Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I get into the merits of the bill around the Green Army, I want to put on record how shocked I am to be standing here today hearing members of the government say the words 'key election commitment'. Of all the days to be talking about key election commitments and promises, when last night's budget broke so many key election commitments and promises—like no new taxes, no cuts to education and no cuts to health funding—they use that phrase today. To stand in here and say that they are proud to have kept this one key election commitment is something that those opposite should be quite ashamed of, not proud of.

This Green Army program is not the best program we could have in this space. There are a number of people in my local community who have provided me with feedback about their beliefs on the proposal before us. However, the fundamentals of this program build on a Labor legacy that the Keating government introduced in 1992. That program was called the Landcare and Environment Action Program and focused on work opportunities for young people, genuine work opportunities. I can remember, in high school, working with these people. I was a Landcare volunteer and worked side by side with people on this program. They were not only able to learn skills in this space but also able to teach and mentor volunteers like me in this space. That is a big difference between the legacy of this program and the program we are debating today. It is the skill that we will be introducing these young people to and the lack of training that will be in the Green Army program.

Labor has a proud record of standing up for the environment and supporting programs that will genuinely restore our country and tackle climate change. The bill before us, however, does very little to tackle the effects of climate change on our environment. This bill is an employment program, and not a very good employment program for our young people. But are we surprised that this government does not have a genuine employment program for our young people, given the budget it delivered last night? As other people from this side of the House have already said in this chamber, last night's budget is bad for all Australians but particularly bad for young Australians with its attacks on Newstart, its attacks on universities and its attacks on young people trying to get a genuine start.

We have moved an amendment on this side of the House to broaden the debate on this bill, being an employment program, to talk about how participants are protected if injured. We have also introduced in this amendment the kind of training—and have asked questions about the training—that should be provided and what support should be provided for people transitioning into work. There is genuine concern about this bill, which will replace and displace existing workers in this field. Basically, it is an employment program that could undercut the wages and conditions of people currently working in this field. That is something the people in my area, in my electorate, are genuinely concerned about. I agree we need to do everything we can to get young people into work, but programs like this undercut the workers we have. Programs like this do not ensure genuine training. Every individual who can work should be given the chance. But we know we need appropriate support and protection within any form of program to ensure that they do actually get a genuine opportunity. The Green Army bill fails to achieve this objective. There are serious questions being asked about the program and whether it will actually achieve any environmental outcomes.

As I mentioned earlier, I have asked the locals in my electorate involved in Landcare, Connecting Country and other environmental programs what they thought of the government's proposal in this area. Some of the comments that they gave me include: 'The Green Army is just another name for Green Corps but uses a military timbre, a trumpet, a twang to it.' Green Corps, a program under John Howard, ultimately failed for a whole host of reasons. There were some good outcomes which depended upon the expertise or support given by volunteers but not on the program itself. Green Corps, which of course is the equivalent of the Green Army from the Howard days, was basically a source of cheap labour, forcing young people who had little or no interest in the environment to do work the government forced them into. These are comments from people from the Bendigo electorate who were directly involved in the Green Corps program under the Howard government and who have the same concerns about the Green Army Program being rolled out in their community.

Other comments include: 'Locals involved in the environmental industry are very concerned about any programs such as the Green Army that could potentially take away jobs from those with experience, qualifications and insurance and already working in this field, especially concerning their seasonal and casual employment and issues they already face.' Another comment was: 'Under the Labor environmental programs, such as the biodiversity fund, organisations employed work crews that provided the necessary labour and expertise for landscape restoration. My concern is that the Green Army will not have these skills and therefore we will not get the landscape and country restoration we require.' These are the comments that are coming through from my community. They are concerned about the program that is before us. In other words, when Labor was in government we had a program that not only achieved good environmental restoration success but also skilled up the next people to work in the environmental industry. What we have on the other hand from the Liberal-National government, the Green Army Program, will actually achieve the opposite. I hold the same fears about this program as do those in my electorate.

This government simply has no credibility when it comes to the environment. Soon after taking office, the Abbott government began to rush through environmental approvals. One in my own part of the world, just north of my electorate, has a number of concerns. They allowed the reintroduction of cattle grazing on the high country. They argued that it was because they believed that cattle grazing reduced fire hazard. Really, seriously, it is just not true. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that reintroducing cattle grazing into the high country will actually reduce the risk of fire in the state of Victoria. It is just more nonsense from a government that is convinced by rhetoric and not actually wanting to achieve genuine environmental outcomes.

In its first few months, this government showed that the environment was now subordinate to commercial interests. We have seen that again and again every month, as more planning applications favour commercial interests over the environment. The government informed us the Climate Commission was no longer required. I am not surprised, given that the government does not want to actually achieve any genuine reform in this area. Why would it require independent, science based information and advice on climate change—particularly when some in the government are still climate change deniers. Funding for the Environmental Defenders Office, Caring for our Country and Low Carbon Communities have also been cut. Last night's budget had further cuts to this area.

It shows a very stark difference between those in government and those on this side. Funding cuts to organisations will hit my community very hard. A number of clean energy jobs will be lost in communities like Castlemaine, Bendigo and the Macedon Ranges. Despite being a regional electorate, we are an electorate that care very deeply for our country and care very deeply for our environment. This government's proposal and their plan for the environment is not one that we support. This shameful record by the government shows that we cannot trust them on a program like the Green Army Program. Whilst they stand here and say it will be a good outcome for the environment and it will be a good outcome for young people, you simply cannot trust them at their word. They are a government of broken promises. They are a government that will say whatever they can before the election and do what they like once they get here.

The program, as we have already heard, has a number of significant workplace occupational health and safety and employment issues. I share the concerns of my Labor colleagues that this bill does not adequately provide protections for the Green Army scheme, namely in the area of occupational health and safety. What happens if somebody is injured? What happens to their workers compensation? Will they actually receive the support that they need from this government if they actually have an injury whilst involved in this program? These are questions that have not yet been answered by this government, yet I am the last speaker on this bill. We will soon vote on this bill, and these questions have not been answered. Particularly when it comes to your rights in workplace safety, this government cannot be trusted.

We have seen other bills introduced in this House attacking safety at work. Whether it be on the roads or in the country, this government does not stand to ensure that people's rights at work are protected and that they have safe workplaces. We acknowledge that Green Army participants will be paid the equivalent of a training wage. These payments are similar to thousands of payments others receive in vocational training. Yet, unlike other participants like trainees or apprentices, the participants in the Green Army are under the supervision of the Commonwealth. Again, we see the trickiness of this program in avoiding responsibility. By denying them the status of Commonwealth employee this is a government keen to avoid responsibility. Commonwealth employees do actually have support if they are injured and their rights at work are protected.

The question that also has to be asked is: after creating the Green Army, which undercuts a number of jobs already existing in the environment sector, what will the government next create? Will they create a 'white-collar army' which will be responsible for perhaps filling the gap left by the 16,000 public servants that the government sacked last night, including 60 in my electorate when the government last night abolished the Australian Emergency Management Institute? That is an organisation that is responsible for ensuring that all of our emergency services are working together in emergency management. Last night the government tried to sneak that one past us and abolished this institution. We will no longer have a centre of excellence where our people can go to receive the training and the support that they need to be there for our communities in times of crisis and disaster. What will replace it? Will it be replaced at all? Perhaps they will try and create a white-collar army, pay them a training wage and say, 'You can do these jobs instead.'

Displacement and reduction in employment opportunities exist for workers and I am concerned that this government lacks the capability to come up with decent programs—programs that will actually ensure that workers get good jobs at the end of them. The Green Army program, as I have mentioned, will seek to undercut the good work that is already going on, particularly in my electorate. Connecting Country are a community based organisation who currently receive federal, state and local government funding. They are concerned that the Green Army program will see their full-time jobs be replaced with these low-paid, low-skilled trainee jobs. It means that once again the people in my community currently working in this field will find their jobs at risk. It shows that this government lacks the vision or the understanding that is needed in my electorate to tackle climate change and develop environmental programs that will see a real outcome. We have no shortage of volunteers in the Bendigo electorate ready to help out and make sure that we have a strong, healthy environment. But to lead those volunteers we need a strong and skilled workforce. Our fear is that this program, the Green Army program, will undercut the skills and qualifications that we already have in our community.

See this speech in context