Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in support of the amendment moved by the member for Port Adelaide to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. I am pleased to have been in the House for the contribution of the member for Longman. I noted with interest that he went through a number of local programs that will be advanced by the Green Army established through this legislation. Certainly, members on this side are supportive of those sorts of initiatives and also of the pathways to meaningful employment that may be generated through programs such as this, but this legislation raises a couple of other significant questions that I wish to draw attention to, firstly, at a broad level, about the relationship between the bill before us and the government's environmental agenda and, secondly, about an issue relating to the status of persons engaged in the Green Army process.

In making my contribution, I think it is important that we do reflect in the first instance on the environmental performance of the government to date. The question I think we need to pose is: do we really have a minister who is for the environment? His performance to date, lamentably, suggests environmental concerns do not have an advocate in this government or, at any rate, an effective one. Members opposite, it should be noted, often speak in this place on questions of the legacy that we might leave to future generations. These contributions relate exclusively to their posturing over debt—a matter for another time. We do not hear any concern for the sort of world our grandchildren will inherit for this most fundamental expression of intergenerational equity.

This is not just about inconsistency. It is a profoundly troubling failure, because across the developed world, only Australia is going backwards in terms of its approach to tackling climate change. I think of the Globe Climate Legislation Study which found Australia to be unique—in a class of its own—as the only nation taking negative legislative action on climate change. As the shadow minister said, in response to this very report:

Australia is continually being embarrassed on a global stage by Tony Abbott's ideological attack on Australia's future.

This is an attack on future generations and it is blindingly ideological, with the environmental failures not confined to climate change. We see the Great Barrier Reef under threat, and it seems the only recourse to protect it is the courts. There are very significant challenges, to say the least, to Tasmania's wilderness through the proposed delisting of much of the wilderness World Heritage Area on the one hand and the state government's promise to tear up the forest agreement on the other. This list could go on, but the point is this: we are going backwards. I read with interest an article by Nick Feik in the Saturday Paper last weekend. This bears eloquent testimony to the environmental credentials of this government as it subordinates environmental protection to short-term commercial consideration. The article acknowledges that this may be one area of policy making where the government is, at least in broad terms, implementing an agenda set out prior to the election. I quote:

But the brute efficiency of its program to damage environmental interests has been breathtaking.

It certainly has been. Accompanied by the trademark cuts to bodies providing independent advice or checks to government action, from the Climate Commission to environment defenders offices in states and territories. So it grates more than just a little when the minister asserts the Green Army is a 'central component of the government's cleaner environment plan.' And also that it complements, apparently, direct action, but more on that point later.

I note that there was no formal coalition environment policy going into the last election on this point. This begs the question: where is the rest of this government's cleaner environment plan? What evidence is there of any commitment on the part of this government to stand up for our beautiful natural environment that is at the core of Australia's patrimony? This context is important when discussing this bill.

While I have some concerns about the legislation before us, my wider concern is the opposition this government and this minister seem to have to environmentalism and the priority it has allocated to the preservation and protection of our environment. The fact is, there is no coherent environment policy under this minister or this government, and legislation such as this, however beneficial it might be, can be no substitute for such an agenda.

Having said that, I turn to the provisions of the legislation before us, which, of course, rest on Labor foundations. Previous programs, some of which were touched upon by the previous speaker, but starting with the Keating government's Landcare and Environment Action Program in 1992 set out two critical objectives: providing work opportunities for young people and supporting community action to promote important environmental outcomes. Both objectives are vital.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to make certain specifications, particularly: with some limited exceptions, recipients of the Green Army allowance are not also able to receive a social security benefit or pension; income testing arrangements apply to the social security pension of a Green Army participant's partner; and participants who are not Green Army team supervisors are not to be treated as workers or employees for the purposes of certain Commonwealth laws. It is the last aspect of this bill that I find most troubling and I will focus the balance of my contribution on that.

When reading through the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the minister's second reading speech it is clear, despite claims to the contrary, that this program is an employment program. Labor's position on employment is clear—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. As well as their pay, a person's employment conditions are a big part of being employed. Conditions include fundamental things like occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation rights. The government wants the program's participants to perform work and, to its credit, it is proposing to pay a comparable training wage. But someone's pay must also take into account their conditions and basic protections. The minister invokes the precedent of Work for the Dole and the Howard-era Green Corps programs but does not explain why these are precedents that should be followed—funny, that.

According to the Green Army Program Draft Statement of Requirements Consultation Process document, the Green Army Program service providers are required to obtain and maintain insurance. There is a vague reference to the government purchasing personal accident insurance and products and public liability insurance to cover participants in the program. However, nothing in the proposed legislation before us addresses the critical issue of the extent to which Green Army service providers will be required to provide suitable insurance. Even where insurance is in place, it differs from workers compensation cover in that an injured participant is likely to have to demonstrate negligence by the provider. These disputes can take many years and great expense to resolve, and young volunteers are highly unlikely to have the resources to singlehandedly pursue such claims however meritorious they may be. As such, compared to workers generally, a lower standard of protection is being offered to Green Army participants, particularly given the physical and outdoor nature of the tasks they are doing.

Of course, the workplace relations environment has changed in recent years. Most states and territories had referred their industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth by 2010. This means that the Fair Work Act, and the National Employment Standards contained within it, has been the framework for a national workplace relations system, which includes all private sector employment other than employment by non-constitutional corporations in Western Australia. This is important because under previous schemes participants would have been covered by state and territory employment laws, but this will no longer be the case. What is the rationale behind this, I ask? There is nothing by way of explanation in any of the publicly available information. This just seems like more slipshod government by way of slogans. The government's website offers no further clues. It has one brief page on the Green Army, a link to a draft statement of requirements, and at the bottom of this page is a generic email and a 1800 number for people to call. That is it. Surely, if the government wants the support not just of this parliament and the people of Australia but of those it wants to participate in this program, it should provide this detail to enable potential participants to effectively determine the basis of their participation—it cannot be too much to ask. If the government can acknowledge that the program's participants are performing work worthy of the training wage, then surely it should ensure that they have the same OHS, workers compensation and rehabilitation standards.

Labor supports helping people find work and giving them the skills and experience to do so. I am sure those opposite do so too, but this bill leaves out so much information it is as if no real thought has gone into the mechanics of the program's operation—a matter members opposite are generally keen to find fault on when little thought has allegedly gone in from this side of the House. For example, there are no minimum hours specified. This is ominous. In the UK, the Office of National Statistics reveals that over half a million workers were forced to sign zero-hour contracts, though the figure is likely to be higher as many employees are employed this way without them realising. Such contracts entail an employee being on-call, without a minimum amount of weekly work specified in the contract. Some big UK employers have 90 per cent of their workforce on such contracts. I hope this is not the beginning of such a trend in Australia, although it does appear that the promotion of insecure work will be the inevitable consequence, if not the central objective, of this government's policy settings.

I also note the concerns of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights with respect to the right to social security and the right to work, neither of which has been addressed by the bill's statement of compatibility I am sorry to say. Regarding the right to social security, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that social security should be available, adequate and accessible. The joint committee contended that, in excluding Green Army participants from receiving other benefits or pensions, the bill may limit the right to social security. This is of some concern. The committee, quoting from Article 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, goes on to observe that the right to social security may be subject to such limitations 'as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.' The committee states:

It is necessary for the government to demonstrate that the measure pursues a legitimate objective and has a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the objective sought to be realised.

The committee goes on to note that it is unclear whether or not participants may actually be worse off by virtue of their receiving the Green Army allowance rather than income support and whether the allowance 'will be sufficient to meet minimum essential levels of social security'. In respect of the right to work the committee states that the exclusion of Green Army Program participants from such laws may constitute a limitation on the right to just and favourable conditions of employment, as specified in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. While the committee notes that participation in the program is voluntary, it suggests that, because the participation may be on a full-time basis and constitute a participant's sole means of earning a living, it should be treated as work and participants should be treated as workers or employees under the abovementioned Commonwealth laws. I note that the committee is seeking further information from the minister on the above matters and, on this side of the chamber, we join the committee in waiting with keen interest for the minister's response. These are matters I am deeply concerned by.

I also have some questions about what would happen to a participant of this program if they wished to raise a complaint about their supervisor or provider. Can they join a union? Can they go to the Fair Work Ombudsman? What are the channels for addressing these complaints should they arise? These are significant matters that have not been touched upon. Again, the minister has provided information which is, at best, unhelpful. The minister seems to taking a 'she'll be right' approach to this policy as well as to the profound challenge that climate change poses. Indeed, the minister in his second reading speech mentions climate change only once, as a mere afterthought. It is unclear what exactly has happened to direct action, which this legislation apparently complements—although it is unclear precisely how. Is the government still of the view that paying polluters is the most efficient allocation of finite resources? As the scientific and economic consensus indicates—and as the minister used to acknowledge, and in fact advocate for—the most efficient way to allocate resources, and hence the most effective way to deal with the impact of climate change, is with a price on carbon through market mechanisms. When it comes to dealing with climate change, this government has its head in the sand. Perhaps getting the government to take its head out of the sand could be one of the Green Army's first keynote projects.

These sorts of programs, as touched upon by the member for Longman earlier, may well be very worthwhile programs in themselves; however, they need to supplement an actual coherent environmental policy, not just the 'direct distraction' on climate change and the environment more generally.

Members on this side support the objectives of this bill because we support taking local and global action on climate change. Of course, in the Labor Party, we support doing all we can to get people into work, into well-paid and secure jobs. On that very last point, it is these concerns regarding worker protections that need to be addressed by the minister before this bill is enacted. I call on him do so. I also call on him to start work on being a minister who is committed to being for the environment.

See this speech in context