Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, a policy that will achieve some key outcomes in my electorate of Bass. It addresses much-needed environmental works in my community, it delivers skills, knowledge, attitudes, experience, a training wage and supervision—vital, given the unacceptably high unemployment rate we have in Northern Tasmania, sadly the highest in the country. Also, it enhances not only the environmental values of some of these beautiful parts of my community but also—perhaps more importantly—enhances the social, recreational and business amenity of many of these areas.

My electorate of Bass will become part of a 15,000-strong Green Army across the country, building on the Howard government's successful Green Corps, which was established, as we know, in 1996. And, as we know, the Green Corps was torn up under Labor, rebadged and, like so many other Labor policies, failed to achieve the intended effects. By terminating the Green Corps, Labor terminated opportunities for young people to upskill and take pride in their environment themselves. We will restore those opportunities.

The Green Army, the cleaner environment plan and the coalition's Direct Action Plan for climate change are not discrete programs. They represent the restoration of some key ideas central to a 21st century sustainable development policy. Let me state for the record that sustainable development is not a policy objective that is the property of any party. Certainly not of the Greens, who self-righteously and unjustifiably claim a monopoly on environmental matters.

The Green Army puts the triple bottom-line objectives of sustainable development at the forefront of outcomes. It seeks local solutions to environmental, community and economic challenges. The Green Army projects will turn those challenges into opportunities that add social and economic value to the immediacy of environmental restoration work. The Green Army will demonstrate, in a practical way—an irony that should not be lost on the Greens—that there are tangible linkages between economic, social and environmental issues. These projects will deliver enhanced-skills training for young people fully engaged in the aspirations of their communities, to secure real sustainable development outcomes.

The Green Corps demonstrated real benefits for young people beyond better skills. It improved their sense of worth; their potential to be leaders and mentors within their peer group; their sense of having a purpose and a plan for a day, a week and a month ahead; the absolute rewards of engaging with community-based projects where they lived, worked and played; being part of a team; developing a sense of mateship; and, most importantly, being valued as a contributor to a project that brings pride to a community. The Green Army will replicate those attributes.

The coalition's election commitments to Bass demonstrate an awareness of how the three pillars of sustainable development can produce integrated approaches to social, economic and environmental challenges. This approach is best identified by the coalition's commitment to the Tamar River Recovery Plan. It is the centrepiece of a range of other project commitments centred on what is a magnificent estuary. The environmental restoration will, in turn, enable and support economic investment. The Tamar River Recovery Plan, ostensibly an environmental project, is in fact central to northern Tasmania's capacity to attract people to visit, work and invest in our region. It is a critical, social and economic enabler for the Northern Tasmanian region.

The associated projects funded by the coalition include the $6 million I have secured for the North Bank project that will turn an unattractive industrial estate on the river into beautiful parkland with a playground, a sound shell and a range of family-friendly amenities. It incorporates a hotel development on a disused silo site, with a potential bridge walkway link over and along the banks of the Tamar estuary into the existing sea port development—a showpiece for the city of Launceston—through to the magnificent Launceston Cataract Gorge.

The Tamar River Recovery Plan has a number of major components. Importantly, it targets long-neglected environmental degradation of the Tamar estuary, especially the sediment build-up and the unsightly mudflats that develop in the upper catchment within sight of the CBD. This has restricted access and use of the estuary, and a range of nutrient pollutants flow into the catchment from the ageing combined stormwater-sewerage system. I am very proud to have secured the resources needed for the Tamar River Recovery Plan, because strategy without resources is illusion.

We have $2.2 million to be invested in the activities of the Launceston Flood Authority—sediment raking and bathymetric surveying of sediment removal. We will succeed where Labor failed. Prior to the 2010 election, the then state environment minister, Michelle O'Byrne, promised $6.65 million for the Tamar River over three years to undertake a dredging program. She ensured that there would be an immediate start to remove 1,000 cubic metres of silt, supported by an ongoing annual maintenance regime to shift an extra 50,000 cubic metres of silt. The Labor government in Tasmania failed to support a healthier river. They did not deliver on that promise. We will deliver on that promise, and we will support a healthier Tamar River.

We have also secured $300,000 in resources for important repair works and preventing riverbank degradation. We have $500,000 to invest in quick wins to prevent sewage inflows into the Tamar River during heavy rain events, and also to fund scoping works to determine how best to modernise the archaic sewerage infrastructure system in Launceston.

The Green Army projects approved for Bass will provide opportunities for young people in northern Tasmania aged 17 to 24 to gain training and experience in environmental and heritage conservation fields and to explore careers in those areas. As I often say to our young people during school and other presentations, 'It does not matter where you start, providing you make a start.' The Green Army Program will help many young people to start work.

In Bass, the government is committed to Green Army projects in two areas: Kings Bridge to Duck Reach and Kings Bridge to the Tailrace. I have also prepared a number of new project proposals, and will be fighting for these projects to be delivered for our community.

A number of those opposite have made some mendacious claims about payments to Green Army participants. Let me put some facts on the record: the Green Army allowance is higher than Labor's National Green Jobs Corps, the Green Corps program, Newstart and youth allowance. For example, under the Green Army Program a 21-year-old participant will receive a fortnightly allowance of between $885.60 and—(Time expired)