Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. As I said, there is a complete lack of evidence that this policy has any effect. It was a clause designed to be used for national security issues; that is what the government used to implement this policy. This is despite the fact that more people in our nation die from bee stings than from shark attacks. If you are going to call a national emergency, why not call a national emergency on bees as well as sharks? It is just a ridiculous policy.

We have seen our nation go backwards on any number of environmental fronts and climate change. We here in Australia, who were once seen as progressive and forward thinking, are now the laughingstock on the world stage, winning an unprecedented five Fossil Awards at the climate change talks in Warsaw late last year. Most recently, the government has approached the World Heritage Committee to de-list some 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. This is all while the new Liberal Premier of Tasmania has promised to tear up the Tasmanian forests agreement. This is a devastating outcome for the Tasmanian economy as well as the environment, and as a Western Australian I also think it sets a dangerous precedent for us. In my view it is a shameful record by any reckoning you make of it.

This is the very same government to which we will be entrusting our young people for this green army program. The government has been entrusted with one of the greatest honours in public life: to protect and promote Australia's wonderful natural assets. Instead, this government appears to be absolutely intent on destroying them. And our Prime Minister is not embarrassed for the whole world to know what he is doing. It is an appalling record.

Against that background of really poor environmental management—in fact, environmental destruction—Labor's concerns furthermore revolve around five other main themes. They are: work health and safety protections, workplace rights, the potential displacement of existing workers, training provisions and the transition of young people from the Green Army into meaningful training and employment.

Firstly, Labor is concerned that this bill does not provide adequate protections for participants in the Green Army scheme in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. If the government was truly concerned about these things, as they say they are, they would ensure the participants are deemed to be proper employees and, as such, are covered by a range of Commonwealth laws that include the Fair Work Act, the Work Health and Safety Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The government makes the point that people are to be paid a comparable training wage. If that is the case, why aren't these young people in this program to be treated as workers equivalent to those in other training programs?

The environment department has made it clear that organisations delivering the program will be required to have relevant insurance, so I guess that is a start, but it is by no means enough. We have been informed that the government will take out insurance to ensure that any participant who is injured in the workplace will receive the care and support they need. What we do not know is how difficult it will be for participants to make a claim, as this is likely to vary from state to state. So Australians have the right to be suspicious of this government's motives because the government has made it clear that health and safety are not a priority when it comes to this program. The government is seeking to deceive the Australian public into believing that this is an environmental program. Why does the government need to do that? Because it does not have a coherent environmental policy.

Make no mistake, this is an employment program and, as such, participants should be treated as employees. We acknowledge that Green Army participants will be paid at the equivalent of the training wage which, while not overly generous, will be more than the income support payments many of them would otherwise receive. These payments will be similar to the training wages received by thousands of other young Australians who are in vocational education or training. But, unlike trainees or apprentices, those in the Green Army are under the supervision of the Commonwealth. Denying them the status of 'Commonwealth employee' leaves them in a no-man's land in terms of the employer-employee relationship, which is where a range of workplace rights, including the ones I have mentioned, should have come into play.

Labor also has significant concerns about the displacement of existing workers. The government must assure all the hardworking Australians in local government and other organisations that employers will not be able to displace them and rely upon Green Army participants to do their work. There is no justification for a program like the Green Army that can provide employment pathways if the participants then go on to displace existing workers. We have had some assurance through program documents that organisations cannot use the Green Army to undertake work they are legislated to do. Nevertheless, in Labor's view, that uncertainty remains. The potential displacement needs to be fully addressed by the government in its design of the program.

I will turn to some other points in the time I have left to speak. Unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, causes great hardship to people, their families and communities. Entrenched unemployment also undermines the economic strength of Australia. Access to recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the AQF system is noted in program documentation for the Green Army as an optional component of the program—that is, to be negotiated with each participant. This gives me and Labor no confidence that participants will actually get access to training.

The government is very short on detail about the training components in the Green Army program: namely, which vocational skills are to be provided to participants and are these areas that have been identified by the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency as areas of emerging skills need? It does not appear that that is the case. But, if that is the case, why select the Green Army as a place to put all of these young people? Why not give them more relevant skills that will help them in their future? The training needs to aim at providing our young people with real and marketable skills that are in demand by employers. There is no work experience better than paid work experience in a real workplace, with serious support mechanisms to ensure all young people can reach their potential.

Labor believes that environmental based work and training programs can be an effective pathway to work for many job seekers as well as providing environmental benefits. These programs have the potential, if they are well designed and implemented, to achieve both those goals. But we cannot just address youth unemployment; we know there are massive future costs not just in terms of welfare and social supports but also in terms of each individual's lost opportunity. Real employment is one of the cornerstones of sustainable communities and economic development. Access to quality employment promotes social inclusion and improves our living standards. Our jobs in life are not everything, of course, but they help give us our identity, security and opportunity in life.

In conclusion, Labor does not oppose this bill before the Senate and does not oppose the idea of a Green Army program in principle. But we are incredibly concerned about the ability of the program to deliver workplace rights and protections, meaningful and recognised training and employment outcomes for participants. We will be keenly watching the rollout of this program very much in the hope that these issues are addressed throughout the tender and delivery process.