program in 1992, which saw young people between the ages of 15 and 20 years broaden their practical know-how and which equipped them with new skills through various landcare activities.

However, this current incarnation, the Green Army program, contains a number of concerning aspects which deserve proper scrutiny. While this bill goes only to the social security elements of the Green Army, there are much broader issues to be debated, some of which have been the subject of an inquiry in the other place. More predictably, this bill serves to continue the tradition of this Liberal government of engaging in acts of empty symbolism. The government say they want to build a green workforce, but participants are not guaranteed they will be better off than if they were receiving income support payments. They say that this program is about skills and training, but, beyond basic workplace induction, there is no guarantee of further qualifications. They say they want to tackle climate change, but they have shown they are determined to take this country backward in its approach to protecting the environment and reducing dangerous carbon emissions.

In the electorate I represent, there are around 4,000 people receiving income support payments to look for work. In the Hunter region more broadly there are over 25,000 people receiving these payments. Of these, it is young people between the ages of 17 and 24 who will potentially be affected by this legislation. Some of these people may have only just left school, and almost certainly there will be a significant number who have little or no experience in a formal workplace. It is imperative, therefore, that the safety of these young people is guaranteed. Indeed, given that the program will engage volunteers in physical, outdoor tasks—such as landscaping, construction of boardwalks and walking tracks, and the cleaning of waterways and creek banks—ensuring the safety of participants is arguably the most important part of this policy.

The government has said that participants will be covered by relevant state legislation and insurance held by service providers and the Commonwealth. Work safety will also be subject to auditing by the department. Despite this, Labor remains concerned that this bill does not provide adequate protections for participants in the scheme. This is especially concerning for people in New South Wales, where the workers compensation and rehabilitation system has been severely eroded under the state coalition government.

The government predicts that the program will expand rapidly, up from 250 projects and 2,500 participants in the first year to 1,500 projects and 15,000 participants by 2018-19. This paints a scenario where a large number of people are moved out of the social security sector and into the skills and training sector. The change, as reflected in this bill, sees a participant shift from income support payments to a training allowance and provides an exemption from job search requirements throughout the course of the program.

We know that participants will receive first aid and work safety training. Where appropriate, cultural awareness training will also be provided. Beyond this, however, there is no explicit obligation on service providers to provide training. This represents a significant flaw in the program. For starters, we know that some participants may require work-readiness training, including literacy and numeracy if appropriate. Will they receive this training? Furthermore, it is important that young people in the Green Army are rewarded for their time and effort. The program must provide those who go through its ranks with relevant training that is formally recognised, and participants should rightly expect to come out of the program with marketable skills that are in demand by employers.

The equivalent program in the last Labor government, the National Green Jobs Corps, required organisations to provide participants with at least 130 hours of accredited training. That is around five hours per week of accredited training for participants over the six months. We strongly believe that accredited training should be a core element of this program—and it must be accredited training, not some sort of voluntary sham.

While they are a part of the Green Army, participants receive more pay than they would receive on the ordinary income support payment, albeit less than the minimum wage. Nonetheless, the government must guarantee that all participants on income support payments will be better off, regardless of their life situation. Income tax increases, reduction in childcare payments and the potential loss of low-income healthcare cards are important for families trying to make ends meet. We must ensure that this program does not have a negative impact on these concessions and that it will not mean these participants are worse off.

In predicting such a high participation rate, the government must also ensure that the Green Army does not come at the expense of other workers—for example, those in the local government sector. This program is supposed to be about empowering job seekers. It is not, should not and cannot be a vehicle to replace jobs that are already being done for a decent wage and with reasonable conditions, and substitute them with a literal army of low-paid workers. Given the agenda of this government, we are right to be sceptical of its motives. This is a government that does nothing when it comes to people losing their jobs or having their pay cut. Let us not forget that under this government more than 60,000 Australians have lost their job. Under this government the foundations have been laid for a full-blown attack on the penalty rates of the hundreds of thousands of casual, part-time shift workers. This is not a government that cares about jobs or about workers.

In contrast, the Labor Party will always be the party that fights for the rights and conditions of workers. The Labor movement has always fought for decent workplace standards, and safety at work is a fundamental part of this. We on this side ask Mr Abbott: how will you guarantee the safety of young people working for the Green Army? So far, the answer is that it is not their problem; it is not their concern. These young people must look to the state and territory governments for reassurance that they will be taken care of if they are injured at work. In my electorate this will sound a dark and ominous warning, because the workers of New South Wales, particularly those in my electorate, are currently suffering under a state coalition government that has completely dismantled the workers compensation system. Thanks to the New South Wales Liberals, a worker who is injured on the way to work now has no claim to compensation. Injured workers who already receive payments have had their access to the scheme drastically reduced, even if their injury is for life. We have even had suggestions that if you lose a limb—if you have an amputation as a result of a workplace injury—it is not an injury serious enough to demand compensation. All of this has been done with the support of the Prime Minister and the coalition here in Canberra, who at the same time have launched their own brutal attack on the livelihoods of working people.

Close to my home in Newcastle, the Liberals have abandoned funding for the community based Hunterlink Recovery Services, a venture that sees unions and employers working together to support young men and women in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas who are experiencing addiction and mental health issues. As we know, these issues often manifest themselves as problems at work. Labor supported this program; the coalition does not. This is just one example of the coalition's approach to workers' health and safety.

We are also right to expose the empty environmental symbolism contained in this program. Those opposite say that this is all about improving the environment, but this government has no credibility when it comes to supporting Australia's environment. This government's failure on the environment has already attracted international notoriety for some of the most draconian attacks we have seen. Some of these attacks include undoing the management plans for the world's largest marine reserve system; turning back decades of bipartisan support for the Commonwealth's role in protecting matters of national environmental significance; and attempting to delist world heritage areas, making us one of only three nations attempting to delist a World Heritage area, in which we share the esteemed company of Oman and Tanzania. They have also destroyed the Tasmanian forestry agreement which has been worked on for so long by environmental groups, the forestry industry and workers.

However, the two most glaring attacks on the environment, committed by this government, have been its constant undermining of the renewable energy target and their attempts to stop Australia combating climate change. On the RET, they have commissioned a review conducted by climate change sceptics, particularly Dick Warburton. We have seen incredibly stupid remarks by the Treasurer about how he finds offensive the wind turbines he sees when he drives down to Canberra. We have seen them talk about undermining the RET, reducing it and possibly even abolishing it. Certainly, we have seen some very worrying remarks. If they do this we will see $18 billion of current investment in the renewable energy sector stranded. We will also see the jeopardising of another $18 billion in clean energy investment if the MRET policy is lost. This would directly affect the employment of 24,000 people who are employed in the renewable energy industry and would represent a breach by those opposite of a pre-election promise to maintain the renewable energy target. We saw very strong direct commitments by the Minister for the Environment when he was the opposition spokesperson. Any attempt to water down the renewable energy target would be another broken promise by a government that is specialising in broken promises.

On climate change, those on the opposite side are a fraud. They are made up of two different groups: a group that does not accept climate change and a group that, for pure political pragmatism, refuses to take action. We even heard the previous speaker suggest that taking action to combat climate change causes cancer. These people will grasp at any straw to oppose action on climate change. This is despite the fact that the science is well and truly in. Over 97 per cent of published scientific reports by climate change experts conclude that climate change is happening and manmade climate action is the direct driver. Scientists now say that climate change is occurring with a certainty of 95 per cent. To put that in context, that is the same certainty with which they say tobacco causes cancer. Those on the other side reject it, and when they pay lip service to combatting climate change, they have their ridiculous joke of a policy, Direct Action. It is a policy of centralised government control, a policy so woefully inefficient that the Grattan Institute has concluded it will cost over $100 billion to get to the Commonwealth's minimum target of a five per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions, even though a larger target is quite possible. So we see them paying lip service with a program that will cost over $100 billion and that will cost Australian households $1,300 per year. At the same time we see attempts to scrap the rational, efficient way of combating climate change, which the last government put in place: the 20 per cent renewable energy target, which I have already spoken about; the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which is filling a vital gap in the finance of new large power stations; and, if the reports are to be believed, the abolition of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, a vital agency supporting R&D innovation in renewable energy—another broken promise and another breach of their trust with the electorate. Ultimately, there is the abolition of the fixed price emissions trading scheme that we have now, the carbon price, and the refusal to engage in shifting it to flexible price emissions trading scheme.

We heard the last speaker say that the carbon price is not working. The facts are in; it is working. Since the carbon price began we have seen a 7.6 per cent fall in emissions from the electricity sector alone. That represents a 15-million-tonne reduction in carbon pollution emissions. That is equivalent to taking almost four million cars off the road. Emissions are relatively flat for the broader economy, but the growth in emissions has been in sectors not covered by the carbon price. The carbon price is working. It will be more efficient and effective when we shift to a flexible price emissions trading scheme linked to the rest of the world. But anyone who says it is not working and not reducing emissions is either trying to fool people or is lying.

We have to combat climate change. We have to take care of our environment. We heard a lot today in question time about intergenerational equity. One of the most important obligations of this generation of the decision makers in this House is to leave the environment, the planet and Australia in a better position for our children and our grandchildren. I have an 11-month-old daughter and I want her coming of age in an environment that is better than now, where I can look her in the eye and say, 'This parliament, this government, this country took action on climate change as part of an international effort to reduce dangerous carbon emissions.'

To get back to this legislation, the Green Army Program is something the opposition will not oppose. We have serious questions marks about its implementation. I know our spokesperson is in meetings with the minister about it, and hopefully we can resolve the issues. Supporting on-the-ground conservation is important, but it cannot be done by sacrificing the safety of the workers involved, by putting out of work people who are already undertaking this work, or by paying them less than income support payments. We support this program, with appropriate safeguards. It builds on long-term programs run by the Keating, Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments. I think we just need to improve the implementation of it and we need to look at moving environmental action beyond empty symbolism to combatting climate change to ensure that our environment is in good hands.

See this speech in context