Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before question time, I was extolling the virtues of the Green Army program and speaking about what I believe are the benefits for people in my electorate. The target participants are younger people who are predominantly unemployed. I am already working on projects in my electorate. Participants in the Boggabilla-Toomelah project, in conjunction with the Moree Plains Shire Council, will undertake training as well as mentoring in the work situation. I have also spoken to some employers in that area so that, at the end of the Green Army project, we may be able to offer some part-time employment in the last couple of weeks and convert this into longer-term employment.

There are jobs in my part of the world. At the moment, many of them are being undertaken by short-term backpacker visitors. Much of this work could be undertaken by local people, but we have to break their cycle of poverty and disconnection. I believe the Green Army program is a way of doing that. There are possibilities in other parts of my electorate. I have heard some of the comments from members of the opposition about environmental programs and the like. The environment is not just iconic sites. It is not just the Snowy Mountains, the Great Barrier Reef or the forests of Tasmania. The natural environment is in need of some attention.

There has been some talk that the Green Army program may not have environmental outcomes. I have been in discussions with local land services and councils about the eradication of noxious weeds. One which is certainly in need of drastic attention is Hudson pear. For those of you who do not know about it, Hudson pear is a very nasty little cactus bush. The spikes are so sharp that, when it goes through the lips of animals or onto their legs as they walk through it, more often than not animals end up with an infection which is very detrimental to their wellbeing. Indeed, Hudson pear can lead to the death of kangaroos and domestic livestock like sheep and cattle because of the cruel way in which it attaches itself to them. Not only would a Green Army project give practical environmental outcomes but also it would provide opportunities for many people who now are disconnected from the workforce.

The idea that people can just step up into a job when they come from a household where people do not have a job is incorrect. The Green Army projects in my electorate will come with suitable training and mentoring to help young people come to terms with the concept of turning up to a job every day and the commitment that entails, and also the rewards which genuine, worthwhile work can give to people. Hopefully it will lead to permanent employment.

Another project I have been working on in conjunction with RiverSmart Australia is remedial work in the public areas of the Macquarie Valley. There is an area of about 150 kilometres along the Macquarie River from Wellington down through to Warren and the Macquarie Marshes where a Green Army team could do worthwhile weed control, riverbank stabilisation and build boardwalks to make public areas along the iconic Macquarie River more accessible to the public so that more people can appreciate the beauty of this river. I have been in discussions with Dr Bill Phillips from RiverSmart, who has submitted a very worthwhile proposal for an employment program along the river. That would also include some really worthwhile remedial work in the Tiger Bay Wetlands on the outskirts of Warren along the Macquarie and in the river itself.

I have been a little disappointed by some of the contributions from members of the opposition who see this as some sort of assault on trade unions or some form of cheap, serf labour for young disadvantaged people. The greatest thing we can do to put stability into these young people's lives is give them the opportunity to undertake some form of employment which will be a pathway for them into a future involving work, not disconnectedness, impoverishment and isolation from the mainstream community. Indeed, this program will lead to better outcomes in employment. Also, it will lead to practical environmental outcomes which will benefit the environment, not highfaluting global targets which we may or may not reach but projects that will have a positive effect on the environment in which we live and which sustains us.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 has my full support.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the contribution from the member for Parkes on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. I share some of his optimism about this program but would like to detail some concerns. I was in the Parkes electorate over Easter, on the Macintyre west of Yetman—a beautiful part of the world. I had a lovely time there. I have a soft spot for the Macintyre, which I assume is the northern border of his part of New South Wales. My mum was a Goondiwindi girl. We scattered my mum's ashes on the Macintyre three years ago. It is three years ago tomorrow, in fact, that she passed away. So I have always had a soft spot for that part of the world. It is beautiful.

Obviously, when young people go to particularly remote parts anywhere—even if they are from Toomelah, Parkes or any other part of his electorate—I have concerns about who these young people will be supervised by because of the cultures that can sometimes develop in work camps, in any work camp. My grandfather came from Goondiwindi and he told me many stories about how tough some of the work camps can be in really remote areas. I will go to some of these concerns in my speech.

This legislation is of particular concern because three Green Army projects were promised in the electorate of Moreton prior to the 2013 federal election. I am assuming—rather naively on budget day, I guess—that the Prime Minister will carry out the promise made by the LNP candidate for Moreton to roll out these three Green Army projects. Interestingly, the LNP candidate promised that there would be a jobs symposium within 100 days of the election. I have written to Minister Abetz and Minister Pyne, and still that jobs forum has not taken place.

But I still live in hope that the three Green Army projects that were promised for the Oxley Creek Common, the Archerfield Wetlands and the Granard Wetlands will take place. They are all in the middle of my electorate. Even though mine is an inner-city electorate, these areas—basically, around what I call the Oxley Creek Common area—are a twitcher's paradise. If you go there at any time, you will find a lot of birdwatchers. You can easily see about 70 different species in one hour, even though my electorate is only 10 or 15 minutes from the middle of Brisbane. If you go along there, you can even see jabirus. I have not seen them there, but you can see a jabiru—almost in the middle of Brisbane. Striped honeyeaters, spotted harriers, juvenile little bronze cuckoos and fairy wrens are just some examples. There have been up to 195 bird species seen in this Oxley Creek Common area.

The Green Army seeks to reinstate the failed Green Corps program that was started by the Howard government. The LNP government claims that Green Corps was undermined by the former Rudd-Gillard government; however, it was a Labor government that first introduced the Landcare and Environment Action Program, which aimed to provide work with opportunities for young people while achieving positive environmental outcomes. This grassroots environmental action is extremely important to any community, whether it be the remote communities mentioned by the member for Parkes or inner-city suburbs that have challenges, like those in the electorate of Moreton.

I support action to address these local issues. However, I am concerned that, with only a few months until the program is due to start, no-one is quite clear about the specific details as to how the Green Army will work. I had a look at the application from and there is still a lot of uncertainty about how it will run. I am particularly concerned about its exemptions from workplace health and safety laws, compensation laws, industrial relations laws and even bullying and harassment laws, because those who will be involved are young and because, generally—as you would find if you have had any dealings with such people in your electorate—many have not been academic successes or have had challenges at home and challenges in their family life, so they are often our most vulnerable. Taking away those protections, particularly health and safety laws and those preventing bullying, will make it a particular challenge.

I believe, and Labor believe, that we need to do everything we can to get people into work. We are the Labor Party. It is in our title; it is in our DNA. Every individual who can work should be given the chance to work, but we know that that can only happen if there is appropriate support and protection. We do not want work at any cost. That is the strategy of the economic 'let 'er rip' society. That is not what Australia is about, not since the Harvester Judgement and even before that, you could argue.

Environmental work and training programs are an effective way—I agree with the member for Parkes—of getting people employment, as well as providing environmental benefits that help the nation. Workplace training programs have the potential, if they are well designed and well implemented, to achieve these twin goals. But there still outstanding questions.

Firstly, I am concerned about wages. We acknowledge that Green Army participants will be paid the equivalent of a training wage, which, while not overly generous, will be more than the income support payments many of them would likely be on. These payments will also be similar to the training wages received by thousands of other young Australians who are in vocational training or education. Certainly, that is the case now—before 7.30 tonight. But, unlike trainees or apprentices, participants in the Green Army are under the supervision of the Commonwealth. Denying them the status of Commonwealth employees leaves them in a no-man's-land in terms of the employer-employee relationship, which affords a range of workplace rights—an area of law I am quite familiar with. They are not considered workers and therefore they would not have the same workplace rights. The ACTU president, Ged Kearney, said:

This is about taking away well-paid, well-protected jobs from people and replacing them with low-paid, unsafe jobs.

Yet, every second day, we have someone from the government talking about the rollout of the insulation program and the concerns that came with that.

Youth unemployment is a significant issue within my electorate, and I do not want the coalition government to think that, if they see unemployment rates for youth improving, it is as a result of these projects, because the Green Army program's wages are not sufficient for our youth to survive on. Our youth need real jobs with real wages, real workplace safety measures in place and a career path.

Those recruited will do manual labour, including clearing local creeks and waterways, fencing and tree planting. I have seen similar programs in my electorate already. Yet this government has ensured that Green Army members will be exempt from Commonwealth workplace laws, including the Work Health and Safety Act, the Fair Work Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. One thing that concerns me about the amendments to this bill is that they mean it does not provide adequate protections—namely, in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. Every Australian has the right to work in a safe and comfortable environment without concerns about their physical safety or the threat of emotional abuse. This government has a duty of care to these proposed workers and, if they are not protected under the Fair Work Act, this government needs to expose its plans in more detail so I can explain to my constituents what the protections will be.

On top of this, the 15,000 young people who are intended to be employed under the coalition's Green Army have no guarantee of protection against racial, religious, sex or other forms of discrimination while working in the program, and will not be protected by workplace bullying prevention laws. As I said, people in my inner-city electorate can go home at night, but if they are working out in Woop Woop or beyond the Black Stump—particularly young and vulnerable people—they might be exposed to abuse, I would suggest. The Human Rights Commission's website states under the responsibilities of employers:

Your employer has a legal responsibility under Occupational Health and Safety and anti-discrimination law to provide a safe workplace. Employers have a duty of care for your health and wellbeing whilst at work. An employer that allows bullying to occur in the workplace is not meeting this responsibility.

In this case, they will be employed by private service providers, and therefore they will fall under state and territory workplace health and safety regulations—regulations that are under threat in Queensland at the moment. I do not know the situation in other jurisdictions.

We now know that participants will receive, at a minimum, some training in first aid and work safety. Where appropriate, cultural awareness training will also be provided. Beyond this, there is no explicit obligation on service providers to provide further training, although we understand the assessment process will ensure that additional training will be rated more highly. We also know that some participants may require work-readiness training, including literacy and numeracy. Young people in my electorate need a guarantee that they will be protected against forms of discrimination while working in the program.

This amendment to the Social Security Act, as proposed by the government, neglects to expose details related to workers' rights, benefits and protections, and it cannot be supported blindly. The associated statement of requirements is equally limited on detail. Since this bill was first introduced, further information has been released on how the Green Army will operate, but only piece by piece. At best, it is piecemeal. Access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian Qualifications Framework is noted in the statement of requirements as an optional component of the program, to be negotiated with each participant. This gives me no confidence that participants will actually gain access to useful training.

The federal Liberal-National government boasts about improving waterways and environmental hubs, including the three promised projects within my electorate that I mentioned earlier. However, the LNP government in Queensland is selling off community garden spaces that this bill is trying to promote. Nyanda State High School in my electorate was closed down at the end of 2013. Running through the grounds of the Nyanda State High School is the Nyanda community garden, where the community has been working to rehabilitate the Rocky Waterholes Creek. This is a very important site for the local community and for training. Not far from the site, I am reliably informed, a platypus has been seen. The local community requested that any proposed development of the school site carve out the area where the garden was. I wrote to the Queensland education minister, John-Paul Langbroek, but unfortunately he refused to shave off this bit of land—even though the LNP government owed this community big time because when they were last in government they closed down the Acacia Ridge High School, moved the students to the old Salisbury State High School and turned it into a new school, Nyanda State High School. Now that they are back in government, they have closed down this high school, at a time when we should be investing in education and when the suburb's numbers are growing. There is a boom in the number of young people coming through local state schools, yet they closed down that high school.

So, on the one hand, the Abbott government claims to be addressing the issue of youth unemployment through the Green Army Program; on the other hand, it is removing funding for the Youth Connections program, designed to stop young people who have not completed year 12 from falling between the cracks by working with them and their challenges to help them onto the path to work or education. Last year almost 75,000 young people were given the help they needed through Youth Connections, and by the end of this year it is expected to reach 100,000.

There is overwhelming evidence to show how critical the transition from school into work or study is to reducing the lifetime risk of unemployment and boosting lifetime earnings. We know how important it is to be learning or earning. BoysTown and the Smith Family, which have serviced youth in my electorate, will lose their funding under the LNP government, and so these vital services that look after the youth of Moreton will be lost.

Labor seeks a guarantee from the government that all participants in this Green Army Program who are on income support payments will be better off, regardless of their life situation. We need to ensure that participants are not worse off through any changes in income tax, childcare payments or the potential loss of low-income healthcare cards or associated concessions. I also have serious reservations about preserving existing jobs in areas that overlap with activities to be undertaken by the Green Army. The Green Army simply cannot be an excuse for putting Australians out of work in favour of using low-paid participants. The government needs to stop deceiving the Australian public that this is an environmental program. The coalition's track record on environmental policy, as seen in their disastrous Direct Action policy—a policy which they are embarrassed by and about which no environmentalist or economist can find anything good to say—is shameful, and I urge this government to stop ignoring the signs and start looking at effective climate policy and improved environmental preservation.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to pledge my support for the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The reason for this is very simple: it was a proven winner on a number of fronts when it was introduced as the Howard government's successful Green Corps program. The coalition government is delivering a key election commitment to establish the Green Army, starting from July this year. The Green Army will build on the former Green Corps program that was established in 1996 to employ young people on environmental projects to preserve and restore our natural and cultural environment.

The Green Army will offer young Australians aged from 17 to 24 the opportunity to support local environment and heritage conservation projects while gaining hands-on practical skills and work experience in conservation management. The experience and training received will count towards a qualification in land management, park management, landscaping or horticulture. The Green Army will make a real difference to the environment and to local communities through projects such as restoring and protecting habitat, weeding, planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers, and restoring cultural heritage places.

This voluntary initiative is both an environmental and a training program. It will help young people increase their skills base, gain practical experience and enhance their job readiness. It also complements the government's Direct Action Plan on climate change. The Direct Action Plan gives the community the ability to address our environmental challenges and to reduce our emissions at the lowest possible cost.

I support this bill because it provides a common-sense pathway of exposure to those still to decide whether they want to pursue further education in environmental disciplines. I am especially looking forward to rolling out this initiative in my electorate, as the community there has a high unemployment rate, particularly amongst our youth. I support this bill because it seeks to help the long-term unemployed to find and keep a job. In my electorate, we have an issue with youth unemployment and this bill focuses on that as an area of concern.

At the start of this year, the Newcastle Herald published a study by the Centre of Full Employment and Equity, a think tank backed by the University of Newcastle. It named 14 Hunter suburbs as 'red alert'—high-risk localities for predicted unemployment rise. One of the report's co-authors, Professor Scott Baum from Griffith University, said parts of the Hunter—including Raymond Terrace, which is in my electorate—had been identified because of a low proportion of skilled workers, high rates of casual labour, low education levels among residents and a high concentration of workers in declining industries. He also said that it would hit particularly hard in areas where there is already high unemployment and a high concentration of employment in industries like mining, retail and manufacturing—the types of jobs they predicted to be more at risk or in decline.

It is true that currently my electorate is experiencing a high rate of youth unemployment. While estimates of the exact figure for youth unemployment in my electorate vary widely, the Brotherhood of St Laurence recently launched a campaign to bring attention to the crisis of youth unemployment in Australia. According to their 'My chance, our future' youth employment campaign, the figure has risen across the country and sits at around 12.2 per cent nationally. That is up from 8.8 per cent in 2008. They include my electorate in the Hunter statistics. They estimate that the unemployment rate among 15- to 24-year-olds sits at around 9.5 per cent. The ABS statistics claim that it sits at 7.1 per cent. Any way you look at it, it is not a figure to be celebrated.

We need to get these young people out of a life of welfare dependency and into the workforce. As I told the Newcastle Herald recently, there is no silver bullet to fix soaring teen unemployment rates in the Hunter. Over the past two to three years, there has been a general downturn in business confidence and people have not yet seen the light at the end of the tunnel. After six years of bad management and spiralling debts, the government have a massive workload ahead of us. We have to get the economy back on track and get people into jobs and out of unemployment queues.

The Hunter is like most regional areas. When business is doing it tough, jobs become scarcer and apprenticeships dry up—and are treated as alternative cheap labour, which in turn affects our national skill base. That is why we are working hard to deliver new policies that encourage job growth and private investment. One of those policies of course is to kill off the carbon tax. Let us be frank about it: the carbon tax killed jobs, not just in my electorate but right across Australia. Businesses in the Hunter have told me that the carbon tax was an added pressure to their operations they could ill afford. It resulted in job losses.

This year, we have seen many industrial companies in my electorate reconfigure their employment structures. In the past fortnight we have seen OneSteel announce plans to shed 100 jobs, Downer EDI announce plans to cut 200 jobs and Chain Valley Colliery confirm plans to cut 73 jobs. Falling commodity prices, lower business confidence and job cuts in mining and car manufacturing have a flow-on effect on youths searching for apprenticeships or indeed full-time jobs. The coalition have introduced legislation to repeal the costly carbon tax and the monstrous mining tax. We know from speaking to our constituents that this will boost business confidence. We will keep working towards cutting red tape for small business to assist the economy to grow.

The Newcastle Herald also reported on a future constituent of mine—when I say 'future constituent', I mean that she has not yet reached voting age—Tabatha Tyne. The 17-year-old Ms Tyne has spent a lot of the last four months on the hunt for a part-time job. A former vice-captain of Raymond Terrace High School, she graduated last year and is a member of the volunteer youth reference group that provides early intervention mental health services to people aged 12 to 25. During her final years at school, Ms Tyne completed a TAFE course in community services and is now studying full-time for a certificate IV in youth work at TAFE. She plans to undertake a further diploma so she can be a youth worker. Ms Tyne travels from her Raymond Terrace home into Newcastle two days a week for her studies. She has been looking for a job in retail since finishing school. She is clearly a determined young woman, a hard worker, motivated and goal driven. However, she also falls into the youth unemployment category. For now she relies on a fortnightly youth allowance payment. She believes this is due to a lack of job experience.

Job experience is what the Green Army Program will offer the young and unemployed. I believe we can, through programs like this, arm young Australians with the skills to get and keep jobs. It will not only actively improve hundreds of sites across the country but allow local young people to get training and learn to work as part of a team. I am hoping that joining the Green Army will become a rite of passage for hundreds of young people in the years ahead. Joining the Green Army will teach many young people about teamwork and local ownership—and about the value of belonging to something greater than themselves.

In the lead-up to the election last year, we had already earmarked a project in the Paterson electorate at Lemon Tree Passage. Nine young people will receive training in environmental rehabilitation at the Tilligerry Peninsula as part of the 170,000 Green Army project. This project consists of the rehabilitation of up to five kilometres of foreshore pathways, boardwalks and walking paths. The work will consist of pathway upgrades, bush regeneration works and the renewal of the seven walking bridges in the area. The benefits of the scheme extend to the community. The existing pathways are extremely popular but are degrading to a point where they are no longer meeting safety requirements. Now the residents will be able to enjoy walking the area as a leisurely Sunday stroll rather than as an intense work-out. This project will also help reduce the burden on the Port Stephens council in fixing and upgrading council infrastructure.

Tilligerry Peninsula has a large population of an endangered species: it is recognised as valuable koala habitat. The bush regeneration will assist in providing safer areas for the koalas to live in and allow better access for visitors to view the koalas. The workers on this project will receive training and experience in pathway construction, carpentry, landscaping and bush regeneration as well as occupational health and safety and first aid training. The participants will also receive a $400-a-week training wage and a TAFE accredited training wage upon completion of the program.

I want to see this program grow and thrive like its previous version, the Green Corps program. Over the life of the Howard government's Green Corps program, its participants produced incredible results and the benefits are still evident today. The participants planted more than 14 million trees, erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, cleared more than 50,000 hectares of weeds and constructed more than 5,000 kilometres of walking track or boardwalks. In my electorate, a Green Corps team removed over a tonne of rubbish from an almost two-kilometre long walkway at the Grahamstown canal. They also reduced the amount of lantana beside the walkway and planted thousands of trees and native grasses.

There are four other sites in my electorate which received Green Corps grants under the Howard government. An example from the second round of the grant scheme was the Hunter Regional Organisation of Councils. This Green Corps project focused on revegetating the roadside corridors adjacent to the New England Highway in towns like Branxton, Lochinvar, Greta and Rutherford. The main focus of the project was to create corridors of green along major road reserves, restoration of native vegetation and habitats and the reversal of land degradation. The third round included a project for the historic Tocal Homestead on the CB Alexander Agricultural College at Paterson. This project involved the regeneration of riverine rainforest and wetlands, construction of post and rail fences and building conservation. In round 6, this college received another project grant when the Green Corps were called in to regenerate more of the riverine rainforest and wetland ecosystems at Tocal in the lower Paterson Valley. Tocal holds a large land mass and its campus spans broadacre land.

Finally, in round 9, the Green Corps were called by the Tilligerry Habitat Association to the restio wetland area. This project was designed to prepare wetlands for public visitation. As such, this job required boardwalk and path construction, mulching, pruning, planting and water management. These projects all led to the participants gaining skills that they would not have attained had they just been claiming the dole.

These projects also led to one of my constituents winning Paterson Corporate Citizen of the Year in 2006. Shane Bailey was a team leader in Green Corps projects. He won the award on the basis of his work mentoring young people. Mr Bailey worked with the Green Corps teams who were undertaking six-month projects in the Port Stephens area. He was an inspiration to these young people by providing career advice and also by acting as a referee for the youths when they had gained the experience and skills and were applying for jobs. To him it was more than a job; it was about the people. So I awarded him the honour due to his enthusiasm for training others in the environmental industry and for his ability to relate to his team members. He is a shining example of what can be achieved through the Green Corps program and, in turn, the revamped Green Army.

When the former, Labor government took office, this important initiative was torn apart and then it was terminated in 2012. Young people no longer had the opportunity to gain practical skills and improve their local environment. The government is strongly committed to kick-starting the economy and offering the community the ability to address our environmental challenges and to reduce our emissions. I call on the Labor Party and all members of the parliament to support the Social Security Legislation (Green Army Programme) Amendment Bill 2014 for the benefit that it will provide to our environment, for the benefit it will provide to our young people and for the positive effect it will have on our community as a whole. I commend this bill to the House without any reservation.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 is a poor excuse for an environment policy. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act to clarify social security arrangements for participants receiving the Green Army allowance paid under the Green Army Program.

It is my understanding that the coalition's Green Army Program aims to recruit young people to perform environmental tasks across the country and to pay them a training wage to perform environmental tasks that are currently being performed by other employees and businesses throughout the country. There are two arms to the coalition's environment policy, Direct Action. The focus of Direct Action is to pay big-polluting companies a government subsidy in the hope and wish that they shall reduce their carbon emissions over time. It is a complete reversal, the complete antithesis, of the Liberal and conservative philosophy of government subsidies to business to pay big polluters in the hope that they will reduce their emissions over time.

The program that we currently have in place, the carbon price, is one whereby the big polluters pay for the right to pollute in our economy. The money and revenue that is generated from those big polluters paying for the right to pump carbon into our environment is used to commercialise renewable energy. Half of the revenue that is raised from the carbon price is used to promote renewable energy in Australia and throughout our economy. The other half is provided to people on low incomes and pensioners to ensure that they can meet cost-of-living increases as a result of electricity price increases. That is the system we have at the moment. The polluter pays system is going to be replaced by a system where the government pays the polluter, and the coalition calls that progress! That is the first arm of this government's environmental policy, and what a backward step that is.

The second arm of their environmental policy is the one that we are debating here in the chamber tonight, the Green Army Program. This is a program that will see Australians being paid a training wage to perform environmental tasks throughout the country, replacing those who are already performing those tasks—the bush regeneration companies, the landscapers and the local government authorities—who are being paid a normal wage and are getting the protection of occupational health and safety and workers' compensation provisions throughout the country. They are getting paid an award wage for the work they perform. But the government are going to replace those employees and those businesses that are doing that work at the moment with a group of Australians on a training wage. The government are seeking to deceive the Australian public into believing that this is an environmental program. The reason for that is simple—they do not have a coherent environmental policy. In fact, many on that side do not believe earnestly in climate change and our nation taking action on this important issue.

The program we are debating here today is an employment program and as such the participants should be treated as employees. Labor believes that environment based work and training programs can be an effective pathway to work for many job seekers as well as providing environmental benefits. Workplace training programs have potential, if well designed and implemented, to achieve these twin goals; however, there are a number of questions that remain unanswered with respect to the Green Army Program. The bill does not, as is expected by the people whom I represent in Kingsford Smith, lay out the detail required for analysis or discussion. It is also clear that it is a pseudoenvironment policy from a government that could not care less about serious policies to tackle climate change.

In contrast, when Labor were in government we developed policies aimed at conserving Australia's pristine environment. One policy was Caring for our Country. Caring for our Country aimed to achieve an environment that was healthier, better protected, well managed and resilient and that provided essential ecosystem services in a changing climate. Under the first phase of Caring for our Country, from 2008 to 2013, the Labor government invested more than $2 billion to protect and rebuild the resilience of our environment. The second phase of the program was designed to support land managers; community groups, including Indigenous groups; industry; and local environment groups. Caring for our Country target area grants provided funding of between $50,000 and $2 million for projects to maintain ecosystem services, protect our conservation estate and enhance the capacity of Indigenous communities to conserve and protect natural resources across six target areas. The target area grants focused investment in critical areas of our environment, which were selected in recognition of their high levels of vulnerability and importance. Through the target area grants and the second round of the Biodiversity Fund Labor invested in landscape scale restoration of our environment, including some of our most valuable ecosystems.

In addition to Caring for our Country, Labor became the first government to seriously deal with the central challenge of restoring the Murray-Darling Basin to health after chronic neglect by the coalition. After decades of overallocation and disagreement on how to manage the river, Labor began to restore the balance in the system and bring the river back to health. Under the plan 2,750 gigalitres of surface water will be recovered for the environment and used to benefit wetlands, forests and river flows, including the Ramsar listed wetlands in South Australia. Importantly, the plan was designed to achieve the government's target of having the Murray-Darling river mouth open nine years out of 10.

Labor agrees that we need to do everything we can to get people into work. Labor in government had a record of creating jobs in our economy. Close to one million jobs were created over the six years of the last Labor government. We believe that every individual who can work should be given that chance. We know this can only happen with appropriate support. Labor put in place a number of important employment programs—such as Youth Connections, which I understand is facing the axe in tonight's budget—for people in our community living with disabilities, the young, elderly job seekers and the long-term unemployed to ensure that they have the necessary support to get back into the labour movement. Labor believes in helping people to get a job through the right training, work experience and incentives and, most importantly, with the appropriate level of support.

This bill as proposed by the government omits much of the detail related to workers' rights, benefits and protections. The statement of requirements is equally scant on some of the detail. The question that I pose on behalf of many businesses in Kingsford Smith is: what happens to those small businesses that currently work in this space—the bush regeneration businesses and local landscaping businesses that do local government work—businesses that are currently training staff, paying award wages, providing occupational health and safety and workers compensation support? They are providing training and apprenticeships for people to undertake and gain training in landscaping and environmental conservation. They will be forced out by a cheaper government scheme. Access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian Qualifications Framework is noted in the SOR as an optional component of the program to be negotiated with each individual participant. This gives no confidence that participants will actually gain access to training.

Labor is concerned that the bill does not provide adequate protections for participants in the scheme, namely in the areas of OH&S, workers compensation and rehabilitation. We have been told that participants will be covered by relevant state legislation and insurance, while work safety will be audited by the department. Although this provides some protection, the price of safety will be constant vigilance.

Australians are right to be suspicious of the motives of this government when it comes to environmental and employment programs. The government has made it clear that protection of the environment is not one of its priorities through its Direct Action program. A further concern of Labor is the crowding-out aspect of this bill. The government must assure those hardworking Australians in local government and other authorities and those small businesses that work in this space that they will not be displaced and that their businesses will not be affected by the Green Army participants coming in and doing their work.

To conclude, I believe that the government needs to answer a number of questions before this bill is given passage through the House and the Senate. Those questions are as follows. Firstly, why are participants not considered workers or employees under the Work Health and Safety Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Fair Work Act? Secondly, exactly what are the implications for participants not being considered workers or employees under these acts? Thirdly, how will the program support people into mainstream employment? That must be the focus of employment and training programs. It is not a quick-fix, quasi-environmental program. It is an employment program. How will people get into long-term employment through these pathways? That question has not been answered by the government in proposing this bill. Will there be minimum training outcomes? If so, what are they? And will there be minimum training hours required for those participating in the program? What protections will there be to ensure that no businesses currently providing and working in this space will lose business or that, indeed, no employees will lose their jobs as a result of the passage of this bill? They are the questions that constituents in Kingsford Smith, in our community, wish the government to answer before this bill is passed.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme Bill) 2014. I do so to support this bill wholeheartedly. Firstly, the practical measures of this bill amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. They clarify the social security arrangements for participants that will be receiving the Green Army allowance. The Green Army is set to become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce. It will deliver work and jobs for 15,000 people, making it the largest standing environmental workforce in our history. It is a program that will provide real and practical solutions for clearing up our riverbeds and creeks, revegetating sand dunes and revegetating mangrove habitats, amongst the many other environmental remediation initiatives.

There are two bonuses for the community in this. Firstly, there are the environmental benefits that we will receive throughout Australia. Secondly, there are the training benefits for 15,000 young Australians who will receive the opportunity to have up to 20 weeks training in an environmental program. So, it is good news on both fronts.

I am very proud of the projects that have already been announced in my electorate, which are all based around the Georges River. The Georges River has a long history with Australia's settlement. It was first explored by Bass and Flinders back in 1795, when they took that famous little boat of theirs, the Tom Thumb, and sailed it all the way around from Port Phillip, around into Botany Bay and up the Georges River. They mapped the area all the way up to Georges Fair. That expedition opened up a lot of the land and farmland around Bankstown.

Another part of the Georges River that is very historically important is the weir at Liverpool. That was constructed in 1836. That was the dividing mark on the river, where on one side was the brackish saltwater and on the other was the freshwater. Everything upstream from the weir was all freshwater, which became the drinking supply for the township of Liverpool. Today, over one million people live in the catchment area of the Georges River. It is one of the most highly urbanised catchment areas in Australia. It has over 200 years of history behind it. It is an area that needs significant environmental remediation in many areas.

I am proud to say that we already have announced for my electorate six separate Green Army programs—one in Kelso Creek, one in Clinches Pond at Moorebank, one at Wattle Grove Lake, one at Yeramba Lagoon, another at Harris Creek in Holsworthy and one on the border of my electorate, under the Liverpool Bridge, at the famous Lighthorse Park. These programs will make a serious and significant improvement to the environment along the Georges River, for the thousands and thousands of people that use the river for recreation. In fact, I was down there late last week and a little fishing boat had pulled up. The guy who was fishing there had caught about a dozen blackfish. So the river is actually not in bad nick now, but a lot more could be done to improve the quality of the river and to bring it closer to what it was when Bass and Flinders first sailed down there in 1795.

While I am talking about the Georges River and the things on our environmental program, I would like to give my congratulations to the Chauvel Park Environmental Group. This is a group of citizens in the local community who are doing work similar to what the Green Army would do but on a volunteer basis. I have been down there and seen them working away on the weekend. They showed me the river banks, and there is that much work and clearing of vegetation to do that it is almost beyond explanation. When the member for Kingsford-Smith talks about how these programs will somehow crowd out what some other community members are doing, it is just absolute and complete nonsense. I would like to congratulate Robert Storey and Ian Bailey and all the other workers in that Chauvel Park Environmental Group for the great work that they do, and I am sure that that can be complementary to all the other things the green army project will be doing.

I have heard during this debate many members from the opposition making sad, sniping remarks complaining about this program and saying how truly wonderful their carbon tax program has been in taking action on climate change. This program provides a true example of the difference between the coalition and the opposition. What we are proposing here provides practical steps to improve the environmental areas of our country. In comparison, things like the carbon tax are purely symbolic and have absolutely no beneficial effect on the environment. This is the difference. The carbon tax actually does do a few things for the environment and that is exactly what I would like to get onto. What we see with Labor's carbon tax is a classic example of the law of leftist unintended consequences. That law simply states, for every leftist government law, hurriedly passed in response to a current or recent crisis, to give greater power to government or to provide for more centralised control over the economy, there will be two or more unintended consequences that will have greater negative effects than the problem it was designed to fix, often harming the very people the legislation is intended to assist. I would like to give an example of how the carbon tax does that and contrast that to the green army program.

One thing the carbon tax does is push up the price of electricity. What is the average person's response to an increase in a price in one particular good or one particular way of producing things? They look for substitutes and alternatives. That is exactly what is happening in Sydney as we speak, today. People are finding that they cannot afford to turn on the heater to warm their house during winter. So what are people doing? They are going out to the bush or to their backyard, cutting down a tree and burning the wood. They are using wood fires as a substitute because of the high electricity prices. They are burning wood to keep themselves warm. What effect does that have? We know that when you burn wood you release into the atmosphere not only carbon dioxide but also particulate matter. In Sydney in winter, between 50 and 60 per cent of the particulate matter in the atmosphere comes about through people using wood fires in their homes to keep themselves warm. This action releases particulate matter, commonly known as PM10 or PM2.5.

Why is there a concern about this particulate matter? I refer to a few recent reports. Firstly, the report of the World Health Organisation states:

PM affects more people than any other pollutant. The major components of PM are sulfate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, black carbon, mineral dust and water. It consists of a complex mixture of solid and liquid particles in organic and inorganic substances suspended in the air. The most health-damaging particles are those with a diameter of 10 microns or less, which can penetrate and lodge deep inside the lungs. Chronic exposure to particles contributes to the risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as lung cancer.

A recent article written by Professor Bin Jalaludin notes:

… the world's leading experts on cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified outdoor air pollution as a carcinogenic to humans. The agency's report, Air Pollution and Cancer, said there's now sufficient evidence that components of outdoor air pollution can cause cancer.

He notes that air pollution is:

… one environmental hazard that everyone is exposed to; we all have to breath the air around us.

Even unborn children are exposed to the potential harm of air pollution, a complex mixture of particles that can be solids or aerosols, and gases.

It was only a few years ago that the New South Wales Chief Health Officer, Denise Robinson, told a public inquiry at New South Wales Parliament House that the deaths of between 600 and 1,400 Sydneysiders every year could be attributed at least partly to air pollution. I will repeat that: between 600 and 1,400 deaths are attributed to air pollution in Western Sydney. The World Health Organisation rightly sets maximum recommend pollution levels. Although they say that there is no safe level, there is no threshold that they have identified at which no damage to health is possible, they do note that guidelines for the particulate matter PM10 is 20 microns per cubic metre as an annual mean. What has happened in Western Sydney since the carbon tax has been introduced? It has turned more people over to burning wood, releasing more particulate matter. We have the measurements of the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage from their monitoring station in Liverpool. Since the carbon tax was introduced in 2010, every single year the particulate pollution in Western Sydney has increased. Last year the particulate pollution in Western Sydney was above World Health Organisation standards for PM10.

For PM10, pollution has increased 25 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced. These levels of air pollution are caused by wood heating, which people converted to to try to keep their home warm in the winter, because of the imposition of the carbon tax. In Western Sydney we now have pollution levels above those the World Health Organisation recommends. The situation is just as bad for the more dangerous particulate, PM2.5. Since the carbon tax has been introduced, it has pushed up the prices of electricity and people have converted to heating their homes with wood. PM2.5 pollution, the most deadly of all the particulate pollutions, has actually increased by 50 per cent since 2010.

These are the unintended consequences of bad policy and symbolic policy which is actually harming the environment and harming the air quality of people in Western Sydney today. That is what we are dealing with here in this parliament. It is not only a matter of the cost burden on the community. Policies like the carbon tax are actually harming the environment and they are harming the health of millions of citizens that live in Western Sydney today. This is what we get from the opposition.

We need to think through the unintended consequences of this bad policy. That is why I am so glad that we on this side of the House are taking practical steps to improve the environment in Western Sydney. We are taking practical steps with our Green Army Program to improve the quality and the health of the Georges River for the benefit of all Sydneysiders. That is what a good government does: take practical steps rather than simply symbolic steps that have these unintended consequences which today are harming the health of residents of Western Sydney, not only in my electorate but throughout the entire Western and South-West Sydney basin.

So I commend this bill to the House. Again, it shows the difference between the coalition and the opposition. We are here taking practical, real steps that will improve the environment in Western Sydney, while the opposition are intent on implementing these symbolic measures that not only have no effect but do the opposite—cause harm to people's health.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to clarify participation arrangements for the participants receiving the Green Army allowance paid under the Green Army Program. This is an exciting piece of legislation for the people in my electorate of Swan. It marks the start of a delivery of real environmental action on the ground in my electorate after six years of no action under the Rudd-Gillard Labor experiment.

This legislation, as much as any other, encapsulates the difference between the coalition and the Labor Party in general. Pretty much the Labor Party's only approach to the environment over the last few years has been a tax, the carbon tax—a plan that involves redistributing money, buying permits offshore and the expenditure of taxpayers money on a massive bureaucratic system of paper shuffling and redistributed money-go-rounds, all to produce no result. Despite the $7.6 billion tax, emissions for the first 12 months barely changed—it was by 0.01 per cent. It is a grand internationally focused macro scheme that does not recognise local environmental issues on the ground or trust that local people have the knowledge to improve our environment. Consequently the environment in my electorate of Swan received zero benefit from the previous government's policies. In fact, the Perth NRM received a funding cut of nearly half its budget under the Howard government. That funding cut was $2 million. This was cut from the Perth NRM funding under the previous Labor government.

The coalition's approach is different and it has always been different. It is an approach for real action on the ground to tackle environmental issues and improve our environment through practical measures. Take for example the Howard government's Green Corps program, which achieved results on the ground. The program propagated and planted more than 14 million trees; erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing; and constructed or maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking tracks and boardwalks. Under Labor's watch this important initiative was torn apart, rebadged and failed to improve the environment.

The previous speaker, the member for Charlton, spoke about ensuring the safety of the participants in the scheme. I know the member for Charlton was not here at the time under the Rudd-Gillard Labor government, but I see him stand there and talk about ensuring the safety of the participants in this scheme, yet we now have a royal commission looking into the pink batts scheme, where four people died and over 200 houses were burnt down and numerous people had problems with the scheme, which endangered the lives of many people. He stands up there and says he is worried about ensuring the safety of the participants in this scheme, but where was the Labor Party in ensuring the safety of those who died in the pink batts scheme. It is hypocrisy to the maximum by the Labor Party yet again.

The former Labor government transformed the previous program into a program where young long-term unemployed Australians were reclassified and continued to receive an income support payment, but with very little done to actually help the environment. The program failed to engage local communities to ensure that projects met local environmental needs, to motivate the long-term unemployed, to encourage the participation of young people who are passionate about the environment or deliver a program that engaged the participants for the duration of the project. I know that one of the first things I did as a candidate was to go to a site being run by the Green Corps under the Howard government and see a fantastic program employing young Indigenous people in the electorate of Swan. As I said before, I know we are limited for time, and I seek your indulgence to continue my speech at the next opening of parliament.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Swan for considering the convenience of the House. Are you asking for leave to continue?

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking for leave to continue.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned and resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 18 : 00 to 19 : 30