Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to be back in this place, and today I rise in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. It is my belief that this bill will deliver real, tangible, employment opportunities for young Australians everywhere. It will deliver vital resources aimed at tackling environmental issues and, more importantly, deliver projects entrenched in local communities right across our nation. Since I spoke last in this place, I have held numerous meetings with representatives from local community groups, including Penrith City Council, Muru Mittigar, the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance and the Cumberland Conservation Network, to discuss the Green Army Program. I am pleased to advise members that all are passionate about the local environment of Lindsay and all are excited about the opportunity the Green Army Program will provide for our local environment. I was particularly impressed with the willingness of everyone to work together as a team. We are united by a common goal: to create a legacy for our community and future generations to be proud of and to benefit from. It is the theme of teamwork that I believe resonates with the Green Army Program.

I take a moment to reflect on the success of the Green Corps Program, as I believe it demonstrates why the introduction of this legislation is so vital and why the Green Army will be so successful. Over the life of the Green Corps, from 1996 to 2007, young Australians delivered the following outcomes: they planted over 14 million trees, built more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing, cleared over 50,000 hectares of weeds, collected more than 9,500 kilograms of seeds and constructed and maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking track and boardwalks.

As stated by the Minister for the Environment, the Abbott government will create and properly resource the Green Army to be a larger and more lasting version of the Green Corps. The Green Army will become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce, building to 15,000 participants by 2018, and will be capable of delivering 1,500 on-the-ground environmental projects in communities right across Australia. This initiative will recruit young people aged between 17 and 24 who are interested in protecting their local environment while gaining hands-on experience and skills. Under the program participants will be paid an allowance and will undertake accredited training. This will be particularly beneficial to the people I represent in Lindsay, as not only are we the fourth youngest electorate in Australia but we also have a relatively high unemployment rate of about 11.6 per cent in this age bracket.

Another key element of the Green Army Program is that it will support work undertaken by local landcare groups, bushcare groups, foreshore communities, natural resource management groups, local catchment authorities, and councils in their work in restoring and protecting the local environment. This complements the Abbott government's direct action approach to climate change. Direct Action provides Australians with an opportunity for individuals, communities, organisations and companies to work together to address Australia's environmental challenges. The Abbott government's Direct Action Plan will ensure reduction in carbon emissions take place within Australia and eliminate the need for the failed carbon tax. This policy will make a real difference. It is a proactive environmental approach that fosters teamwork, local ownership and community spirit. It will make a positive impact in our backyard and it addresses the broader issues of climate change across the nation.

It is important that we as a government protect our environmental assets, but this should not just mean our natural rainforests and marine parks. We need to recognise the value of the green areas within and around our cities and more urbanised communities, which is why I was pleased to stand with the Minister for the Environment during the election campaign to commit to the people of Lindsay and greater Western Sydney a $15 million Green Army investment in the conservation of the Cumberland Plain Woodlands. This corridor is over 30 kilometres in length and 10,000 hectares in size. This makes it twice the size of the Western Sydney Parklands and essentially the lungs of Western Sydney. This is an important part of what makes greater Western Sydney unique and a better place to live. I am sure, Deputy Speaker Kelly, you understand how unique greater Western Sydney is. This election commitment is a fabulous guarantee to our local communities that this government is focused on maintaining our quality of life.

I take this opportunity to remind the members of the House of the details of the commitment made by the Minister for the Environment during the campaign regarding the funding of the Green Army Program for the conservation of the Cumberland conservation corridor: $7.5 million in direct funding for the acquisition of threatened land in the corridor, $5 million for the planting of one million trees as part of the coalition's 20 million trees policy within the corridor and related areas, and $2.5 million for 15 Green Army teams to work on local conservation corridor projects over the next four years. It goes without saying that this will be a major boost for the conservation of the region and will provide a once-in-a-generation chance to establish a conservation corridor to be preserved for future generations.

As our cities grow we have a responsibility to ensure that valuable conservation areas and bushland are retained and protected. It is also about providing a lifestyle balance and ensuring communities are connected to their environment and create livable cities. There has never been a more important time to take direct action on the environment to preserve our quality of life. I am extremely pleased that Lindsay and its surrounding area will be a direct beneficiary of this government's strategy.

More broadly, the Green Army will make a difference across Australia as this task force works on a range of rejuvenation projects. These include propagation and planting of native seedlings; weed control; revegetation and regeneration of local parks; habitat protection and restoration; improving water quality by cleaning up waterways; revegetation of sand dunes and mangroves; creek-bank regeneration; foreshore and beach restoration; construction of boardwalks and walking tracks, to protect local wildlife; and cultural heritage conservation.

Our Green Army policy will deliver tangible benefits. It will boost workforce training and productivity by providing meaningful, practical and hands-on environmental skills and experience for thousands of Australians. It will see thousands of young Australians gainfully employed. It will strengthen our local community involvement. It will see our creeks and rivers cleaned up and the conservation of cultural heritage places. It will see an unprecedented program to restore and protect the natural habitat. The coalition believes in the importance of caring for the environment both now and for future generations. I am pleased to support this amendment, and I commend this bill to the House.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, but I think the Member for Lindsay and I must be talking about two different bills, because this is not an environmental bill—this is an employment bill. This will have no direct action of any kind in improving our environment or reducing our exposure to mitigate climate change. I feel we have been reading two different bills, or we are talking about two different programs. Whilst there is some benefit in ensuring that people get out there and do everything to maintain and protect our environment, this bill is not going to have the lasting impact in any way, shape, size or form that the member for Lindsay is hoping for.

The government's Green Army policy: even the words—I am bemused that everything is now an army; everything is now a war. We are deploying people. How about protecting, employing? Why all this terminology? I think it actually has fairly draconian and very bad connotations. But if we want to go with 'Green Army', then so be it. The government's Green Army policy has scant detail and was released with more than a three-word slogan—which has defined the coalition's attitude to many things and I think will get many platitudes tonight during the budget as well. Regarding policy towards protecting the environment and mitigating climate change, whilst more details have trickled out since the introduction of this legislation, I think that is a very poor way to introduce legislation. They tabled it in the House with very little information, and over the break we have had more drip feeds. That is no way to implement a rather large change to many programs and to the employment of young people.

The tragedy is that we have come to expect this from this government: you are given one thing, but there is no detail in it, and it slowly filters down. This government was elected on 'no excuses or surprises', but every five minutes there is another excuse or surprise. We have had a little bit more information, but not a great deal. This government has no credibility on the environment whatsoever. After only six months in office this government has proven that its only interest in the environment is in removing any meaningful protection of it. They have disallowed the endangered communities listing of the River Murray from the Darling to the sea and have had the world's largest marine reserve system reproclaimed to undo the management plans that give them effect. And in my home state of Victoria the minister for the environment has rubber-stamped a ludicrous, faux-scientific trial of cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park—a scheme that will, in fact, assist a mere three or four families. In government, Labor was all that stood between the prestige piece of heritage wilderness and a reckless Liberal state government. This environment minister—who is supposedly protecting the environment—has sold out the Alpine National Park to the mountain cattlemen, who now get to graze their cattle in our national park for free.

For a government that is opposed to using taxpayers' industry assistance resources, this seems a rather hypocritical decision. Perhaps the government has plans for the soon-to-be environmentally destroyed area to become a restoration project for their undertrained and underpaid Green Army. So we are going to let the cattle in and destroy this pristine area—oh, and there's a project for the Green Army to reproclaim! If we did not let the cows in in the first place, we would not have this devastation. I will add it to the very long list of unknown qualities of this sketchy and highly dubious policy.

This is no LEAP—the Landcare and Environment Action Program of the Keating government. As with most policies from the current government, it is a sham. When LEAP was introduced, the program was a 26-week environmental work experience and training program that left participants with training qualifications. Participants undertook work experience and skills development on environment heritage programs with 130 hours of training, leading to a nationally recognised qualification. There is no such standard in this program. And the National Green Jobs Corps program was similar to the original Green Corps program introduced by Labor, which actually gave young people training, skills and a wage. This program does not mirror those in any way.

Members opposite talk of the need for practical action to reduce the effects of climate change and to protect our environment. If we simply observe the face value of these statements, they are right. But practical action to halt climate change actually means reducing carbon emissions. Anybody who has looked at the Sydney newspapers today and has read the alarming statements about the degradation of the sea ice and the sea float would know that this is real—this is happening. Releasing a bunch of young unskilled individuals into our environment is not going to mitigate climate change and reduce carbon emissions. It requires pollution levels to levels to be reduced—significantly reduced. Creating a system that takes people off social security benefits and employs them into an 'army' of very low-paid workers without any workplace safety, proper training or protection measures and getting them to plant some trees or do some weeding is not practical action in terms of emissions reduction. Australia needs environmental solutions. We do not need to tan-bark the country. The best solution to emission reduction remains a price on carbon. But this bill also fails on the grounds of human resources. Green Army volunteers will be paid the minimum wage for 30 hours a week. They will no longer be eligible for Centrelink payments, and they will also lose any entitlements or rent assistance, health care card and pharmaceutical allowances, leaving them no better off than if they did not volunteer.

As I said at the outset, do not be deceived. This is not an environmental program; it is a work program. This is an employment program, and as such it needs to be discussed as an employment program, along with the implications for the young people who participate in this program. Labor believes that environmentally based work and training programs can be effective. A fantastic scheme that was run in my electorate under the last government was the Ashwood College Permaculture Food Garden. It was run by a magnificent woman, Mariette Tuohey, who took on board a group of individuals whom she trained up meticulously. She also invited in the community to be part of the permaculture garden, producing permaculture food. The community have now built their own wood-fired pizza oven and they are making pizzas. They have a market garden. The students who were involved in this program left with a certificate, with jobs to go to. They were not just mucking around and planting trees and hoping above hope that they would somehow be better off and the environment would be better off. They were trained; they were educated; they left with a purpose. They were also within a school environment, and several of them actually returned to school, which was a fantastic outcome all round. But this program, so scant on information, does not give me any confidence that it will lead to the outcomes that I saw at Ashwood College.

Participants in the Green Army scheme will also not be Commonwealth employees and will therefore be denied access to protection provided by the Work Health and Safety Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Fair Work Act. Whilst we have been given assurances that they may have access to state based legislation, we are not sure how this will actually work, and there is still great concern. You can be injured while you are volunteering. This is work in the field, with untrained individuals being given things like chainsaws. I would be concerned about how they are going about things and what protections are in place. Exclusion from these acts means that, if any participant in this scheme is injured at work, they will receive no compensation or support. They will not be covered by the workplace standards that every other employee in Australia takes for granted. This government says that the Green Army participants will be similar to the thousands of other young Australians who are in vocational training or education. But, unlike other trainees or apprentices, participants in the Green Army will be under the supervision of the Commonwealth and denied the status of Commonwealth employees. They will be left in no-man's-land, unprotected by the act that protects other trainees and apprentices.

Can we even be guaranteed that Green Army participants will receive decent training and education? Again, there is scant information to say what they will come out with. In the program that I referred to previously, at Ashwood College, even though it was under the Green Corps program the students left with a certificate. They walked out with a certificate in horticulture. I have no idea what these individuals will be leaving with. The Labor Party has always supported training and learning opportunities for young people, to help them find secure and meaningful employment. This program again fails by offering no guarantee that participants will actually receive useful and accredited training to help them secure future employment. In fact, to borrow the words of Ged Kearney, they are more likely to be used as low-paid and unprotected workers in place of well-paid and well-protected workers. Indeed, we have seen that the scheme will allow, say, a council to sack actual staff and employ people under the Green Army scheme. This is another system of getting in cheap labour.

If the government were serious about opening up training opportunities, then it would be facilitating programs in growing areas of the green economy such as auditing and reporting; installing and maintenance of energy-efficient appliances to meet revised building standards; assessment of new and existing buildings against rating systems; and monitoring data output from energy management systems and 'tuning' buildings for peak performance. This is a growth area that businesses are looking at to refigure their buildings so that they are more energy efficient. This is an area where you could employ, train and enhance young people. The government could also be facilitating programs in marketing new and existing buildings, in both the commercial and residential sectors, and drawing up 'green leases'. In the green and energy-efficient skills sector, we have the opportunity to ensure that Australians have the skills to contribute to our response to the challenges of environmental sustainability. There is a fantastic program run at Monash University, through the sustainability centre, that focuses on all these things. It takes university students, who do a traineeship. They are being skilled up in these areas. We could do that for young people—but, no, we are going to go and tanbark the country.

This bill fails young people in need of new skills and future work. There is no guarantee that work will be coming after this. More importantly, though, it fails our environment. This is nothing more than a smokescreen for the government. There is no plan to tackle climate change and no plan to help create jobs for the future. In the same week that the CSIRO produced its State of the climate 2014report, Mr Abbott went to a dinner in the Great Hall and said, 'Let's cut down more trees.' At the time we were being warned that temperatures across Australia were on average almost one degree warmer than they were a century ago, instead of talking about preserving the environment in the best way we can—by preserving old-growth forest, by preserving trees—the Prime Minister was suggesting we chop them down. I did not hear the Minister for the Environment talk once about the CSIRO's report—not once—or its quoting of Rob Vertessy, Bureau of Meteorology chief executive, who said:

Seven of the ten warmest years on record in Australia have occurred since 1998. When we compare the past 15 years to the period 1951 to 1980, we find that the frequency of very warm months has increased five-fold and the frequency of very cold months has decreased by around a third.

The duration, frequency and intensity of heatwaves has increased across large parts of Australia since 1950.

  …   …   …

We have also seen a general trend of declining autumn and winter rainfall, particularly in southwestern and southeastern Australia, while heavy rainfall events are projected to increase. Australian average annual rainfall has increased slightly, largely due to increases in spring and summer rainfall, most markedly in northwestern Australia.

So, while we have seen this marked change in our climate, we are not being given any action on, any way of mitigating, this disaster that is coming.

The member for Lindsay said that this bill was going to protect our environment, protect our future generations. It will do no such thing. We need actual action on climate change. We need to heed the work of the IPCC, instead of condemning and rebuking them. The IPCC report that scientists are 95 to 100 per cent certain that humans have caused the majority of climate change since the 1950s. We also know that, since the 1950s, both the atmosphere and the ocean have warmed. Precipitation patterns are starting to change, and land-based and sea ice are in decline. We have seen this. The information is out there. It is screaming to us to be doing more for our planet, more for our future generations. The Green Army is not going to achieve those outcomes.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My support is unconditional for the Green Army initiative, which has been a coalition flagship in the environment area for a number of years now. Finally, with the coalition in government, it is coming to fruition. Regardless of where you come from in Australia, the Green Army is an exceptional option for young Australians—whether they be in a gap year, graduates or currently unemployed—to get involved in local environmental projects of merit. For my area of Bowman, I speak with particular passion because virtually all of my 60 kilometres of waterfront is mangrove. In fact, it is pretty hard to find a patch of Redlands waterfront that is not mangrove. Together with the beautiful North Stradbroke Island, there are seemingly limitless opportunities to protect, preserve and, in fact, enhance some of the environmental assets that we have in Bowman, being a Moreton Bay fringe electorate.

You just have to drive down any major road in a part of Australia where there is a significant nature corridor to know that there is almost limitless work to be done on this great continent when it comes to environmental improvement and enhancement. At the same time, we do not seem to be able to match need with expertise, so many young Australians—hundreds of thousands of them—are at the moment without meaningful work opportunities or a chance to train, a chance to upskill or a chance to work together in small teams and achieve something of worth. The Green Army does that. Building over three years to 15,000 participants, it will be the largest standing environmental army in Australia's history.

I am excited about it for a few reasons. The first one is that this is very much locally driven. Sure, there will be a service provider responsible for organising projects, as well as a group that will typically identify the projects—commonly, councils and the like. But what is really important is that communities can get together, actually rank the environmental tasks into some form of priority and start working on them in a limited time frame—over a number of weeks—and ensure that those jobs are done. What we do not have is a tailing-off of this program into an extended Work for the Dole arrangement, because this is very different to that and I need to emphasise that.

The Green Army needs to be one of a number of options that young Australians have. It will never be compulsory. It is obviously going to grow quickly each year up to 2018. I commend the minister for having gained the extra resources to ensure that the Green Army continues. The challenge, and I put it out to every electorate, is to find the highest quality projects that you can.

Critics of this program will be saying that there is no point just mobilising people if they are not doing something of environmental benefit, but there is plenty of environmental potential in every electorate, even urban ones, where of course the environment is most under threat. In my electorate, there will be revegetation of sand dunes on North Stradbroke Island. There will be enhancements in our mangrove and intertidal areas. There are problems with noxious weeds and non-local flora all throughout the Redlands. All of these are perfectly suited to being Green Army projects.

To young Australians contemplating doing this: it does not have to be for a year. As I have said, these are medium-term projects where you are working in a small team with a supervisor who is paid the horticultural award for that role. Councils have told me some of their concerns are around transport. Many participants will not be able to get to remote locations in my electorate easily, where public transport is limited, so there will have to be a little bit of ingenuity and flexibility to make sure that these projects run without a hitch and, obviously, that people can be attending regularly. If you talk to young Australians, many of them say, 'I am interested in doing this kind of work and I would love to give it a go.' So these projects have to be flexible enough to allow people to move in and out of them, short enough that they can actually see some kind of gain and benefit over the time that they are engaged and variable enough so that they are not just doing one thing—the same thing—for months on end.

My objective for these Green Army projects is that young locals will come out of them with a new skill and a new qualification. In many cases at the moment, they are sent down to employment network providers. Their eyes glaze over as they search on computers for the next training program to do. The Green Army changes that because there is real, practical application. There will be a real sense of, 'Not only did I gain a skill but it actually made a difference here.' Be that building a walkway, repairing some erosion or getting a better understanding of how some of these waterways work, that has to be all upside, doesn't it?

In a nation where labour is so valuable—we are a small-population economy with a very high average GDP and a large, natural expanse that is often very, very rain deprived and vulnerable—there is no better place to apply Green Army initiatives than right here in Australia. I am speaking for South-East Queensland, where we have incredibly fast population growth, probably only rivalled by parts of outer Sydney. At the same time, we have these environmental belts that locals have fought hard to protect, only to see them effectively fenced off but not being maintained. They become a bushfire risk, they are covered in lantana and other noxious weeds, and they are not a place where you would want to take your family to go bushwalking or for a picnic. The Green Army can change that.

So, on North Stradbroke Island, where 3,000 of my locals live, for the first time there are additional employment opportunities outside of mining and the very good work being done by Straddie Camping. Here is a chance for young Australians falling out of interest with formal education to have this cadetship, this environmental connection and these time-limited projects that they can really make their own. That is what is really exciting. And, because they are teams of 10, you can run one or two of them instead of building one up so that it becomes so large that either it is unmanageable or the human resources are not well deployed.

Make no mistake: it will be challenging all over this nation to be running over 1,000 of these tiny projects, but I have faith in the local people, local employment providers and local councils to come up with the best possible projects and see them through to fruition. I know that there has been some nitpicking from the other side about workplace health and safety, and it is an important issue. But the programs are to be supervised predominantly by councils, who are already well aware of those limitations and those concerns.

In conclusion, please do not mix up the Green Army with Work for the Dole programs. They are very, very different. I believe there is a great deal of pride around Work for the Dole, but in essence it is a hard-stop measure that is a requirement if you have been unemployed for more than a certain period of time. The Green Army is very different to that. I would love to see university graduates, university students and even people studying for a trade taking a few weeks to be involved in a Green Army project. I will be encouraging all of my young Australians between the ages of 17 to 24 to get involved. I look forward to the day, once these projects are up and running, when older Australians—those over the age of 24—will also get involved.

It is an exciting moment, seeing Green Army projects rolling out. For a long time, Green Corps projects set up by the Howard government delivered significant environmental benefits but never really achieved the scale that we are attempting here. It is a real feather in the cap of the coalition that, rather than going out on our own on climate schemes that in the end leave us cold and broke, there is a real sense of practical action in local communities. If you really care about your environment, there is no better way of getting involved than by encouraging people you know who are eligible to get involved in one of these projects as part of a team of 10. It makes perfect sense. They should be available.

I have made the point about matching need with expertise. We pay income replacement to between 360,000 and 400,000 young Australians who are not involved in full-time work, study or training. It is inconceivable that billions of dollars are paid every year more as an entitlement than as a mutual-respect arrangement, where that transfer purchases a social outcome. If we can move to the point where young Australians are actually earning that money by being involved in the development of public good, which is a cleaner environment, that would be a great step in and of itself. If there is one thing that this government achieves in the next election term, I would like it to be the removal of the 'do nothing and have no chance' option. That is the notion that payments are purely entitlements and that nothing comes back the other way—that the payment is your pay. But that is not what it is. When we pay welfare to look after those who are in the greatest need, we want it to be a hand up, to give people the chance of a future career.

Keep in mind that it is easy to look down on 18- to 24-year-olds and say they are not doing enough or that they are not active enough, but many of them are transitioning through life, having lost interest in formal education, prior to having a family. That is the perfect time to give these young Australians every chance of acquiring skills, developing confidence and having a capability. It is only through these things that opportunity comes. If we deprive young Australians of opportunity, then we will carry them as a welfare burden for life, and that is not what we want. What we want is to give them the best possible opportunity as soon as they disengage from formal education and training to get them back into something practical that they love and enjoy.

Without going into too much detail or digressing too far from Green Army projects, what I am hoping is that there is flexibility in the program. I do not want to see two or three projects that are exactly the same—picking up sticks and pulling weeds, for example. We need projects within a reasonable geographic spread that provide a range of skills. They could involve learning how to use small plants or some basic carpentry skills or concreting skills, as well as the obvious skills in environmental rehabilitation. That may mean spending a little bit more on good training and supervision and making sure that our trainers can actually impart those skills. If we do that, and people leave the Green Army with a formal qualification, then we have only made life and opportunity far better, not just for them but for their families, and a better life for their young children who in turn one day will become adults and income earners themselves. I commend this bill strongly.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014 and acknowledge that its purpose is to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security Administration Act 1999 for three specific purposes: firstly, that recipients of Green Army allowance are not also able to receive a social security benefit or pension, with the exception of family assistance and childcare payments where participants are eligible; secondly, that income-testing arrangements that will apply to the social security pension for the partners of Green Army participants; and thirdly, that participants in the Green Army program who are not Green Army team supervisors are not to be treated as workers or employees for the purposes of certain Commonwealth laws.

I acknowledge that the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, has moved an amendment to the bill. It does not decline to give the bill a second reading, but it seeks that the House note a number of matters. I indicate that I support the amendment put by the shadow minister. The amendment requires that the House note, firstly, that the program will be deeply flawed in its design and implementation, given the poor environmental record of the current government; secondly, that the bill provides insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation; thirdly, that the government should clarify why participants do not have employee status, even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage; fourthly, that the government must provide assurance that the Green Army Program will not displace or reduce employment opportunities for existing workers; fifthly, that there is a lack of detail of the training provisions in the program, namely specified minimum hours, provision of accredited and recognised training and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways; and, finally, that it is important to support young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities.

I would like to take the opportunity today to outline why the amendment is worth supporting, as it raises a series of very important issues about the program that need to be debated. Whilst this bill deals only with the social security elements of the Green Army Program, it is clear that this is as much an employment program as it is claimed to be an environmental one. I will not go specifically to the issues about the total inadequacy of this initiative, as it sits forlornly in an environmental framework that has torn apart action on and protection of our natural environment by this government. The shadow minister for the environment addressed this extensively in his speech during the second reading debate. I would in particular draw the House's attention to the article referenced by the shadow minister in that speech that was published in TheIndependent in the United Kingdom and entitled 'Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?' It is a harsh assessment but, I would suggest, one that is pretty accurate.

In considering the merits of this particular program, I would acknowledge that the concept of combining action on environmental challenges with commitment to training and lifting the skills of the population is neither new nor a concept that this side of the House is opposed to in and of itself. In fact, we believe that environment based work and training programs can be an effective opportunity for job seekers who have an interest in, and a capacity for, this type of work—an opportunity to gain some real skills, knowledge and experience in a sector that should see growing job opportunities in the future.

I refer members to the May 2011 report of the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, AWPA, on emerging and future skills needs in the green and energy efficiency sector. In its report, the agency identified a call for jobs and skills in a range of sectors and courses. It is of course likely that many of the emerging industries and jobs that were discussed in the report have been very negatively impacted by the decisions of the Abbott government to walk away from responsible environmental action in this country.

I take this opportunity to put on the record my personal appreciation of the excellent work that has been done by AWPA and to express my great regret at the decision by this government to disband this agency. AWPA was established in 2012 by the former Labor government, replacing Skills Australia, to provide expert, independent advice to government on current, emerging and future skills and workforce development needs. It brings together—it has not quite been disbanded yet but soon will be—the peak national bodies, such as ACCI, the Australian Industry Group and the ACTU, to achieve industry leadership on these matters. Disbanding the key national policy and research body on skills while we have jobs being lost across the country is nonsensical.

Clearly there is a real opportunity to provide, and a sound basis for providing, work based and training opportunities in this industry sector. However, the bill before us does not lay out the detail that is required for a full analysis and discussion of its efficacy. The questions raised in the shadow minister's amendment must be addressed. I acknowledge that some of these issues have been the subject of an inquiry in the other place and that, since this bill was introduced, further information on how the Green Army will operate has been released, although this information has only slowly emerged piece by piece—and only as it has been requested.

From the perspective of my own shadow portfolio, it is the nature and the quality of the training that is intended to be provided that is of significant interest and importance. Many members of this place will be well aware, sadly, that pushing people through round after round of training that is not relevant, targeted or of quality actually has a negative impact on the job seekers who are involved. There is nothing more disheartening, or discouraging of a positive view of lifelong learning, than to have continual negative experiences of training. Access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian Qualifications Framework is noted in the statement of requirements as an optional component of the program to be negotiated with each participant. This gives me no confidence that participants will actually get relevant, quality training.

We now know that participants will, at the bare minimum, be provided with first aid and work safety training. If it is deemed appropriate, they will be given cultural awareness training as well. However, no more than this basic training is guaranteed. There is no explicit obligation for any further training to be provided to job seekers. At Senate estimates, I asked the Department of Industry, within which my shadow portfolio sits, about further training to be provided. Their response was that they were working with the Department of the Environment and they also said:

… we understand the Green Army program Service Provider(s) will negotiate an individual training plan with each participant they recruit as part of the Participant Agreement, which will consider the individuals' skills needs and the skills required to fulfil the project. The Service Provider(s) will then identify which RTOs in the local region are available to provide this training.

This response leaves more questions than it answers, as this sort of individual skills assessment, individualised learning program and course enrolment by one-off students is one of the most expensive training models—if it is done properly. I seriously doubt that the government has actually provided for such an extensive training opportunity.

It should also be noted that a significant number of the job seekers likely to participate will no doubt require literacy and numeracy support, as well as work readiness training, before they have the capacity to do specific skills training. None of these issues are clearly addressed in the Green Army information made available to date. I strongly argue that it is cruel to hold it out as a real pathway to employment for people if it does not provide them with industry recognised and valued qualifications at the end of the program.

As the shadow minister for the environment also outlined, we on this side of the House have some serious concerns about the workplace protections to be put in place for participants. We remain concerned that this bill does not provide adequate protection for these participants, most specifically in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. We have been assured that participants will be covered by relevant state legislation and by insurance held by service providers and the Commonwealth, and that work safety will also be subject to auditing by the department. We accept that these measures may protect participants to a certain level, but the price of safety will indeed be constant vigilance. As with everything, Australians are right to be suspicious and uncertain of the commitment and motives of the government. The government has made it clear that health and safety is not a top priority.

I indicate to the House that these are legitimate and serious questions that have been raised by the shadow minister in his amendment to the bill. He has indicated that it is our intention to support the second reading, so I hope it is taken that, in this process, the effort is to ensure that those people who participate in the program have an experience that has value and meaning for them and that it actually then puts them on a pathway to employment. This is so that when people come out of the program they would have, as many members on the other side have indicated, not only some good environmental outcomes for particular places in their electorates but also work experience of value to employers and qualifications and training that are recognised by employers. Therefore, they will have honestly been provided with an increased opportunity to gain employment out of it. There is nothing worse than putting people through round after round of these sorts of programs only to have them feel that, at the end of the day, they have gained nothing that has value in their local community's workplaces and that has simply left them back where they started.

I commend the amendments to the House. I look forward to, piece by piece, slowly getting more answers to the significant issues and questions that the shadow minister has raised.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. A little later in my speech, I will talk about some of the proposals in the Parkes electorate.

Firstly, I would like to comment on some of the statements made by members of the opposition here today. Why is it that every environmental program has to be discussed through the prism of climate change and every employment program has to be seen as some sort of assault on the union movement? In particular, the member for Chisholm, in her presentation here a little while ago, was speaking about the cattle in the high country. We have been through this before here. The member for Gippsland, who is sitting at the table, is well aware of this issue. The member for Chisholm spoke about the nice little garden in her electorate. They have a pizza oven and are doing all that sort of stuff. It always amazes me that the members in this place who represent completely concreted-over parts of Australia seem to be the experts in environmental programs! She spoke about grazing cattle in the high country and what an assault it was on the environment, but she did not mention the snow-skiing up there. She did not mention the highway going up to the top or the sewage that comes out of those lodges. So perhaps some sort of environmental degradation in the high country is acceptable to her constituents and some of it is not. Those cattle have been grazing there for 150 years and they have done a mighty job in controlling the vegetation and reducing the damage by high-intensity bushfires.

The Green Army project, to my way of thinking, will have two results: one is genuine environmental outcomes and the other is employment outcomes. The shadow minister, who is sitting at the table now, will be well aware of the communities of Boggabilla and Toomelah in my electorate. The Moree Plains Shire Council, in anticipation of the Green Army project, has been working with the communities there, as have I. The residents of Toomelah went through the absolutely gut-wrenching experience of having the shadow minister remove the CDEP program and replace it with nothing else. So, while we have heard members of the opposition speak about this being some sort of assault on the union movement and question whether workers will be treated fairly, I can tell you that the people at Toomelah just want something to do. They want something to do that is worthwhile. They want a reason to get out of bed in the morning. They want to learn a skill that will enable them, after this program, to gain occupations of a permanent nature and they want something that means something to them.

I have been in negotiations with the community up there for some time now in anticipation of this program. I have spoken with the traditional owners of the land up there. I have been out with the traditional owners to Boobera Lagoon. For those of you who may not know, Boobera Lagoon is the resting place of the rainbow serpent. The member is well aware from the work that he does up there of the significance of Boobera Lagoon. The Green Army project will look at restoring some of that area. The powerboats were removed some years ago out of respect for the wishes of the Aboriginal people. Rehabilitation work, weed control, fencing and bank stabilisation—a whole range of things like that—have taken place at Boobera Lagoon. The program will not only have an environmental outcome but also have real significance for the people who will be undertaking these projects. The Green Army program will have an impact on long-term unemployment.

I would like to mention the work of Moree Plains council. There has been some talk from the opposition today about training. I can tell you that the people who will be working on the Green Army projects in my electorate will have proper training. They will do inductions into workplaces through the local council. They will undertake certificate training for chemical accreditation and other genuine workplace issues. They will be given skills that will carry them well beyond the six months that they will be in this program. But what it will really do is give these young people a bit of structure and reason to get out of bed in the morning.

This is a community that the rest of society has largely moved on from. This is a community that has been labelled a hard luck place—a place of no hope. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, that that label does that community no justice. The young people up there whom I have been speaking to, and that Kylie Benge and Debby Baxter-Tomkins have been talking to, are waiting with anticipation for this program to start. They are looking to get back into something that is meaningful. They are ready to show the rest of their community that they are capable of real and meaningful work. This Green Army program will fit the bill. There will be a continuation of this program for some time. I commend the bill to the House.

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. The member for Parkes will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.