Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Program) Bill 2014 before the House and also to support the amendment moved by the member for Port Adelaide. This bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security Administration Act 1999 to enable payment of the green army allowance. The bill will commence on 1 July this year. The bill provides for an insertion of the definition of both 'program' and 'allowance'. I must say that I would like that to be a little bit tighter and more concrete, but that is the situation we have before us tonight.

The bill provides that participants on the Green Army Program cannot receive a social security benefit or payment, rather they will be paid an allowance. There is precedent for this with the LEAP program, which was introduced under the Keating government and was quite successful. This program was for 16- to 20-year-olds and was once again an environmental program. The allowance is aligned with the national training wage. However—and this is another area of uncertainty—the explanatory memorandum notes that some participants may be able to choose to continue to receive their social security benefits. But the circumstances for being able to make this choice and the reasons that will allow a person to continue to receive social security benefit are not outlined.

It is important to note that participants in the Green Army Program will not be considered as employees under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. I think that has some issues for those people who are involved in the program. This concept was first implemented under the Howard government in 1997 where they had the Green Corp, a work for the dole program for long-term unemployed, which also included volunteers. There is a little bit of a difference in this program. When that program was first in force, the participants worked 134 hours. They also had access to $500 payment during the six months post completing additional training and that included early removal. That was later replaced—the payment was abolished and replaced by another smaller payment.

Whilst the concept of a Green Army working throughout the country, improving our environment, may appear attractive, it may be the government's one and only environmental policy that they put before this parliament. I do not believe it is truly an environmental policy, one to change the face of the environment in Australia and one to lead to the people involved gaining the skills needed to work long-term in that area. It is unfortunate that those on the other side of this House seem to be devoid of any ideas when it comes to the environment, to commitment to protecting our environment, to programs which give ongoing guaranty with very set objectives that each program needs to fulfil. Rather we have a thought bubble that if you create a Green Army, as it marches cross-country, it is going to create a wonderful environment within Australia. Unfortunately, it will not work like that. If you are going to improve the environment of the country, you need to have commitment to environmental protection, good planning laws and to ensuring that endangered species survive. I must say that on none of those counts this policy comes across as an environmental policy.

On that first area this legislation fails. But there are other aspects of this legislation. It does provide environmental based work and training and that can be a very effective pathway for many young job seekers. Unlike many of the other policies which the other side of this House have introduced into the parliament, it will not be detrimental to the environment. That is provided that those people involved have proper training and support while they are working in their Green Army. It does have that aspect of being able to provide on-the-job training for young people in a work training area that has some potential. But it must be well-designed and implemented to achieve that goal.

So if it is a proposal that is just thrown together, is not properly evaluated, and is just a rollout that creates an impression that the government is actually contributing to improving our environment, then it will fail. We need a greater commitment than just froth and bubbles, or smoke and mirrors, to convince people that this parliament is committed to improving our environment.

I think—and Labor agrees—we need to do everything we can to help people get into work. If people have the skills, the training and the knowledge then they can attain employment. You have many more opportunities in life if you have a job. A job is the key to success. We on this side of the House believe it is important to help people get jobs through the right kind of training, work experience, incentives and, most importantly, the appropriate level of support. I question whether this legislation will provide the appropriate level of support.

I am also worried because the legislation omits the details related to workers' rights, benefits and protection. No matter how you look at it, the people involved in the Green Army are workers—they are getting work experience and performing jobs—and we need to make sure that they have the appropriate benefits and protection. This legislation is very light on providing that information. I really need to highlight the fact that this was an issue with the Green Corps program and Work for the Dole. Those areas were not properly taken into account and it did lead to some problems. Given the fact that many of the people involved in this program will be vulnerable, it is even more important that the proper protections are in place. Some of these people may have just left school and they should be trained properly and given the right protection in the workplace. The minimum requirements are a first aid certificate and workplace safety training. There are no minimum hours and there are no other training requirements.

I referred earlier to the LEAP Program. That program was introduced by the Keating government. It provided benefits to a number of young people. The LEAP Program was introduced in 1992 and it was for young people aged between 15 and 20. It worked on a similar basis by providing an allowance. That program had some difficulties, and I suspect this program will also have difficulties because of the nature of the people who will be involved in the program. There is another aspect of the LEAP Program that I think is lacking in this program. When people finished the LEAP Program they had not only on-the-job training work experience but also some formal qualifications. To be ready to go on to full employment you need to have experience and you need to have qualifications. Without those two components I think it would be really difficult for young people to maintain employment.

I do not think there is a member in this House who is not committed to seeing young people get the opportunity to obtain jobs and maintain those jobs, to get the skills they need to develop their knowledge base and to undertake the learning needed so they can then enjoy a decent standard of living. My real concern is that this program will not deliver in that area. On the one hand, it is being put across as environmental policy. I have already shared with the House my thoughts on how the government is deceiving the Australian people, because it is not really environmental policy; it is a work participation program. On the other hand, it will fail in that area because the people passing through the program will not achieve their ultimate goal of obtaining full-time employment. I know this is a difficult area for governments to address, but the rate of youth unemployment in Australia is unacceptable and under this government it has increased. If the government were truly committed to improving employment for young people then it would adopt a holistic approach.

They need to also ensure that the participants have some sort of occupational health and safety cover. The simple fact that they are not considered to be workers or employees under the act creates a problem. I have worked in the past with people involved in these types of programs and I know that that can create enormous problems and make it very hard for people to move on, particularly if they get injured in the workplace. This is a really important implication. I think more thought should have been given to how the people involved in the programs are connected to mainstream employment.

Whilst I support the member for Port Adelaide's second reading amendment and do not find this legislation odious, I have some real problems with it, particularly in relation to the protection of the people involved in the scheme and the fact that the government is trying to dupe the Australian people into thinking it is doing something about the environment when in reality it is not.

See this speech in context