Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I began my remarks by pointing out that the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 forms the centrepiece to the Abbott government's response to climate change. It is clear that, if this is the centrepiece to the Abbott government's response to climate change, the Abbott government does not take climate change seriously. What is even more concerning is that the climate change sceptics in the coalition party room are now in control, so much so that when you look at important documents like A Plan for a Cleaner Environment produced by the Abbott government, you will struggle to find the words 'climate change' in it. In fact, I could not. Perhaps I missed it, but I could not find the words 'climate change' in what is a critical document dealing with the environment.

Secondly, when you look at the white paper on agriculture and go to the terms of reference, again you cannot find the term 'climate change'. Most scientists would say to the government and the people of Australia that climate change is going to be one of the greatest challenges for the agriculture sector in years to come. You can argue about what is causing it, but you cannot deny that our climate is changing. In fact, the evidence is mounting every day. What is even more concerning is that the evidence is confirming what the scientific community have been saying for years—that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to these changes and each year that we do nothing makes it more difficult for future generations to manage the problem.

I pointed out the following statistics in a speech I made to this parliament only last week. Temperatures across this country have increased by about one degree over the last 100 years. There have been massive ice melts in Antarctic and Greenland icesheets. Sea levels have increased by 225 millimetres since 1880 and extreme weather events and changes in seasonal trends are now becoming a part of everyday life. Those extreme weather changes are having a direct impact on the social costs, the environmental costs and the economic costs of this country. Those costs will escalate as CO2 levels and greenhouse gas emission levels rise even further if we do nothing about it.

The government's response to all of those concerns—concerns which are taken seriously by most other governments of the world—is to support a policy that is estimated to increase greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent by the year 2050, at the same time subsidising the big corporate polluters to the tune of $50 billion by 2020. I understand that the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, the OECD, the Climate Change Authority and 33 out of 35 of Australia's leading economists have all urged the Prime Minister not to abandon a price on carbon. So why does the Abbott government persist with this flawed policy? It is a policy that, as I pointed out earlier today, is criticised by one of their own members, the member for Wentworth. It is a policy that we know will cost householders in the order of $1,200 to $1,300 each year, more than twice what they claimed that the Labor government's price on carbon imposes on householders. It is a policy that does not achieve the desired or required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is, in fact, a policy that is at odds with what every other responsible government around the world is doing.

What is even more concerning is that it is a policy that is at serious risk of failing because of the very climate effects that we seek to mitigate. By that I mean that you plant trees right around the country but in future years we are likely to face severe fires or severe droughts. What are the first things to be affected when you have a severe drought or a severe fire? Probably the very trees that you have planted. We have evidence of that over the last few years. I can point to areas where the large tree plantings done by state governments, local councils and community groups all died as a result of the long drought. I have no doubt that there were trees destroyed as a result of the bushfires that we have seen on a regular basis. So there is no guarantee that we will ever even get the benefits of this flawed policy.

The Abbott government knows that their policy will not work. The reason they know it is because they have turned their backs on our commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to reducing the renewable energy targets and so on. Their philosophy is quite simple: 'We are not going to achieve the targets that we are expected to; we know we won't, so we'll just change the targets. That way, if we change the targets, then we will achieve them.'

This is a policy that, when all is said and done, can never, ever be evaluated until long after this government is gone. In turn, they will never, ever be held to account. There is no way that, even if you roll out the policy over the years ahead, any government will be in a position to measure or quantify the effect that it has had on reducing greenhouse gas emissions until many years have passed. And so, it is a convenient way for this government to just pretend to do something but never to be held to account with respect to it.

The other problem with this policy is, as I said earlier, that it actually gives money to the big polluters throughout this country who, in turn, obviously will have no incentive to do anything other than what they would have otherwise done.

I can understand why the government wants to bring this policy in. Part of the reason is that apart from creating an appearance that it is doing something with respect to climate change mitigation, it is also a convenient way of getting people off the unemployment queues and, in turn, reducing the unemployment numbers. Not in a real sense, but in a pretentious sense. You can take them off unemployment and then give them some kind of subsidy to go and do this, and that way it makes your unemployment figures look as if they have actually dropped when the reality is that very little has changed.

Talking about employment, this policy fails not only as an environmental policy but also fails if you are going to treat it as an employment policy. As an employment policy there is no provision within it for minimum remuneration rates, there is no provision within it for workers' compensation if someone happens to get hurt, there is no provision within it for leave entitlements, there is no provision within it for public liability and there is no provision within it for any training that might be needed. I do not have a criticism of training on the job and on the spot that; if that is going to help someone, by all means it is good thing. But where are all these people going to go once they have done all of this in terms of having a real job? I suspect that they will go back onto the unemployment queues from which they originally came.

If the government really wants to plant trees, it simply needs to proceed with the policies that are already in place and being carried out by community groups around the country. I can talk about community groups in my own electorate, like Friends of Cobbler Creek, Friends of Dry Creek and Friends of Anstey Hill, who continuously plant trees. Support those organisations because not only will they plant the trees but they will maintain and care for them long after they have planted them and ensure that they continue to do the job that they do. This is a policy that is nothing more than a cop-out by a government that wants to pretend that it cares about the environment and cares about climate change when, in fact, it wants to do nothing.

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am extremely pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. This bill will have a direct action affect on our environment and in delivering the coalition's election commitment in the deployment of a standing Green Army, 15,000 strong.

With the introduction of this amendment, the Abbott government is delivering a real, tangible solution to the maintenance, restoration and beautification of our collective natural assets. In providing such a remarkable benefit to all Australians, the Green Army will serve to provide our youth with a gateway to employment through training and skills development, an acute appreciation of our natural Australian environment and its conservation and preservation for future generations. As such, I am extremely proud to stand in support of this bill.

I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Environment and the honourable member for Flinders for his unrelenting energy, his passion, his support and his belief in this legislation. Minister Hunt has been an amazing advocate for the Cumberland Plain Woodlands lending his voice to the conservation issues and preservation of this critically endangered habitat. He has visited the electorate of Lindsay many times, meeting with local conservationists, environmental groups and local schools to ensure the Lindsay component of the Green Army has real traction and applicability on the ground. I commend him for his commitment, for his work and for his unrelenting understanding of how important the Cumberland Plain Woodland are to the people of Western Sydney.

In my opinion, the success of the Green Army will be singularly realised by the work that the minister has personally committed to, and is engaging in still, with so many local communities like mine. By creating a standing army, we will be committed to make a real contribution to the preservation and conservation of our natural assets. The minister's passion and enthusiasm in this initiative has created interest in other groups in my community, like Muru Mittigar, a local Indigenous community that also provides a commercial horticultural facility that is growing specific plants that are unique to the region. In doing so, it will be restoring our bushland to how it was originally made.

The coalition of Liberal and National parties stand proud of our strong record in delivering on-the-ground environmental projects and tackling environmental issues head-on. I, like the Prime Minister, have long been an ardent supporter of the Green Army, a signature policy of the coalition government that is designed to help the environment, to deliver on our reductions in emission targets and to provide workforce training. To this point the Prime Minister has been a passionate supporter, and has taken a lead role in the development of this legislation.

It is worth noting that the Green Army builds on the Howard government's successful Green Corps program. Like so many other successful programs, the Green Corps, too, saw the knife of the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Like its predecessor, the Green Army will provide our youth with improved career and employment options through facilitated accreditation programs in training whilst participating in our critical environmental and heritage projects.

The hallmark of these two programs resides—

Debate interrupted.