Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The Green Army program is one of only two programs in the government's environmental agenda that actually seeks to build something. The rest of the agenda—and it is a busy agenda, I will concede that—is essentially about dismantling and destroying environmental protection policy. In my contribution to the debate on this legislation I want to talk about a number of aspects, both environmental aspects and also aspects of the bill so far as they seek to provide young unemployed people with training and employment opportunities.

This program is not a new concept; it has been around in different guises for more than two decades. In 1992, the Keating government introduced the Landcare and Environmental Action Program, or LEAP, which was similar to this in its essence. It provided a training wage or training allowance remuneration to young unemployed Australians, aged between 15 and 20 years, for six months to receive formal training both on and off the job and also work experience undertaking programs with a land care or environmental bent. In 1997, having come to government, the Howard government reformulated that program in some respects and rebadged it and relaunched it as the Green Corps program in 1997-98.

When the Rudd government came to power, in 2007, some changes were made to that program in 2008 and it was relaunched as the Green Jobs Corps, essentially with the same fundamental elements—namely, the targeting of young unemployed Australians in their late teens, and eventually in their early 20s as well, to participate in the program for a period of about six months; providing them with training to some degree or another—and I will come to that in relation to the current program on offer by the new government; and their receiving either an income support payment or a payment connected to the training wage system.

In principle, the opposition does support a program that uses the environment as a field in which to give young unemployed Australians an opportunity to gain work experience and skills that will help them on to the path of either further training and education or, even more quickly, a permanent job. The opposition does, though, have a range of concerns about a number of the details of this program. Some of those concerns have been raised directly with the minister, and I think there has been a constructive approach to trying to provide answers to the questions the opposition has raised, and I thank the minister for that. A number of those questions have also been raised with the relevant department in Senate estimates, and I think it is fair to say that those questions have not yet been fully answered.

For that reason, and in order to allow debate on this bill to fully canvass those concerns—particularly from the opposition's perspective—I will move a second reading amendment to the motion moved by the minister. I move the following amendment, which was circulated earlier today:

That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes the:

(1) program will be deeply flawed in its design and implementation given the poor environmental record of the current Government;

(2) bill provides insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation;

(3) Government should clarify why participants do not have employee status even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage;

(4) Government must provide assurance that the Green Army Program will not displace or reduce employment opportunities for existing workers;

(5) lack of detail of the training provisions in the program, namely specified minimum hours, provision of accredited recognised training and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways; and

(6) importance of supporting young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the minister's second reading speech, he described this program as both an environment program and a training program, and I want to deal with the minister's first characterisation of the program first of all. In six short months this government has shown itself to have very scant regard for its responsibilities to protect and to nurture Australia's environment. Indeed, on 4 February 2014 the Independent in the United Kingdom—a pretty centre-of-the-road newspaper, certainly not one of the UK's left-wing newspapers—featured an article entitled Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?The article ran through a litany of decisions made during this government's first six months that seek to either entirely dismantle or start to peg back a range of environmental protections. The Independent posed the question that is on the lips of so many Australians as a result of some of the many decisions made by this government. Six months into the job, this minister's record is almost exclusively one of removing or downgrading environmental protections—some of which, admittedly, were introduced by the previous government, but many of which have been in place in this country for decades and decades.

I will just go through a number of those decisions to illustrate my point. Firstly, very early on the government decided to remove the endangered community listing for the Murray below the Darling River—undoing some work that had been undertaken over several years, including consultations with a range of stakeholders in the area—as a concession to a very serious scare campaign that had been launched. The government also decided to undo the management plans for the world's largest marine reserve system—again, off the back of a mendacious scare campaign that sought to frighten recreational fishers in Queensland, for example, about the impact of reserves that are literally hundreds and hundreds of kilometres offshore.

The government has decided to turn back literally decades of bipartisan support for the Commonwealth's role in protecting matters of national environmental significance, a role that goes back to the Franklin Dam case in the early 1980s—three full decades. This is based on a misconception that the approval decision by the Commonwealth minister—a power that has been in place for many, many years—is a drag on time, resources and energy by proponent companies that are usually seeking to put a development in place. There is a misconception that it is the approval decision—the process of a Commonwealth minister making a decision to approve a development that impacts on matters of national environmental significance—that is actually the drain on a proponent's time, energy and resources. But anyone who has had anything to do with this process knows that it is the assessment process—not the approval decision per se by the Commonwealth minister—that takes the time, energy and resources from proponents.

The Labor party has made it clear for a significant period of time that we see great merit in streamlining and removing duplication from assessment processes that are undertaken in these cases by the Commonwealth at one level and by relevant state governments at the other. Examples include moving from a position of proponents having to undertake two environmental impact studies to having a single EIS or moving from a position of having to undertake two public consultation processes to having a single public consultation process on agreed terms of reference. These are the things that would significantly reduce the time, energy and resources involved in getting some of these developments up in an environmentally sustainable way.

It is not a position that we support, though, to hand over environmental approval powers that have been in the Commonwealth's hands for matters of national environmental significance to a range of state premiers. That is not a party political point. That is a point I make also in relation to state Labor governments taking on these powers.

Even before the approval powers have been handed over, which we understand is intended to take place in the second half of the 2014 calendar year, this government is already backing away from their responsibilities under federal environmental protection laws. I would particularly point to the exemption granted to the Barnett government by the Minister for the Environment for the shark cull in Western Australia. It was an extraordinary application of the national interest exception provision in the EPBC Act, which is targeted at security and defence matters—not matters of political convenience for a particular state government.

This shark cull has been an absolute debacle, as so many experts said it would be when it was first proposed, in a very politically cynical way, by the Premier of Western Australia. From a whole range of different political perspectives this has been an utter debacle. The target shark, the Great White Shark, has escaped utterly unscathed. More than 100 sharks have been hooked, some of which have been killed and the rest have been maimed—not one of them was a Great White Shark, which was supposed to be the target of this cull. Seventy-five of them were under three metres, which was the target size for the shark cull.

All of these things would have become clear under a proper assessment process. However, even before the approval powers had been handed over by this new government to premiers like Colin Barnett, or Campbell Newman, who is up there in charge of the Great Barrier Reef, this government was already walking away from its statutory obligations to subject ideas like this to proper EPBC assessments and approvals.

This is no more striking example of the responsibility of a national government in this country, Liberal or Labor, than the World Heritage system. Australia is moving into refined company—company that, as far as I can tell, at the moment includes only Oman and Tanzania. They are the only two other countries thus far, in the very long history of the World Heritage system, who have actually applied to de-list World Heritage areas: the 74,000 hectares that were listed last year by the World Heritage committee of UNESCO. They are unpicking the Tasmanian Forestry Agreement, which had been worked on for so long by environment groups, by the forestry industry, representing employers and businesses in the Tasmanian forestry industry, and, also, by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU, representing forestry workers.

This really is an extraordinary development by this government, which is turning its back on so many decades of bipartisan support and respect for the World Heritage system, apparently based on some photographs taken one weekend by Senator Colbeck. To walk away from this is the most striking example of this government's utter disregard for its responsibilities under federal environmental laws.

We also see no apparent action, none that we have been able to gauge, around the long-running campaign of environmental groups and most traditional owner groups in Cape York about preparing a possible case for the World Heritage listing of that area, as well.

This government is not only uninterested in discharging its own obligations to protect Australia's pristine and vulnerable environment, but it also wants to tie the hands of local communities to take action themselves to protect their local environment. I refer particularly to the extraordinary decision by the government in its early days, through the Attorney-General's portfolio, I think, to strip the Environmental Defenders Offices of any Commonwealth funding whatsoever. To highlight the extraordinary nature of this decision, this is a funding arrangement that endured right through the term of the Howard government. There was a recognition by the Howard government, who in many cases was no friend of civil society, that local community groups who wanted to take action to protect their own environment, or to at least argue the case for protecting their local environment—win, draw or lose—would be able to go to an environmental defenders office and have their day in court. Such is the mean nature of this government in relation to environmental protection that they have taken this decision—no matter that the Howard government respected these funding arrangements right through their 11 ½ years in office. Along with their decision to remove funding from a range of other legal service obligations, including aboriginal legal services, they have decided to entirely defund the Environmental Defenders Office.

Their most telling and most glaring action, without any scintilla of a doubt, is their decision to reverse action on climate change. I have had a number of opportunities to talk about the government's series of bills to reverse action on climate change, and I do not propose to labour the point here. But what we have seen since the last debate on the various climate change bills is the government starting to walk away from commitments that were very clearly and definitively made by them in opposition. This includes commitments given only one or two weeks before the election that they would maintain the bipartisan position on the Renewable Energy Target that has now been in place for four elections. It was a position that was stated as clearly and definitively as could possibly be the case by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Simon Birmingham, at a Clean Energy conference. Yet we still see the government unable to resist walking away from something that makes so much economic and environmental sense.

This minister had a long-standing ambition to hold the environment portfolio. I think that is a genuine and heartfelt ambition he holds, but he is trapped in a government that has no commitment to protecting Australia's environment and no commitment to respect the science and the evidence that goes behind so many of those decisions.

The second reading speech the minister gave listed a number of projects that are intended to be covered by this program, presumably after a proper tender process. Announcements on most of the projects were made by the then opposition while campaigning in marginal seats during the election campaign. Some I am familiar with—for example, the Cumberland Conservation Corridor in Western Sydney, which I am sure the member for Parramatta also is familiar with it. It is a corridor whose development was supported by our government over the last six years. Given the track record of this government that I have just tried to summarise in a short time, the opposition have very serious questions of this government's capacity to run a program that delivers any meaningful environmental benefit to local communities.

There are also very serious questions about the entitlements and the protections that this program will give to its young participants. Some of this simply remains unclear. Some of this is not a position where the opposition say that the government have already decided to remove a protection. But after questions directed to the minister and questions directed in Senate estimates, the opposition simply remain unclear about this. The opposition have been able to look through a draft statement of requirements that has been circulated, but there is still no final document. Although the government said that a tender would be released and advertised before the end of March, it is 24 March and that tender still has not been released. So the opposition have not been able to see the final position that will be expected of tender applicants in relation to some of these points.

The opposition are not opposed to the use of the training wage system as a basis for remunerating participants in this program, but we do have some other serious workplace concerns. Our first serious concern is about the lack of a formal training obligation being made on participant organisations. To instance our equivalent to this program, the Green Jobs Corp required organisations to provide participants with at least 130 hours of accredited training—around five hours per week of accredited training to participants over their six months. The draft statement of requirements for this program indicates that that training is merely optional. The opposition take the view that accredited training should be a core element of this program and it must be accredited training. That should be reflected in the tender. We hope that that will be fixed up between the draft statement of requirements and the final tender documents, but we reserve our position on that.

The program should also identify real pathways to work. Where are the jobs going to be? When the government have answered that question, they should be able to work backwards to match the training and the experience that will be provided through this tender process. Again, although this is a program where the government hope for 15,000 participants, a very large number of participants over the next few years, the government still have not provided clear evidence of the pathways to work that young people will get from this.

The opposition are also concerned that young participants in a Commonwealth program will not receive a range of Commonwealth workplace protections. The bill, for example, excludes participants from the Comcare legislation and deems them not to be the responsibility of the Commonwealth in relation to health and safety. It also deems them in a more general way not to be employees under the Fair Work Act. These participants, as I am sure all members appreciate, are aged 17 to 24 years and have been out of the workplace and unemployed for a significant period of time. For many of them, if not most of them, they will be new to a workplace. It is important that they be protected at work. It is important that all workers be protected at work. It is particularly important that vulnerable young workers be protected at work. A range of questions remain for the opposition to receive answers to. If these participants are excluded from Commonwealth responsibility for health and safety, what is the legal protection for health and safety while at work under this program? Where does the legal responsibility lie and under what legislation? What are the compensation and rehabilitation arrangements if participants are injured at work? They will often be working in fairly hazardous environments. What are the other protections that these participants will receive, as all workers are entitled to receive at work—for example, in relation to potential instances of bullying or harassment? As we know through our own experience, this is a particular challenge for young workers.

Finally, there is no provision, as far as we have been able to discern from the statement of requirements, that prevent this program from displacing existing employees, hardworking employees of local councils and a range of private organisations that do this Landcare and environmental work every day, week in and week out. We are very keen to see the final detail, whether it is through the final tender documentation or elsewhere, as to how this government propose to protect the jobs of those hardworking employees who are already employed to do this. In closing, the opposition do not oppose in principle a program such as this. We will not be opposing this bill when it comes to a vote in this House. But I have tried to outline a number of the questions that need further examination and answers to those questions over coming weeks will shape the view that the opposition take to the bill in the Senate.

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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to rise in favour of the amendment. I am quite happy to speak in terms of the legislation—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

I rise to speak in favour of the—

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

Just to explain, you speak as you would speak on the bill. It is just that the question now is that this amendment be agreed to. It does not change the side of the House from which you speak, and we will enjoy your address.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do my very best. I want to refer to the previous speaker's comments about my home state of Tasmania. I was terribly surprised to see him start to lecture Tasmanians after the results of a little less than a fortnight ago, when Tasmanians spoke as clearly as they possibly could have about what they thought about the lack of consultation and the damage that has been done to my state by the Labor-Greens alliance, and supported by the previous federal Labor government. There was no consultation with broader communities, and there was the devaluing of something that all Tasmanians—I will say it plainly here today—are proudly supportive of, and that is our World Heritage estate. We have an outstanding estate in Tasmania. What the previous government, my former state government, which was so swiftly swept into opposition two weeks ago, failed to understand was that it was devaluating that wonderful World Heritage estate. By including in the World Heritage estate valuable working forests that have sustained regional communities for generations—in areas that included quarries and rubbish tips—Tasmanians spoke very clearly.

I would like to tell you a story about a man on the east coast of Tasmania that I became aware of. Many years ago, he was given an opportunity under the Howard government Work for the Dole scheme. The work that he was engaged in was building a stone wall in the seaside village of Swansea on the east coast of Tasmania. I should also mention that at 29 years of age he had never had paid employment, and it was Work for the Dole that gave him an opportunity to participate in a team and explore skills that he did not know he actually had. After that period of time he discovered that he was actually very good at doing the work there and that he enjoyed the opportunity of going home to his family, to his wife and to his children, and saying, 'I did something worthwhile.' To his enduring credit, he was motivated enough after that Work for the Dole program to approach a local farmer and seek formal employment. To the enduring credit of the local farmer, 15 years later that worker is still there. It just goes to show what a fantastic opportunity and what a fantastic experience that program had been. In fact, that worker is living proof of the value of this kind of work training program to both individuals, in this case, but also to the community more broadly. I quote a Spanish philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset:

An 'unemployed' existence is a worse negation of life than death itself.

In the opportunity that this young man was given, he understood the value of having a job. It is not just about money; it is absolutely about self-respect—the individual's self-respect and, also, the respect that came from his family and his children, who saw him contributing to his community.

The Green Army can provide thousands of trainees with skills and experience and enhance their employment prospects while participating in projects that generate real and lasting benefits for the environment but also for their community. I see this, also, as an enormous benefit to my state of Tasmania and the country more broadly. It is a 'no-brainer', in the colloquial. This government's Green Army program has the potential to be one of the most successful in our country's history. It will become Australia's biggest ever environmental workforce, building to 15,000 participants by 2018 and being capable of delivering 1,500 on-the-ground environmental projects across the country. It is an important and practical initiative, as I will outline. In line with Mr Hunt's portfolio of clean air, clean land, clean water and the protection of heritage, the Green Army falls under the clean land part of that portfolio and the plan we have for the nation's environment.

There is also Landcare reform, with a theme of 'simple, local and long term'. I can say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is music to the ears of the farmers and volunteers that are so committed to Landcare reform in our country. Similarly, there is the project approval simplification via one-stop shops. This is, again, something that has frustrated so many proponents of worthwhile projects around the nation—not least of all in my home state of Tasmania.

Let's be quite clear, in response to the previous speaker: occupation health and safety is critical. In the case of the Green Army, all will be governed by the statutes, the regulations and the by-laws of state and territory regulations that come under the work health and safety acts. Service providers responsible for engaging and managing participants hold primary responsibility for health and safety of Green Army teams whilst undertaking Green Army project activities. I am very pleased that the government will implement a work health and safety audit scheme for the Green Army projects. It will be an audit of service providers and the projects—something that I do not remember occurring for the failed home insulation program that was launched in haste by the previous government. Quite frankly, being lectured by the opposition with regard to occupational health and safety and implementation, when you look at the NBN rollout and at the home insulation program, is hypocrisy of the first order. Naturally, all the appropriate insurances for relevant parties—personal accident and public and product liability insurance—will be put into place, consistent with previous National Green Jobs Corps programs. I would refer the previous speaker to those points.

In my electorate we are looking forward to cleaning up the Rubicon Estuary near Port Sorell. The 1,768 hectares site is widely recognised as one of Tasmania's most beautiful estuaries. The natural, social and economic values of the estuary and the region have made it home to one of the state's fastest growing populations. But its values have been drastically threatened by invasive estuarine weeds, particularly rice grass. A dedicated and effective eradication program is now essential to save the important environmental values of the Rubicon Estuary. When the project was first put forward, it described the 1,768 hectares as being widely recognised as one of Tasmania's most beautiful estuaries. Port Sorell is known also as the 'port of golden beaches'. The natural, social and economic values of the Port Sorell region have made it one of Tasmania's fastest growing populations. However, its values have been devastated, as I say, by estuarine weeds and particularly rice grass. The Narawntapu National Park and the Port Sorell conservation area are particularly threatened by these estuarine weeds, and a dedicated and effective eradication program is now essential to save the high conservation values of the Rubicon Estuary. It needs a substantial financial investment to kick-start a long-term eradication effort.

The Rubicon Estuary program is one of more than 150 projects that have already been committed to Australia-wide and will be delivered in the initial rollout. In addition, Minister Greg Hunt has called for further applications from local councils, community groups and natural resource management organisations to build the programs on the ground in the first 12 months to 250 projects nationally involving about 2½ thousand people. In my electorate of Lyons we will be keen to encourage groups to nominate potential projects.

Raising awareness is indeed critical. Every community, though, knows of issues that need fixing, that need arms and legs on the ground, be that cleaning up waterways, building infrastructure to mitigate against erosion on, for example, a coastal fringe or building a devil island. Green Army funding could finally see the giant Nile River log jam cleared after 16 years. A modest material contribution and people power are required to clear a jam that has taken on a life of its own. Significant unnecessary damage and flooding occurs on a significant portion of local farmer David Talbot's property every time it rains. Innovative projects no doubt will come from all around the country, and I look forward to seeing some of the very excellent projects that no doubt will come from your electorate, Deputy Speaker Broadbent, that we can use as examples in the future.

A dedicated Green Army crew could also rehabilitate the Wildwood property on the banks of the Mersey River at Deloraine. The property is owned by the local Rotary Club and is used for public recreation. It contains habitat for nationally threatened fauna such as the spotted-tail quoll, the green and gold frog, the eastern barred bandicoot and the Tasmanian devil. Participants would learn how to work on weed identification and treatment; development of a landscape plan; revegetation of native plants; and construction of tracks, tables, chairs, fencing and other infrastructure. These are practical life skills that will help the participants get real jobs at the conclusion of the project. Tasmanians in my electorate of Lyons can only benefit from the development and rollout of the Green Army into the largest standing environmental workforce in Australia's history.

Just as important as the environmental pluses for rural and regional areas Australia-wide will be the on-job training for young people who take part. Participants will receive a Green Army allowance as well as gaining valuable work skills and potential qualification in various areas of environmental remediation. Up to nine eligible participants and at least one team supervisor will constitute a Green Army team. The team supervisor will be engaged by the external service provider responsible for the program and paid a wage consistent with the gardening and landscaping services award. Just like the example in the Work for the Dole program at Swansea more than 15 years ago, the Green Army will provide opportunities for training for young Tasmanians between 17 and 24 years of age that will take them on to long-term employment opportunities.

Something like this is desperately needed in my home state and particularly in my electorate of Lyons, where youth unemployment is the highest in the country. One in five young people in my state are actively looking for work and unable to find it. According to the latest data, the unemployment rate among young people in some parts of the state, including my electorate of Lyons, is as high as 21 per cent, some of the worst in the country. The beauty of the Green Army training is that it will provide skills and discipline to set young people up for employment for life. Perseverance indeed is something that is a life skill that should be applauded.

I would like to quote Ronald Reagan, the former President of the United States:

We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

We are a government that are doing what we said we would do. We are delivering on the commitments that we made to the Australian people before the 7 September election. We are stopping the waste. We are going through methodically and delivering programs that will benefit the people of Australia. We are paying back the $667 billion of debt that will be left to my children and possibly their children if we do nothing and the $123 billion of deficits that were left by the previous government. We are rebuilding trust in government and helping all Australians to get ahead. I commend the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 to the House

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be contributing to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. This bill seeks to establish a new payment, the Green Army allowance, to pay those people participating in the government's Green Army Programme. It is, of course, a key component of the establishment of the Green Army Programme, but it does not establish the Green Army itself. The Green Army will be governed by agreements between the government and Green Army service providers and, unfortunately, the details of these agreements have not yet been developed, and neither have the tender documents that will outline the details of the Green Army Programme been provided to the opposition, despite our requests for the government to do so. So the details of how this program is actually going to work remain a mystery. Rather than reveal the details, the government is asking us to vote for a payment that will be part of a scheme we still know very little about, so it does make it very difficult to judge the merits of this program. We cannot be sure at this point how it will work.

Let's be honest: at the moment, the government's record on environmental management, whether it is what can only be described as regressive moves on climate change or undoing protections on the world's largest marine reserves, hardly inspires confidence that this program will be a glittering success. Let us not forget this government's position on cattle grazing in the beautiful high country of Victoria and that is just after six months in office.

So we do have some significant concerns about how this program will work. Of course we want to do everything we possibly can to help young people into work and to get ready for work. That being the case, we want this program to be the best it can be. We, like everyone, want to make sure that the Green Army participants will be protected if they are injured, but there is no clarity about what the rules will be. We want to make sure that participants get appropriate training, that they get access to quality support to assist them in the transition to work. We want to know what risks there are in terms of displacement of existing workers. Put simply, we have not received adequate assurances that these matters are being addressed. We are concerned that this bill does not provide sufficient protection for participants in this Green Army scheme.

As I said, in regard to occupational health and safety, it specifically concerns workers compensation and rehabilitation. We believe greater consideration needs to be given to the implications of why participants are not deemed 'employees'. This exemption means that participants are not afforded protection under a range of Commonwealth laws including the Fair Work Act 2009, Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

We are also concerned about the possible risks the bill may pose to the employment opportunities of existing workers. The government really needs to assure Australians that employees will not lose their job because an employer instead prefers a Green Army participant.

We have very considerable concerns about training provisions. I want to focus my attention now on these matters. In previous iterations of this program, training was in fact a compulsory component of the scheme—whether it was the Howard government's Green Army where there was a required program of accredited training, or under Labor's 2009 amendments where the program committed participants to 130 hours of accredited training. This meant the participants in the programs under previous Liberal and Labor governments had real opportunities to build their skills so that they could then take them on to future work.

Yet, under the current scheme, the government has said that, while training is a component of the program, it will be negotiated with each participant and there will be no minimum hours. So we have moved the second reading amendments today, highlighting our concerns about the lack of detail, and we want to make sure these matters are addressed between the time that it takes to get this bill through the House and before it gets to be voted on in the Senate. The reason we all want to see this scheme work is that at the heart of it is something we care very deeply about—getting young people into work. We do know that the very difficult transition from school to work is unfortunately becoming increasingly hard.

These challenges were highlighted in the Council of Australian Government Reform Council's recent report Education in Australia 2012: Five Years of Performance, about which I have spoken in the House before. The chapter I want to particularly refer people to is the one dedicated to students' transition from year 12 into work. The findings are very concerning. The report found that from 2006 to 2011, the proportion of 17- to 24-year-olds who were fully engaged in post-school study, training or work, had fallen by more than one percentage point to 72.7 per cent. We know that more than a quarter of Australians aged between 17 and 24 are not fully participating in work or study after they finish school.

Despite nearly 30 years of decline in the rate of youth unemployment in this country, it is clear that the global financial crisis has had a dramatic impact on young people's employment prospects. It is the case that youth unemployment today in Australia is far too high, sitting at more than 12 per cent, double the overall rate of unemployment. More than one in three unemployed Australians are aged between 15 and 24. Unfortunately, it seems that the problems are becoming rapidly worse.

Just this morning, the Brotherhood of St Laurence released a report which analysed new data on the increase in youth unemployment in particular areas around Australia. This makes for very sobering reading. Their analysis shows that, in at least one area, over the past two years youth unemployment has risen by as much as 88 per cent. In other areas it has grown by similar amounts. It is clear that in some places around the country youth unemployment is becoming increasingly entrenched. The report indicates that, under current trends, youth unemployment could hit 46 per cent in parts of Australia by 2016. This is a serious wake-up call for all of us to say that we must do more to help young people into work or study. The bill will only support young people if the training provisions in the scheme are the best that they can be. It will only be a success if it facilitates a transition to work. What none of us would want to see is for it to develop into a low-paid, low-skilled workforce. I want to emphasise again that that is why the training provisions of this program are so important. The OECD report Learning for Jobs indicates that:

Vocational education and training can play a central role in preparing young people for work, developing the skills of adults and responding to the labour-market needs of the economy.

Australia's changing economy requires a highly skilled workforce. Many of the unskilled jobs that existed even 10 years ago no longer exist. They have been replaced either by new technology or the jobs have been moved overseas

I just want to emphasise how critical it is that the Green Army proposal gets the training provisions right, and it certainly is not at this point. The training must also reflect changing employer needs and build a strong foundation of basic and transferable skills for participants so they have every opportunity to transition from this Green Army scheme into proper employment. That is why we are requesting again of the government that they provide further clarification on the details of the training aspects of this program.

We know that we need stronger investment in skills and training more broadly and a high-quality vocational education and training system, and that is why we so strongly support our TAFE system. Many of us have been very concerned to see the huge cuts, particularly in my home state of Victoria. There has been $1.2 billion ripped out of TAFE in Victoria since the Liberals came to office in 2010. This has resulted in nine per cent fewer students enrolling in TAFE in Victoria during the first three-quarters of 2013. That is such a short-sighted view of the training needs of our country.

We understand how important it is to invest in TAFE and to invest in vocational education and training. We do want to make sure that this bill is improved. As the shadow minister for the environment indicated, we will not oppose the passage of the bill in the House but we do want to see the bill improved before it gets to the Senate. All of the issues that are referred to in the second reading amendment must be attended to, especially the issues around the training needs of young people and making sure that their safety is looked after when they are part of these Green Army programs. Youth unemployment and participation is a critical issue for our country, a critical issue for young people and a critical issue for the economy. We have to do everything in our power to make sure that it does not become a crisis.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Program) Bill 2014—the coalition's landmark legislation to muster a practical grassroots action group that will take on local environment and heritage conservation projects across Australia. It is an exciting concept. It is a plan that underscores the government's commitment to the environment. This concept is well on the way to becoming reality with this legislation, which will clarify social security arrangements for participants receiving the Green Army allowance.

The Green Army will see young Australians aged 17 to 24 gain training and experience in environmental and heritage conservation fields and learn about careers in conservation management. The program will start in July with the rollout of 250 projects and about 2,500 people undertaking on-the-ground environmental activities in the first year. It will grow to become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce, with 15,000 participants by 2018. A diverse range of young people are set to be involved, including school leavers, gap year students, graduates and job seekers. Up to nine eligible participants and at least one team supervisor will constitute a Green Army team. There will be six-monthly placements in what, for many young Australians eager to gain work-like experience, activities and training, will serve as an alternative to income support. Through the amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 that are introduced in this bill, a Green Army allowance will be paid to participants who, at the same time, will not be allowed to receive a social security benefit or social security pension. Team supervisors will be paid a wage consistent with the gardening and landscaping services award.

If I may turn to my region, I would like to spend a few minutes outlining the huge benefits in store from approved Green Army projects at Bribie Island and Burpengary Creek. Buckleys Hole Conservation Park sits on 90 hectares of the south-west corner of beautiful Bribie Island, 70 kilometres north of Brisbane, and it is protected under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. It is also protected under the international Ramsar Convention. The focal point of this high-value, natural precinct is its freshwater wetland—the most important wetland within my electorate of Longman and the Moreton Bay Regional Council. It is, in fact, one of the nation's key wetlands because of the diversity of birdlife that inhabits and visits the park.

Aside from the wetlands, Buckleys Hole includes portions of Pumicestone Passage, one of the eight major flyways for migratory birds—some of which are listed as endangered or vulnerable—coming from the high arctic of Siberia and Alaska to feed during the northern winter. Buckleys Hole is also the site of a major tea-tree forest. That makes it a prime area of study as the reforestation with tea-trees of degraded wetlands is thought to be greatly advantageous in terms of carbon sequestration efforts. The park hosts other vulnerable or endangered species, including the acid frog.

To preserve and maintain an internationally acclaimed wetland is clearly a favourable outcome for the local, state and Australian community. But more than that, urgency is afoot. Currently Buckleys Hole is subjected to great pressure. The Buckleys Hole Green Army project will help secure a vital wetland that has recently come under siege from several angles. It will propagate and plant thousands of trees and shrubs to replace an array of defined pest plants. These trees and shrubs will also stabilise the embankment around the wetland and other areas at risk. Seawater incursions into Buckleys Hole during king tides have in the past severely compromised the embankment. The project will endeavour to upgrade security and surveillance of the car park, a known trouble spot. There have been many complaints about traffic and hooning in the park, as well as litter and the dumping of domestic waste. As well, it is hoped the Buckley's Hole Green Army will be in a position to upgrade explanatory and other signage, steering traffic away from the pedestrians and cyclists who use the roads and tracks to the park.

The Buckleys Hole Green Army workers will receive a substantial environmental education. They will learn about valuable and pest flora and fauna species and the potential devastation from human impacts on a fragile ecosystem. They will gain an appreciation of the value of revegetation as a tool to protect and enhance Australia's environment.

Also on Bribie Island, a Green Army project has been approved to restore and protect degraded sections of the picturesque Woorim Beach. The plan entails removing pest plants, fencing off areas, propagating and planting thousands of trees and shrubs along the foreshore, repairing various beach accesses, upgrading stormwater exits to better protect Moreton Bay and improving public education on dune protection with signage, field days and education.

The planting of trees, shrubs and groundcover along the dunes and foreshore will help the dunes to recover and rebuild. Restoration of the eroded beach will see it fit again for recreational use, while renewal of the fauna habitats will benefit native and migratory birds and endangered loggerhead turtles—erosion has destroyed some loggerhead nesting areas. The work will also reduce the sediment load into Moreton Bay, a major cause of ocean degradation.

Our remaining Green Army project moves west to another special part of the Longman electorate. Burpengary Creek catchment encompasses 7,960 hectares—6.5 per cent of the former Caboolture shire. Two distinctive creeks, Little Burpengary Creek and Burpengary Creek, drain the catchment. The catchments upper sections start in the D'Aguilar Range in the north west of Longman. Burpengary Creek runs down into the prime residential area of Morayfield around the township of Burpengary and spills into southern Deception Bay. Unfortunately, Burpengary Creek is in a perilous state, with erosion exacerbated by flooding. Due to the encroachment of urbanisation, only 6 per cent of natural vegetation is left within the footprint of the greater Caboolture area.

In the heart of the creek catchment, lies a rare, giant 350-year-old fig tree, supporting a mini ecosystem within its branches and demanding protection and preservation. This approved Green Army project involves the removal of lantana and other pest flora from the banks of Burpengary Creek and revegetation of the site with thousands of native trees and shrub plantings propagated at the nursery of the well-known Caboolture Region Environmental Education Centre or CREEC.

Additionally, the project would like to accomplish the building of a boardwalk climbing metres into the tree canopy to give visitors an overview of the creek and divert them from directly impacting and eroding the riverbank. The catchment and adjacent areas reveal an alarming count of threatened species—46 plants and 60 animals. This Green Army project would help these species recover. The plants under threat would be bolstered by the nursery propagation of their species and subsequent replanting. The vulnerable riverbank fauna would then have more protective cover to rebuild their numbers. As well, other animals and birdlife would be attracted back to the region. Rampant weed growth, strangling food, cover and nesting trees has resulted in bird species around the creek plummeting from 123 to 45 over recent years. Formerly, there were 127 butterfly species along Burpengary Creek. Now, the figure is around 40.

Friends of CREEC, a not-for-profit organisation of volunteers operating from the Caboolture Region Environmental Education Centre, have told me from experience that if 10 people work on such a project, they, through family, friends and other contacts educate and influence another 40 people. Those 40, in turn, advance this knowledge through their social and business circles. And it goes on, exponentially. Potentially, thousands of citizens are exposed to the practice of bringing nature and the built environment into some sort of harmony.

This captures perfectly what the coalition's entire Green Army program is intent on achieving. In the next step, the government will shortly be undertaking a tender process for service providers which will oversee the Green Army initiatives through the nation. Once selected, the service providers will engage with the local Green Army teams to develop and manage activities and report regularly on progress. The Green Army will take a leaf from the book of the Howard government's celebrated Green Corps program of 1996.

The Green Corps worked by providing young people participating in environmental and heritage projects with improved career and employment prospects through accredited training and personal development. The Howard government's Green Corps program propagated and planted more than 14 million trees, erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, cleared more than 50,000 weeds and built or maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking tracks or boardwalks.

And what did the succeeding Labor government do? As with so many other innovations of the Howard government, Labor ripped the Green Corps program apart, rebadging it in a way that disincentivised participants, disenfranchised local communities and discarded the needs of the environment. By 2012 it was finally terminated. A grown-up government, which commits itself to a cleaner environment through clean air, clean land, clean water and heritage protection, is back in charge.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House and to thank now Minister for the Environment and his parliamentary secretary, Senator Birmingham, for visiting the locations of the Green Army that I have outlined tonight. I think the Minister for the Environment first visited our region in 2010, when I was a candidate. He visited Woorim Beach and he visited CREEC, where the second program will be unfolding. And in the last term of parliament the now environment minister visited the electorate several times, once again to meet with the environment groups that will be participating directly in this program.

Then, of course, in the last election campaign Senator Birmingham, the parliamentary secretary, once again visited CREEC, to meet with the environmental groups involved in the Burpengary project and also to commit the coalition government to delivering these programs. It is a great tragedy for the local environment and my community that we were not fortunate enough to form government in 2010, because perhaps these environmental programs might have been concluded by now. But it is exciting to be sitting on this side of the chamber post the election so that the new coalition government can go about delivering this scheme, to have a real and substantial positive impact for the local environment in my community.

The coalition's Green Army will make a tangible difference to the environment and communities, replenishing and protecting habitat, weeding, planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers and restoring cultural heritage sites. Marshalling 15,000 participants, fostering teamwork, local ownership and community spirit, the Green Army stands to deliver a broad and lasting national legacy. I commend this bill to the House.