Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to continue my contribution from yesterday. I was speaking about the terrific Green Army project that we have announced for Lorne which is a very important town along the Great Ocean Road and a mecca for tourism. We will be cleaning up the Lorne St George River tramway track to the west of Point Grey. Walking tracks and adventure are so important in the Great Ocean Road region, and this project will add to the tourism assets of our great region. I commend the Great Ocean Road Coast Committee as well as volunteer organisations, such as Lornecare and Friends of Queens Park, for their preliminary work on this project.

Another wonderful project is a Green Army project in Apollo Bay, further down the Great Ocean Road and another wonderful tourist town in my seat of Corangamite. The Barham River Green Army restoration project will enhance the health of the river between Apollo Bay and the Marengo Flora Reserve. This project will include extensive weed removal and the revegetation of the banks of the Barham River. It is another very important project for the region.

In Colac the fourth Green Army project, which will be rolled out in the foreseeable future, is the preservation and enhanced works at the Barongarook Creek. Barongarook Creek forms an important part of the local river system and the project will involve doing quite a lot of work in weed removal, revegetation and the inclusion of some interpretive signage. Again, we see a great commitment by the government to the environment. We see the funding of wonderful local projects which would otherwise not be funded. Very disappointingly, of course, these were not funded by the previous Labor government. We are also building on the terrific work of the Howard government. Its successful Green Corps program, established in 1996, propagated and planted over 14 million trees, erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, cleared more than 50,000 hectares of weeds and constructed or maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking tracks or boardwalks.

Although the Green Army program supports important local projects, to me, as the member of Corangamite, they are not the only important environmental projects we are undertaking. We have also announced a $300,000 program for a 'Solar Surf Coast'. This is a project to help fund the installation of solar panels for community groups, surf-lifesaving clubs, schools and senior citizens groups. It is a wonderful opportunity for so many communities along the Surf Coast, in my electorate, to apply for funding and to get the support they need to install solar panels. I am a big supporter of renewable energy and particularly solar energy. In a country such as ours where each home has the capacity to generate its own power—to be its own mighty power station—this project provides an important incentive for the use of renewable energy in Corangamite.

This is in stark contrast to what the previous government did to help the environment. It introduced a carbon tax, which is a tax on jobs, a tax on manufacturing and a tax on every family in my electorate of Corangamite and across the country. It is a $7.6 billion hit to the economy, costing each and every family $550 a year. Consider the damage that it has done to small business, which has not been compensated, and also to manufacturing—a $1.1 billion hit on manufacturing. I represent a very important farming district in my electorate and farmers are also adversely affected. For example, dairy farmers will be hit with a $7,000 a year impost as result of this dreadful and economically destructive tax. I say to the people of WA, Labor is leading you in a merry dance. They have no intention of looking after your interests. We are doing everything we can to abolish the dreadful carbon tax. Labor is saying one thing in WA and another thing here in Canberra. If Labor were to have its way, it would impose a carbon tax on diesel fuel, which would cripple many more small businesses, farmers and other enterprises. That could only mean one thing—job losses.

At a time when we are working so hard to give young people an opportunity to develop new skills and new experiences in the workplace, you would think there would be bipartisan support for what is a very positive initiative. But what we see in the amendment before the House today is members opposite obstructing another great idea that primarily supports young people in our community. I reflect on the youth unemployment rates in my city of Geelong. The figure for young people aged 15 to 24 is an alarming 14.3 per cent. We are delivering a program which will help young people to build pride and develop the skills that will lead them to many other opportunities. It is very disappointing to see some of the comments made by members opposite, by the Greens and even by the ACTU president, Ged Kearney, who has said:

This whole concept of the Green Army is the latest attempt by the Abbott Government to cut wages [and] cut conditions of working people in this country.

It is a pity that Ms Kearney, the Labor Party and the Greens simply do not appreciate this program. This program is creating new opportunities and a whole new pathway to employment. Her statement is frankly a load of absolute rubbish. What I would say to those opposite, to the ACTU and to the Greens is come to my region and see how destructive youth unemployment is in places like Geelong and Colac. I can tell them that this is a wonderful opportunity for so many young people and it is a particularly important part of our efforts to combat youth unemployment. We are doing something. We are giving young people a go. We are helping them to build pride in their work. We are making them feel valued and like they are part of a team, and we are helping them to move towards their next opportunity. We are also tackling important local environmental projects, which unfortunately were ignored by the Labor Party. This is a wonderfully positive scheme, a proud initiative of environment minister Greg Hunt and the coalition government, and I proudly commend this bill to the House.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 claims to address the current crisis facing our unemployed youth. However, the bill unfortunately raises more questions than it answers. Today's labour market is tightening. In February 2014 our unemployment rate hit six per cent for the first time in recent memory. The Abbott government has promised one million new jobs, but that is little more than a mirage on the horizon.

In these circumstances, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find employment, particularly for Australia's youth. Figures released by the Brotherhood of St Laurence in February show that 12.4 per cent of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 were out of work in January of this year. The figures are even higher in Melbourne's west, where over 13 per cent of young people are not able to find work in the current job market—more than double the official unemployment rate. This is to say nothing of the ambitious young people who are underemployed or stuck in temporary work, unable to find the security of a permanent job. The first steps in starting a career are hard enough without a marketplace that will not give you a chance. It places these young people in an extremely vulnerable position, forcing them to trade away their work entitlements for any chance at employment. Youth unemployment rates are reaching crisis levels, and they look unlikely to ease any time soon in Melbourne's west.

There are tough times facing the manufacturing industry in my electorate. With 2½ thousand jobs gone at the Toyota plant in Altona and with more than 1,000 jobs at risk of disappearing at the BAE Systems shipyards in Williamstown, the traditional career path taken by many young people in Melbourne's west, into to a world of manufacturing, will no longer be available. Jobs at the businesses who supply these two companies will also disappear, making opportunities scarce for those trying to enter the working world. The jobs marketplace for the youth of Melbourne's west is not a promising one.

We need to do all that we can to get these young people into work. Through the right training, work experience, incentives and, most importantly, the right level of government support, Labor believe that we can help these young people to find jobs that are right for them. Labor support work and training programs as a pathway to get these young people into the workforce.

Work and training programs that are aimed at improving our environment will have an additional benefit, for we all know that the natural beauty that we find in our parks, reserves and beaches adds something immeasurable to the enjoyment of our life. They are places to gather with friends and family, to get active, to celebrate the most important events in our lives and to share our lives with others. Looking after these public places, which add so much to our lives, is essential for the soul of our nation. It is also a moral imperative. The words of Antoine de Saint Exupery are often quoted, yet they still ring as true today as they ever did: 'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.' So it is our obligation to care for our natural environment so that our descendants may enjoy it as much as we do.

The previous Labor government took these words to heart. It introduced a raft of both immediate and long-term measures to protect our nation's environment. It added new national parks to the World Heritage List, including the Ningaloo Reef, and it added the Koongarra area to Kakadu National Park, so that these parks would have domestic and international protections. Most significantly, the previous Labor government created the most comprehensive system of national marine parks in the world, covering thousands of miles of Australian coastline and sea, with the same protections given to our national parks.

Protecting the environment is a core Labor value. Unfortunately, however, this trait is not shared by our colleagues across the floor in the coalition. The Abbott government's environmental record after only six months in office is abysmal. It has disallowed the classification of the Murray River from the Darling to the sea as an 'endangered community'. It has abandoned efforts to have Queensland's Cape York added to the World Heritage List. It has approved every request for a development in one of Australia's brightest jewels, the Great Barrier Reef, despite UNESCO threatening to list the reef as being 'in danger'. It has secretly rolled back the marine system created under Labor by undoing the management plans that gave the system effect. This is a government that has approached the World Heritage Committee and asked it to delist 74,000 hectares of protected forests. This is a Prime Minister who has claimed: 'We have quite enough national parks. We have quite enough locked up forests already.' This is a government that cannot be trusted to look after our natural environment.

However, the Green Army Program in the bill under consideration is one of the few programs introduced by the Abbott government that could actually go some way to protecting the environment, even in Melbourne's west. Many of our parks, beaches and reserves would benefit from a team of young people to care for and maintain these valuable community areas. Indeed, many of the parks in Melbourne's west are already lucky enough to benefit from the support of the community. I applaud the work of voluntary organisations such as Friends of Lower Kororoit Creek and their president, Geoff Mitchelmore, as well as our Landcare volunteers who work throughout Melbourne's west. They work tirelessly to ensure that our parks and gardens are kept beautiful.

An employment program that provides even more resources for these public places to be cared for and provides our youth with training and work opportunities would clearly provide great benefit to my community. After all, programs like this are a part of Labor's heritage. The Landcare and Environment Action Program, LEAP, was introduced by the Keating government in 1992. It provided work opportunities for young people and fostered good environmental outcomes. This bill proposes to create a similar employment program, although this is hard to see from the grandiose statements of the environment minister. He is at pains to convince us that this is an environmental program, mainly because the government does not have any other coherent environmental policy. In his second reading speech, he touts the Green Army as, 'a central component of the government's cleaner environment plan,' and claims that it will, 'deliver tangible benefits for the environment'. In the explanatory memorandum too, the Green Army's credentials are vaunted. It is described as making, 'a real difference to the environment and local communities through projects such as restoring and protecting habitat, weeding, planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers and restoring cultural heritage places'.

But let me be clear: the bill under consideration before us is for an employment program. It is primarily designed not to look after the environment but to get young people back into work. This is clear from the program's explicit focus on young people between the ages of 17 to 24, even though there are people of all ages who have the time and passion to get involved in conservation work. It is clear from the environment minister's frequent references to the Green Army as a workforce, which is even contained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill before us today. There is nothing wrong with this. A program designed with skill can achieve the aims of both creating employment opportunities and caring for the environment. Labor has been proud to support this form of employment program throughout its various iterations, from the Landcare and Environment Action Program I mentioned before to bills like the one before us today.

As an employment program, the Green Army should give to its workers the rights and protections bestowed on all employees under Australian employment law. It is this aspect of the bill under consideration that is most concerning to me, for the bill before us explicitly excludes the Green Army workers from many of the protections awarded to Commonwealth employees. It excludes Green Army members from the definition of 'worker' under the Work Health and Safety Act. It excludes Green Army members from the definition of 'employee' under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Most importantly, it excludes Green Army members from the definition of 'employee' under the Fair Work Act.

Cutting out Green Army workers from these three crucial areas of employment protection has a significant impact on the legal rights of these workers. If excluded by the Work, Health and Safety Act, the registered training organisations running the Green Army program will not be required to follow the occupational health and safety requirements in relation to Green Army workers. Similarly, being excluded from the ambit of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act means that, in the event of injury during the Green Army program, Green Army workers will not be covered by Commonwealth compensation. This could potentially lead to the unjust situation where the supervisors of Green Army programs would be covered in the event of workplace injury, but the Green Army members they organise would not.

Of most concern is the exclusion of Green Army workers from the ambit of the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act provides crucial protections to workers. It protects them from unfair dismissal, allows them to request time off and ensures that they will be paid a minimum wage. If this bill is passed, however, none of these statutory protections will be available to Green Army workers. This would have significant implications for the rights of workers undertaking the program—the workers who, let us not forget, are young, inexperienced, eager for work and desperate to get a foot into the door of the employment market, and many of whom will be passionate about the environment and keen to do something that has an impact on the world but will not understand what the loss of these important workplace rights will entail.

This is a significant limitation on the rights of a particularly vulnerable group of people in our society, yet there is no detail contained in the bill on the implications of changes to workers' rights, benefits and protections. There is no detail given about the alternative wages that will be offered to Green Army workers. This is a significant issue that requires clarification. Unfortunately, the Green Army seems to be headed by Sergeant Schultz, in the form of the environment minister, who knows nothing about the details of these plans.

More discussion and analysis is required before we can be sure that the level of protection given to the Green Army workers is justifiable. For example, who sets the wage that workers will be receiving? Is it the government or the private service provider who is 'responsible for the disbursement of Green Army allowances', according to the explanatory memorandum? According to what criteria will these wages be justified? Will a 17-year-old Green Army worker be paid the same wages as a graduate with an environment degree? After all, the Abbott government is aiming to attract a large pool of graduates to the Green Army program.

This is not the only area where a startling lack of detail accompanies the government's claims. We only need to look to the Abbott government's promises about the training opportunities afforded by the Green Army program to see more sweeping statements and no precise detail. The Abbott government seems keen to highlight the training opportunities offered by the Green Army program. The explanatory memorandum frequently mentions the 'hands-on, practical skills, training and experience' that these young people will encounter. In the second reading speech too, the environment minister mentions that 'Green Army participants will have the opportunity to develop job-ready skills and to undertake training'. But what are these job-ready skills that these programs will teach? Will academic training programs be offered to workers, or will manual skills development be the focus? Which industries will the government be preparing these workers to enter? How much training will workers receive for their work?

It is even unclear whether training will be offered to every worker in the Green Army program. The draft statement of requirements outlines that 'the training component of the programme will be negotiated with each participant as part of the participant agreement'. It gives no guarantees that training will be offered to all participants in the program. It places the onus of negotiating this training on the people in the most vulnerable bargaining position—young people who are desperate for work. It is hard to believe such an unequal bargaining position will result in the best training outcomes for Green Army workers.

Another concern raised by the bill is its potential to displace existing workers. There are many hard-working environmental workers across our communities who fulfil important roles honed with years of experience. Many of these workers may not make much more than the minimum wage. Yet, with an army of workers on training allowances, the potential for these workers to be displaced is significant. How will the government ensure that the jobs of these workers will not be lost, or that in a time of shrinking budgets the skills of these workers will not have been cast off for Green Army trainees who are being paid below the minimum wage? How will the government design the program to prevent this from happening?

This bill poses far more questions than it answers. Unfortunately, it will be our young people who suffer the most from this lack of detail. The youth of Australia—and particularly the youth of Melbourne's west—are facing tough employment conditions. They will need help in navigating the continuing slide of the employment market to find secure, stable work. An employment program like the one this bill describes can help transition young people into this secure, stable work. It can do so while caring for the parks, rivers and beaches that are so important to us all, but it should not exclude our young people from basic employment protections with a vague sweep of its arm.

The government needs to justify why it is taking these employment protections away. It needs to outline what the consequences of this lack of protection will be, how it will mitigate these consequences and what the offsetting benefits are to the participants in these programs. It needs to specify what sort of wages and training benefits the Green Army program will offer to participants. It needs to detail the procedures in place to ensure that this program will not take away jobs from those already undertaking environmental works in our communities.

The Abbott government has failed to provide the level of detail in this bill. It needs to stop acting like an opposition who cannot think past three-second sound bites and provide some detail about how the Green Army program will support and protect workers in practice.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. It is a fantastic program and initiative being launched by the government in July this year. The policy covers two things that I am very passionate about: one is the environment, and the other is youth welfare. In my electorate of La Trobe, we are now committed to four Green Army projects: a nature reserve mountain biking network, National Rhododendron Gardens in Olinda, the south-eastern Dandenong Ranges protection program and Shangri-La Wildlife Shelter. I will now look at each of those programs separately.

First of all is the nature reserve mountain biking network. Mountain bike trails attract a large group of enthusiastic participants, and the Green Army proposal will look at developing crown land in La Trobe to make environmentally sensitive changes for this to happen.

The Beaconsfield Nature Conservation Reserve is one location being considered, along with other crown land in Cockatoo and Gembrook. The project will see the construction of sustainable trails as well as weed control and the preservation of heritage. We will work with the Cardinia Environmental Coalition and the wider community to build an internationally approved, staggered-loop design mountain bike track system. The community will benefit in many ways from this—improved fitness and health of local residents, improved level of wellbeing as the people connect to nature, and benefits to local traders from the influx of trail users.

The environment will also benefit in many ways, as building sustainable trails will guarantee long-term protection of the land. Mountain bike riders have shown themselves to be highly motivated and willing to put many volunteer hours back into the areas they ride. Weed control will also be improved and regulated with maintenance on the trail. I would like to thank Malcolm Doswell for submitting this proposal and hope that other organisations—like the local Friends group, the Fat Tyre Flyers Mountain Bike Club, Full Gas Pedallers, Yarra Ranges Mountain Bikers, the Dirtriders Mountain Bike Club and the Cardinia Environmental Coalition will also greatly benefit from this Green Army project.

Another planned Green Army project is for the National Rhododendron Gardens in Olinda. The lovely town of Olinda is in the Dandenong Ranges, and nearby are the iconic National Rhododendron Gardens—and I love these gardens. There are more than 15,000 rhododendrons in the gardens, and they share the stage with 12,000 azaleas, 3,000 camellias and, amazingly, 250,000 daffodils. Located only a short distance from Olinda, the 100-acre gardens offer a fantastic opportunity to see one of the region's premier garden sites. Thousands of people visit these gardens each year, especially since the Liberal state government was elected and removed the entry fee for admission. The Green Army project will assist the rhododendron society to maintain and further develop the 100 acres of botanical gardens, the main focus being on weeding of invasive species, care and protection of native fauna through the construction of bird breeding boxes and the construction of walking paths or boardwalks. The community will benefit by making this unique asset in La Trobe even better. In October each year we have the internationally recognised Blossom Festival. A number of Japanese and Chinese tourists attend the gardens for this, and it is quite spectacular. I would like to thank Mike Hammer, who initially put this application in back in 2010 and has been a great ambassador for the gardens. I would also like to thank all of the other committee members and all of the volunteers who help in the rhododendron gardens.

The next project is the south-eastern Dandenong Ranges protection program, which will greatly benefit from the Green Army project. This project will focus around the Dandenong Ranges, in the southern and eastern areas surrounding the iconic Puffing Billy corridor. This corridor provides an opportunity to establish a significant biolink stretching from the Dandenong Ranges to the west to the Bunyip State Park in the east. These works will complement works already being undertaken by environmental volunteer groups, including the community weed alliance in the Dandenongs, the Southern Ranges Environment Alliance and Puffing Billy. It will build on the works of the Urban Fringe Weed Management Initiative, which combines the efforts of council, Melbourne Water, and Parks Victoria. Tasks will include revegetation, woody weed control, wandering trad control—and I will talk a bit more about that later—nest box insulation, and monitoring and treatment of climbing ivy. It will encapsulate a range of awareness and training opportunities for private landowners.

The project will improve the tourism and the amenity values of the iconic Dandenong Ranges and will support the work of many environmental groups, providing valuable ground assistance. It will also improve connectivity of multiple-use trails in the parks, bushland reserves and trackside properties of the Puffing Billy railway. The project will begin to deliver a consistent and effective weed management program for private landowners adjacent to public land managers. I would like to thank the following people for their continued efforts in weed control in the area and support of the Green Army proposal: Bill Incoll, Jane Hollands, Darcy Duggan, Xander Groverland and Glenn Brooks-MacMillan. Glenn is the facilitator of the Southern Ranges Environmental Alliance. I recently had a great meeting with the team up in Ferny Creek, off Jacka Street, where a great initiative took place. They would approach landowners saying that they had, for example, holly or sycamores or wandering trad or ivy on their properties, and the group then worked with the private residents to remove those weeds. Why did this take place? If it had not, the weeds would have flourished into the Sherbrooke Forest next door.

I had a good chat to Phil Hastings, a local resident in Ferny Creek, who knows a lot about weeds. Phil is also a member of the Ferny Creek Horticultural Society, and he had a fence of ivy in his backyard. Each year he would do the right thing and cut back all of the ivy before it flowered, but the problem is that you cannot get every bud—and then it goes into the forest. So Phil allowed the group to remove this ivy from his fence, and it is looking fantastic. The next project is the Shangri-La Wildlife Shelter, run by Rodney and Tina Hudson-Davies, with whom I have shared a great number of years of friendship and work. When I hear the opposition say that the Abbott government does not care about the environment, can I say that in my past experience in La Trobe, the Labor Party has done nothing for the environment. A classic example is the Shangri-La Wildlife Shelter, which had never received any state, council or federal funding until Malcolm Turnbull became the environmental minister and we announced $25,000, I think it was, to help build shelters and fences up there. The shelters provide rehabilitation services for injured animals, and this project will focus on stopping dog attacks, which have sadly killed kangaroos and other animals. A brush fence is to be built, and some more pens for the injured animals are to be constructed.

The Green Army will not only make significant contributions to the betterment of our environment but will assist our young to gain hands-on practical experience that will improve their employment prospects. The coalition Green Army policies plan to bring 15,000 people—the largest-standing environmental workforce in Australia's history—to provide real and practical solutions to cleaning up river banks and creeks and revegetating sand dunes and mangrove habitats, among the other environmental conservation work being carried out.

The Green Army is also about training for young people. Aside from improving the environment—and that is obviously the message in La Trobe—participants will receive a training wage, invaluable work skills and formal training. In Year 12 I completed my outdoor education course at Boronia Secondary College. I learned a lot of environmental skills—in fact, I remember working on the ground at Ferntree Gully in Dandenong Ranges National Park pulling out weeds and caring for the environment. The group I worked with ended up doing very well. I think training in the environment, and getting hands-on experience, is a great initiative, and the minister must be congratulated for that.

The program will commence from July 2014 with the rollout of 250 Green Army projects and approximately 2,500 people undertaking on the ground environmental activities in 2014-15. I cannot see why the Labor Party are so strongly opposed to this. Up to nine eligible participants and at least one team supervisor will constitute a Green Army. Participants will be eligible to receive a Green Army allowance while participating in the program, and will have the opportunity to undertake training.

Again, when the Labor Party implemented their pink batts scheme it was an absolute disaster. I find it quite ironic that the Labor Party, in opposition, has the audacity to lecture us on workplace training, when under their pink batts scheme four young people sadly had their lives taken and there were over 250 house fires. Why? It was through sheer incompetence. We now have a royal commission looking at this. The pink batts scheme was such a bad program. I know they may be trying to cover their tracks by blaming the Abbott government for this Green Army project, but remember this: they cannot look themselves in the mirror without judging themselves for completely failing on the pink batts program.

The Green Army Program will initially target participants between the ages of 17 and 24 years. Why would the Labor Party be strongly opposed to seeing young people get jobs? To me that is so important.

I will now briefly talk about Labor's environmental record in La Trobe. I mentioned wandering trad earlier. For those who do not know, it is a weed that grows in the creeks. In fact, it is in up to 50 kilometres of creeks in the Dandenong Ranges. It stops any wildlife from moving and it sucks up an amazing amount of water. Back in 2007, when Malcolm Turnbull was the environment minister, prior to the election being called we made an election commitment for $450,000 to find a biological control for wandering trad. The local environmentalists were exceptionally excited and really appreciated it.

During the same election campaign, Peter Garrett, I believe it was, bizarrely came down to La Trobe to make an announcement about the Great Barrier Reef. Unfortunately we do not have the Great Barrier Reef in La Trobe, but we would love to have it. Our big issues are fire management and weed control in the Dandenong Ranges. So what happened when the Rudd government was elected in 2007? One of the first things they did was to cut the wandering trad funding, and sadly this weed has caused a great deal of damage ever since. In 2010 I again committed to funding of $450,000, this time under Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt, who has been an absolute ambassador and supporter of the Dandenong Ranges. Again, Labor did not match this. They are all talk when it comes to the environment. The same was true of the Greens, who just kept their mouth shut during the election campaign.

In the 2013 election campaign what did we do? We announced further funding for wandering trad amounting to $450,000. The Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, knows how bad this problem is in the Dandenong Ranges. Remember that this is one of Victoria's top 10 tourist attractions. It is a disgrace that our creeks do not flow because of this weed. Greg Hunt, and I think Ian Macfarlane also, committed that the CSIRO will continue to look at finding a biological control. In New Zealand this weed is devastating their national forest and they have committed to a biological control.

The other announcement we made was $2.4 million dollars to be spent on bushfire and fuel reduction in the Dandenong Ranges. I made similar announcements back in 2010 and 2007. Again, the Labor Party talks about doing great work for the environment and how passionate they are, but would they match this commitment? No. The only true supporters of the environment in the Dandenong Ranges, in the electorate of La Trobe, have been the Liberal Party and the Nationals.

We see that Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt has been a great supporter of La Trobe, the Dandenong Ranges and of the environment. This program, put together with the Prime Minister Tony Abbott, is all good. It is all about the environment, it is all about finding jobs for young people. I do not understand why we have this criticism and lack of support from the Labor Party. They should bow their heads in shame, especially if they venture into La Trobe.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation, because Labor believes in helping job seekers enter the workforce. We believe in providing young people with the appropriate training, skills and work experience they need to help them enter employment—especially as they make that difficult transition from school to work. We believe that environmentally based work and training programs can be an effective pathway for job seekers, and also provide some real environmental benefits.

We support the Green Army, just as we supported its previous incarnations; the National Green Jobs Corps; the Green Corps program; and the original incarnation, Paul Keating's 1992 Landcare and Environment Action Program. However, although we support the principles of the program, we remain significantly concerned at the lack of detail that is being provided by the Abbott government about how this program will actually work, and about the exemptions from the workplace health and safety laws, compensation laws, and industrial relations laws that the government is seeking to put in place.

As they always do, the wonderful staff of the Parliamentary Library have prepared a comprehensive Bills Digest on this legislation. It is very much worth a read, and I recommend it. It was published last week on 18 March. The reason I mention it now is that in the very first section of this digest, on the first page out of nine pages of text, the library has provided a caveat. It says:

It is worth noting that, beyond the basics, there is not a great deal of publicly available information about the programme.

This program is meant to begin on 1 July this year. That is just over three months away, and we are still without any significant detail about how it will run. I note that the Green Army has been a policy of the Liberal Party since the 2010 election, so it is quite surprising that they have not worked out the detail yet. But this is just further evidence that the Prime Minister is a Prime Minister of slogans and not of substance.

Some of the details that we are missing include what, if any, training will be provided to participants. It is by no means clear that training for participants is to be guaranteed or that any training that is provided is to be accredited training. The explanatory memorandum merely states that Green Army participants will have the opportunity to undertake training. Who will provide this training? Will it be accredited training? What level of training will be provided? What qualifications will participants have at the end of this training? Will they have a certificate I? Will they have a certificate II? Will they have a certificate III? Will they have a certificate IV?

Similarly, we do not know what, if any, processes are going to be put in place to support participants to transition into the workforce after they have completed the program. We also do not have any great detail about the environmental objectives of the program. Any environmental outcomes the program might provide would be greatly enhanced if the program were more clearly focused on strategically targeted long-term projects that met a clear set of environmental objectives. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

We also do not know what, if any, safeguards are being put in place to ensure the program does not lead to the displacement or reduction of employment opportunities for existing workers. The Abbott government must assure those hardworking Australians in local government and other organisations and authorities that employers will not be able to displace them and rely upon Green Army participants to do their work. There is simply no justification for a program like the Green Army that can provide employment pathways if the participants then go on to displace existing workers. This potential displacement needs to be addressed by the Abbott government in its design of the program. We currently have no detail to give us any confidence that this will not occur.

Of greater concern to Labor than what we do not know about this policy is what we do know—that there will be exemptions from work health and safety, compensation and industrial relations laws for participants. Labor is gravely concerned that this bill does not provide adequate protections for participants in the Green Army scheme, namely in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. Proposed section 38J of this legislation provides that a participant in the Green Army Program is not a worker for the Commonwealth and is not an employee of the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, nor an employee within the meaning of section 5 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and is not an employee for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009. Because they are not an employee, they are not entitled to the benefits that an employee would be entitled to, including workers compensation.

In defence of this, the Minister for the Environment says that the arrangements would be similar to the Howard government's Green Corps program. That is all very well, but the workplace relations environment has changed since the days of the Green Corps. Under previous schemes, participants could have been covered by state and territory employment laws, but this will no longer be the case, since most states and territories referred their industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth in 2010.

Nothing in the bill addresses the issue of the extent to which Green Army service providers will be required to provide suitable insurance. However, even when suitable insurance is in place, it differs from workers compensation cover in that an injured participant is likely to have to demonstrate negligence. There have been successful claims of this sort, but they can take many years to settle, and young volunteers may not have the resources to pursue such claims.

What we have here is a program where young and inexperienced workers will be undertaking physical work in outdoor, unpredictable environments but will be offered a lower standard of workplace protection. Labor finds this entirely unacceptable. If the Abbott government were at all committed to workplace safety and entitlements or at all concerned about the wellbeing of the Green Army participants, it would ensure that participants are deemed employees so that they are covered by a range of Commonwealth laws, including the Fair Work Act, the Work Health and Safety Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

So far I have outlined a range of concerns with the detail of this program, but perhaps the biggest problem with the policy, the thing that causes me the most concern, is that those opposite think that the Green Army is a solution to climate change. The Green Army section of the Liberal's policy document says the Green Army will 'make a real difference to improving the environment in our own backyard and addressing climate change'. Of course, those opposite intend for the Green Army to complement the Abbott government's biggest policy disaster, which is Direct Action. But, no matter how many young Australians join the Green Army, no matter how much the Abbott government is prepared to pay to big polluters, these policies will not be as effective as a market based solution to cap carbon pollution. That is why Labor is united in support for an emissions trading scheme.

We have known for some time that our sea levels are rising as a result of human induced global warming. The advice from climate scientists is clear on this. Most recently, the fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released last year, told us that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that the sea level has risen. We know, too, that extreme weather events are increasing in intensity and frequency as a result of climate change. In Australia, we do not need to be reminded about the devastation that extreme weather events can cause. It is something we all know. It is something we all fear. It is something, therefore, that we should be united in tackling. I heard on the radio just this morning that Oxfam was warning about the fact that potentially 100 million people in the next 50 years could be facing starvation if there is not appropriate action taken on climate change in the near future.

Those opposite agree on the need to reduce carbon pollution. What we disagree on is how we should go about that. Labor will support the repeal of the fixed carbon price in order to replace it with an emissions trading scheme. What we will not support is the removal of the fixed price on carbon if it is not going to be replaced by a carbon pricing scheme that puts a cap on carbon pollution, that guarantees a reduction in carbon pollution.

The fact is that economies all over the world are putting a price on carbon right now or they have already done so. There are over one billion people currently living in carbon constrained economies. They live in a country, a state, a province or a union that has initiated some form of carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.

The European Union, of course, has had an ETS since 2005. The EU ETS is now the largest carbon market in the world, operating in 30 countries, including the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EU is Australia's second largest trading bloc, which is why linking Australia's ETS with the EU's ETS was a long-term goal of the Labor government. When in August last year the then Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency announced that when the Australian carbon price moved to a floating price ETS it would be linked with the European Union ETS, it was applauded as the best possible outcome for Australia.

However, the EU is not alone—far from it. California, which is the ninth largest economy in the world in its own right, has introduced an emissions trading scheme around the $20 mark. In China alone, 200 million people are living in provinces where there is an ETS either in place or in development. Most significantly, there are plans for a nationwide emissions trading scheme in China later this decade. Closer to home, our friend and neighbour New Zealand has had an ETS in place since 2009 with bipartisan support.

I mention the bipartisan support because, in the debate on carbon pricing over the last few years since I had the honour of being elected the member for Canberra, in the discussions that I have had with the community and also the diplomatic community here in Canberra one thing that has particularly staggered the European members of the diplomatic corps is the fact that this has become such a partisan issue. In the UK and throughout Europe, action on climate change has been seen as a bipartisan issue, requiring, therefore, bipartisan support. I have to say that the European diplomatic corps, particularly, have been absolutely astonished about the level of partisanship that has embraced this issue in Australia, given the fact that it has enjoyed such strong bipartisan support in the EU and in each of those countries throughout the EU for such a long time. It is quite breathtaking when our neighbour and friend New Zealand have had this ETS in place since 2009 with bipartisan support.

By 2016, over three billion people will be living in countries where there are emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes. That is three billion people. But, if the Abbott government has its way, Australians will not be among those three billion. The fact is that the Abbott government's so-called Direct Action Plan will take very little action at all. Direct Action does not put a cap on carbon pollution and it does not provide the price signal—the market based imperative that is required to move away from carbon intensive actions. Direct Action is a system of taxpayer funded subsidies to polluters. It asks ordinary, working, taxpaying Australians to subsidise big polluters. It is a policy that is rejected by climate scientists and economists alike. Direct Action does not guarantee a reduction in carbon pollution. The simple truth is that without a cap on carbon there cannot be any such guarantee. It is an expensive system that pays taxpayer funded subsidies to polluters with no guarantee of success.

I know that there are members opposite who agree that an ETS is the most efficient and effective way to reduce carbon pollution. The fact is that in 2007 there was bipartisan support for an ETS. It was the policy that both parties took to the 2007 election and was supported beyond the 2007 election.

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

Order! Member for Canberra, I am happy to have a wide-ranging debate, but this bill is the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill. I request that you be as relevant as you can to the bill.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Green Army is designed to tackle climate change, and I am talking about tackling climate change. On tackling climate change, then Prime Minister John Howard said:

Australia will more than play its part to address climate change but will do it in a practical and balanced way in full knowledge of the economic consequences for our nation.

He was not talking about Direct Action; he was not talking about using taxpayers' money to subsidise polluters; he was talking about the introduction of an ETS. Following the election, then Leader of the Opposition Brendan Nelson also put the coalition support behind an ETS. He said:

We believe in an emissions trading scheme. We believe in a cap and trade system.

Of course, famously, Dr Nelson's successor as Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, is the No. 1 fan of the ETS. He put it very succinctly when he said:

You won't find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon

Sadly, the most recent change in leadership heralded a policy backflip and, for reasons unknown, an ETS has fallen out of favour with the coalition. Today, I ask those opposite to consider whether they really believe that the policy combination of the Green Army and Direct Action is a sufficient response to climate change. I ask them to listen to the experts, the scientists and the economists, to remember their own comments made not so long ago and to commit to a market based solution to climate change—a cap-and-trade ETS.

I also urge those opposite to wake up to the fact that, no matter how much merit this program might have as a vocational training program, it is no solution to climate change. An emissions trading system is the only way forward. (Time expired)

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, which resurrects and expands on the Howard years' Green Corps, which was an outstanding program proving time and time again to be a great opportunity for young people, especially those about to enter the workforce. It gave them a sense of belonging in the community, as well as having positive environmental outcomes. Unfortunately, under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, the successful Green Corps program was replaced with the National Green Jobs Corps, which effectively reclassified unemployed people, who continued to receive an income support payment, and was then abolished altogether.

Over the life of the Green Corps program, participants propagated and planted more than 14 million trees, erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, cleared more than 50,000 hectares of weeds, collected more than 9,500 kilograms of seeds and constructed and maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking tracks and boardwalks. I am proud that the coalition government will not follow the way of the previous government, which repealed a program that helped to develop the skills of young people, helped communities to take responsibility for their local patch and helped to directly fix or mitigate local environment issues. Indeed, it was a program that actually worked. No wonder Labor did away with it! It was a program that actually worked—in stark contrast to the Labor government's extensive list of failures.

On this side of the chamber, we are creating a standing Green Army, which will gradually build to a 15,000-strong environmental workforce. This will provide real and practical solutions to cleaning up riverbanks and creek beds, revegetating sand dunes, revegetating mangrove habitat, and a host of other environmental conservation projects. The Green Army will work with, and complement the work undertaken by, local and care groups, bush care groups, foreshore communities, natural resource management groups, local catchment authorities and councils in their work restoring and protecting the local environment. This will be particularly beneficial in my electorate as Ryan is home to part of Brisbane River, which is facing issues of sedimentation and bank degradation, and we also have Mount Coot-tha and its surrounding national parks and forests, Mount Crosby, parts of Mount Nebo, Walkabout Creek and the Enoggera Dam.

When the Minister for the Environment visited my electorate before the last election, to launch the Ryan Green Army Program, I was pleased to see such a strong turnout from local environmental groups and interested members of the community—all coming together united by their interest in and dedication to caring for our environment. Mount Coot-tha is a popular bushland destination for many people from all over Brisbane. It includes the Brisbane Botanic Gardens and Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium, as well as a mountain drive, bike tracks, walking trails and parks. There are several popular walking tracks around Mount Coot-tha, with most involving some uphill sections or steps. These tracks are often used by hikers training to walk the Kokoda Track in Papua New Guinea as the terrain and climate are considered similar.

Recently I attended a neighbourhood planning forum, hosted by Premier Newman, for The Gap community works, including upgrades to Walkabout Creek in my electorate. The upgrades would give residents better access to the Enoggera Dam, allowing for kayaking and other water sports; an expansion of the Walkabout Creek centre, making it a community hub, with animal enclosures, educational sessions and a treetop boardwalk; and the creation of new walking tracks, high ropes courses and infrastructure for local scouts and guides groups. The scouting movement have expressed their desire to see this work carried out as it would mean a new area to train groups in outdoor exploration. Community leaders have found that there is a missing stepping stone between teaching scout groups the theory of outdoor exploration, camping and bushwalking, and then going and having an adventure in national bushland. These new upgrades will fill that gap, enabling young adventure groups to ease into the more difficult outdoor exploration.

Walkabout Park, part of the larger nature reserve lying on the western boundary of Brisbane, in the Enoggera Reservoir, is home to many rare native plants and animals. It was evident at the neighbourhood family meeting, with more than 100 people turning up on a Sunday morning to discuss upgrades in their local environment, that the national park is of huge significance to the local community. There were representatives from some of the many community green groups in the area, who work on local waterways, rehabilitation, weed eradication and the protection of local endangered species.

I am delighted to stand in this place legislating for a stronger, more lasting version of the former Green Corps by way of the coalition government's Green Army. My office has already received a number of Green Army grant applications, and I look forward to seeing the army grow and develop within my electorate. The electorate of Ryan is home to the University of Queensland, one of the leading research universities in the Southern Hemisphere. The researchers at University of Queensland are investigating a range of projects to protect and rehabilitate the environment, and to create a more sustainable way of living. I have previously spoken in this place about the work of Professor Ben Hankamer at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience on using genetically modified algae to rehabilitate creeks and waterways that have been affected by the nutrient run-off from farms or from the waste created by mine sites.

The University of Queensland is preparing the future of the hydrogen economy by looking at ways to sustainably produce hydrogen from genetically modified hydrogen, and on more efficient hydrogen fuel cells, to eventually replace our dependence on fossil fuels. There is also research into increasing the efficiency of traditional solar panels, as well as manufacturing lighter and more flexible and transportable solar panels. These new solar strips could be used along skirting boards and around windows in office buildings to capture light to reduce the energy demands of the building. There is a great deal of research in these fields not just at the University of Queensland but also internationally. However, in most cases the research is exactly that, research, and is not quite viable for mass production or mass implementation yet. Until such a time as the research becomes a viable alternative to our current practice, direct action from community groups to better their local environment is one of our best options.

When local community members work together to solve a problem, the sky is the limit. I would like to give special mention to some of the many green groups in my electorate and highlight all the good work they do: Save Our Waterways Now, Kenmore Transition Town, Yarrabee Road Bushcare Group, Barnett Road Bushcare Group, Men of the Trees, Freer's Farm Bushcare Group, Ferny Grove Transition Town, Glen Harding Park Bushcare Group, Toowong Creek Roving Rehabilitators, Birds Queensland, Protect Long Pocket Action Group, St Lucia Esplanade Bushcare Group, Indooroopilly Woods Residents Group, Moore Park Bushcare Group, Taringa Parade Bushcare Group, Rainbow Forest Experimental Rehabilitation Group, Brookfield Showground Bushcare Group, Brushbox Bushcare Group, Merri Merri Park Bushcare Park, Cubberla Creek Revegetation Group, Kimba Street Bushcare Group, Greenhill Regenerators, Wandering Weeders, Mandalay Progress Association, Manaton Park Bushcare Group, Manaton Habitat Group, McKay Brook Bushcare Group, Pullen Pullen Catchments Group, Guardians of Little Gubberley, Gap Creek Bushcare Group, Cubberla-Witton Catchment Network, Huntington Bushcare Group, Rural Environmental Planning Association, Upper Gold Creek Bushcare Group, Upper Brookfield Bush Regeneration, Anstead Park Bushcare Group, Moggill Creek Catchment Group, Lions Nature Trail Bushcare Group and my local group, The Hut Environmental and Community Association. All these groups will benefit from the Green Army Program and I look forward to working with them in the future.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the amendment moved by the member for Port Adelaide to the second reading debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. Labor has always believed in the need for people in our society to work and in the dignity it brings to the individual and to the community. We also know that the vast majority of people in our society want to work. They want to earn money. They want to make a contribution. Having meaningful work is integral to one's sense of self.

This is why Labor are focused on creating the conditions for low unemployment and for fair work conditions and why we fight to keep workers in their jobs. This is why we have moved this amendment. This discussion needs to address how participants in this program will be protected if they are injured, sick or mistreated. We need to address what training will be given to the participants. What will be provided to help them transition to full-time work? What are the risks for the displacement of existing workers? These are all questions that need to be asked and answered.

Labor agrees that we need to do everything we can to get people into work, but we need more than a thought bubble here. The implications of this legislation need to be carefully and rigorously thought through. Given that this is a Green Army, the government's environmental record seems to be a good place to start—and I mean on the big environmental issues. This government already has an unenviable reputation as a retrograde administration when it comes to the environment. It is the only government in the world that has asked the World Heritage Committee to delist a currently listed wilderness area. It has a radical anti-environment agenda—from disallowing the endangered community listing of the Murray from the Darling to the sea, to the marine park stretching from Cape York to Fraser Island, to the reserve in the great Alpine National Park. In six months this government has conducted a relentless, destructive campaign when it comes to the environment. I have not yet mentioned its flat-earth-society approach to climate change or the oxymoron that is this government having a Minister for Environment.

The Australian government, regardless of which party is in power, has a sacred duty to protect and maintain our Great Southern Land's unique and magnificent natural assets. Those opposite must realise that they are stewards. They have been entrusted by the people of Australia, and by our children and children's children, to take care of this fragile place. At the moment, those opposite are failing in this duty. In fact, they actively and shamefully neglect it.

It is worth looking, too, at their record in protecting and supporting the vulnerable, given this bill will impact on our vulnerable young people. In the six months since they took office, they have abolished the Council on Homelessness, followed soon after by axing the National Housing Supply Council. More recently, they have refused to commit to the National Affordable Housing Agreement and to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.

Their record on workers is also instructive. They have abandoned manufacturing workers at Toyota, Alcoa and Holden, giving no guarantees of assistance despite the time elapsed since these heartless decisions were made.

There is a theme that has developed in the short time this government has been in power. The Prime Minister has told us that there are goodies and baddies. In this case, market is good, regulation is bad. It is here again in this bill—a failure to do the hard work that will ensure positive outcomes for the young people involved with an eye only on the prize of less regulation, as though less regulation is an end in itself—a value. This government know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

However, the government are good at a few things. They are good at spin. They are great sloganeers. They excel at reducing debate to nonsensical repetitive sentences. Their three word slogans are becoming legendary— 'cutting red tape'. We all know this is a euphemism for removing protections. Just this week I heard an argument form the member for Farrer that childcare workers should not monitor and record children's progress as part of their duties—that somehow this was an example of evil red tape and a waste of time. Again, the cost is highlighted rather than the value—the value of early detection of learning, health or social issues that would lead to better outcomes for the child, the family and the community.

We see it here again with the Green Army legislation. The purpose of the bill is unclear. Is it about getting young people into work? Is it about developing work-ready skills? Is it about long-term outcomes through training and experience? Or is it about the market and this government wrapping itself in green and pretending it cares about the environment and the vulnerable? This bill provides exemptions from the Fair Work Act 2009, Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This is alarming. These acts cover occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation.

Labor is concerned that this bill does not provide adequate protections for participants in the Green Army scheme. Participants will not be treated as employees, and so they will be denied the rights and protections normally afforded to employees. These pretty basic rights are quite important for the smooth running of our society. They are there to ensure that unwarranted risks are not taken on the job site, to ensure workers are trained appropriately to minimise injury and to ensure that, where this fails, workers are rehabilitated and compensated for their injuries. They are hallmarks of a civilised society. They are what a First World country expects. They are about risk and harm minimisation. It seems they are the one cost that this government does not understand—the cost of a young person who works too hard to impress the boss and damages his or her back, who is then judged to have a permanent injury that will prevent them from ever joining our armed forces. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

As I said earlier, cutting red tape is a euphemism for removing worker protections. It is not credible that any government would introduce a scheme that did not provide these basic protections. This legislation raises more questions than answers. Why do participants not have employee status even though they are being removed from social security and paid an equivalent training wage? The government is attempting to take an employment program, rebadge it as an environmental program and abdicate from their responsibility as an employer—all at the same time.

It kind of sums up the Abbott Government—mad policy alchemists trying to conjure solutions to difficult problems out of thin air, while doing none of the hard work required. It is irresponsible, it is dangerous and it is not on. This government does not have an environmental policy. This is why it is forced to take from employment policy and dress it up as environment policy. But let us be clear: it is an employment program and, as such, participants should be treated as employees. It is a good thing that the Green Army participants will be paid the equivalent of the training wage. It is not a lot of money, but it is more than Newstart pays. These payments will also be similar to the training wages received by thousands of other young Australians who are in vocational training or education. What is troubling though is that, while they are being paid by the Commonwealth, they will not be treated as Commonwealth employees. This leaves them in an undefined place—a place without standard worker protections and entitlements, yet with the same risks as workers in the workplace.

A further concern for Labor is the concept of additionality or the potential to displace existing workers. There is no point training people for roles that are already filled. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is no way to govern. This is another example of the government trying to conjure solutions out of thin air without doing the hard work required. The thing about governing is that it is hard work. I am not certain those opposite have fully comprehended this fact. It is not all swanning around parliament and cutting ribbons. It is certainly not about taking the reins of government and then slinking back to the office or the restaurant and leaving the market to do the work. It is about working with and for the community. It is about working with business, workers and people to build the economy together.

Sometimes in question time, when I hear the cries 'Get out of the way!', I wonder what would happen if we did just get out of the way and let this government put the markets in charge of our lives. What would happen to the young people who set off to the job site without protection under the law? When I read this bill I know the answers. While this amendment bill omits much of the detail related to workers' rights, benefits and protections, the associated statement of requirements is equally bereft of detail. Unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, causes great hardship to workers, their families and their communities. Entrenched unemployment is a cancer on the economic strength of our nation.

Those on this side of the House believe that some people need help getting work and that there is a role for government in this process. People need the right training, work experience, incentives and, most importantly, the appropriate level of support. A close reading reveals that access to the formally recognised training requirements delivered by RTOs are an optional part of this program. What then will compel those charged with delivering the program to include this training in it? We all know that training costs money. What impetus will drive the delivery of training within the program? And, if the training is to be delivered, of what nature will it be? What vocations and skills will be provided within the program? Have they been identified by the Australian Workplace and Productivity Authority as areas of emerging and future skill needs? There are many questions to answer because there is so little detail. If we look at the decisions and choices this government has made, we get an insight and again we get bad news—this time for our youth. This government has cut trade training centre funding and will cut the Youth Connections program funding—two initiatives that assist our young people in becoming contributors to our society through education and work preparation.

Environment-based training and employment programs are an effective way of getting people to work whilst at the same time training them up in skills that our country needs to remain economically strong. This country cannot afford to look for shortcuts. We need to invest in training now, but that is not in this government's plan. Their plan is to cut and cut and cut again. You cannot cut your way to prosperity. The Green Army scheme, if delivered as intended, not only will help train young people and the unemployed in skills our nation requires but will also go ways to conserving our natural environment at a local level. However, if we leave out the training, those in the Green Army will become little more than gangers with no pathway to a better future and few skills to help our economy.

Youth unemployment must be addressed. It must be addressed for the sake of the youth in question—a citizen, an Australian, someone's son or daughter. It must be addressed for the sake of the workforce. There is a skills shortage. Training our youth is an obvious solution. It must be addressed for the sake of our economy. The unemployed not only cost the economy in terms of benefits but also deny the government revenue in the form of taxes and productivity when they are not taking part in the workforce. This government needs to show a commitment to fair wages, meaningful work, training and the opportunity for people to progress in the workforce. It is now time they look the problem of youth unemployment in the eye, roll up their sleeves and start doing the hard yards required to solve this complex problem.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 today. It is an example of the Abbott government delivering on yet another key election commitment through legislation to establish the Green Army. The Green Army Program is a key plank in the government's cleaner environment plan under the clean land pillar. The Green Army is a voluntary program that encourages hands-on, practical, grassroots action to support local environment and heritage conservation projects in Australia. It is an opportunity for young people in my electorate of Brisbane aged between 17 and 24 to gain very valuable training experience in environmental and heritage conservation fields and to explore careers further in the conservation management area.

In my electorate of Brisbane the Abbott government has committed to two Green Army projects on the Brisbane north side. Enoggera Creek, Ithaca Creek and Kedron Brook Creek will benefit from the two Green Army teams improving the local environment and amenity through practical and real action. I want to provide some further detail on one of the areas of my electorate that will benefit from this work being done by the Green Army. I am specifically referring to Kedron Brook, which stretches a total of 29 kilometres, starting at the D'Aguilar National Park and ending in the Schulz Canal in Moreton Bay. The creek is a very valuable part of the north side of Brisbane. Many families walk alongside the many pathways and bikeways on a regular basis. I want to commend the work that has been done by the Brisbane City Council as well. The environment along the creek has some of the last remaining remnants of riparian rainforest and includes the remnants of the locally uncommon flood gum Eucalyptus grandis along the Kedron Brook floodway. Mangroves and exotic grasses are the dominant vegetation. It is these wonderful natural gems, not just in my electorate but all over Australia, that this bill will protect.

Once in place the Green Army teams will focus on revegetation, installing ecological signage, upgrading walkways and cycling paths, mapping wildlife, planting trees, and installing measures to minimise flooding and reduce its impact on the local environment. This is a very real and practical way to make a difference to our environment and to complement our direct action approach to climate change. I am currently working with the Minister for the Environment in having this project rolled out as soon as possible.

The Green Army Program will provide benefits to both the environment and the community through projects such as restoring and protecting habitat, weeding, planting, cleaning up creeks and rivers, and restoring cultural heritage places. In addition to all of the great environmental work that will be done, the Green Army participants will be paid an allowance and gain valuable experience in conservation management, teamwork, discipline and waking up every morning and being committed to doing the job that needs to be done. The Australian government will shortly be undertaking a tender process for service providers who will engage the Green Army teams and supervisors and manage the activities to ensure that projects are completed safely, are reported regularly on and are on time. Projects may be carried out across urban, and regional and remote Australia, or on public land, Indigenous-held land or private land where there is a clear community, environmental and heritage benefit.

The Green Army will become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce, building to 15,000 participants by 2018 and capable of delivering real results. Those real results will be 1,500 on-the-ground environmental projects. It should be noted that this bill builds on the very strong history the coalition has in delivering for the environment. In particular it will build on the Howard government's successful Green Corps program, which was established in 1996. I saw the evidence of that and what a huge impact it made not just to the environment but to the lives of many people who participated and who then went further and continued their studies in this area or went on to technical and training education or to university education.

Over the life of the Green Corps program, participants delivered the following outcomes: they propagated and planted more than 14 million trees, they erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, they cleared more than 50,000 hectares of weeds and they constructed or maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking track or boardwalks.

The Abbott government's approach can be contrasted quite starkly with those on the other side. Under Labor's watch, and solely on the basis of small-minded political reasons, the Howard government's Green Corps program was torn apart, was rebadged and it failed to improve the environment. Then it was terminated in 2012. Young people no longer had the opportunity to gain practical skills and to improve their local environment. But then again, no-one really should have been surprised. After all, Labor's approach to the environment is to hit families, businesses and the economy with a carbon tax. The carbon tax is an attack on the entire Australian economy. What is worse is that it does not even work. Despite a $7.6 billion tax, emissions for the first 12 months barely changed by 0.1 per cent.

The Abbott government will provide $300 million over four years, and a further $222 million in 2017-18 and $289.2 million in 2018-19 to establish the Green Army. The measure was announced in the 2013-14 MYEFO. The request for tender will be released shortly. The request for tender will be open for tender applications for at least four weeks. The Australian government will be running sessions for potential tenderers, and details of these sessions will be provided as part of the RFT.

The key components to the program will be that service providers will be contracted by the Australian government to engage the Green Army teams, deliver training and wage payments, manage activities to ensure projects are completed and report regularly on progress. There will be project sponsors, and they will be organisations such as local councils, community groups or natural resource management organisations that will develop project proposals. The sponsors will submit proposals to the Australian government through an application round. They will be assessed, and recommendations will be made to the Minister for the Environment for successful projects in each round.

Then, of course, there are the wonderful participants themselves. The Green Army Program will target participants aged between 17 and 24. Participants may be Indigenous people, school leavers, gap-year students, graduates and the unemployed. The program in future years will expand to people of all ages.

Unlike previous programs that were rushed through with unholy haste by the previous Labor government, the work, health and safety of Green Army participants is of particular importance to the Abbott government. The Department of the Environment will work with the service providers on an agreed risk-management framework for the delivery of this project. They will be informed by the experience of the Department of Employment and external expertise relating to work, health and safety issues.

Service providers will be required to work with the project sponsors on risk plans for each individual project. They will regularly report to the Australian government on the management of participants and project delivery, and audit and compliance schemes will manage any contractual breaches.

In addition to the on-the-job training, a key element of the program is the provision of opportunities for vocationally-oriented accredited training delivered by registered training organisations under the Australian Qualifications Framework. Training may be undertaken in areas such as work readiness, conservation, land management, heritage conservation, leadership, project and human resource management and trades. As such, on-the-job training activities need not be exclusively outdoors. The service providers will be responsible for ensuring that the training satisfies the requirements under the Australian Qualifications Framework in a format that best meets the need of each of the participants.

An individual training plan will be negotiated with each participant. Participants will be given an opportunity to undertake training for a certificate I or certificate II qualification or nationally endorsed skill sets.

Training in first aid and work, health and safety must all be completed by the participants prior to the commencement of Green Army activities. The participants without these basic training requirements must not commence project activities until they complete the relevant training.

In terms of funding that will be provided to the project sponsors proposing Green Army projects, the Green Army Program provides costs to support the Green Army teams that will be undertaking the project activities. The particular sponsors will be expected to provide specific equipment, materials and expertise to deliver the Green Army projects. No cash funding will be provided to the project sponsors. It is really important to note that the Green Army Program is an environmental programme and not considered an employment program. The engagement of a participant in a Green Army team for 20-26 weeks is not considered full-time employment. It is a voluntary opt-in program where participants will receive work-like experience and will be paid an allowance that is higher than income support, such as youth allowance or Newstart allowance.

The approach of not paying superannuation is consistent with the previous approach used for the Green Corps programs. It is consistent with the approach applied for income-support recipients undertaking existing approved programs of work activities, such as the Work for the Dole and the Remote Jobs and Communities Program.

The Green Army Program will be considered an approved program of work of participants who elect to stay on income support. Minister Hunt is to be congratulated on this bill. He has a big job unravelling the mess left behind by six years of Labor in office, but he has hit the ground running and this bill is ample proof of his application to the task.

I look forward to seeing the wonderful benefits of the Green Army projects he has approved for my electorate. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed.