Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansardmy remarks on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows

At this stage, I cannot support this bill.

I believe it is important to provide training pathways and support to help people find gainful employment. In that sense, I support the intention of this bill, and particularly its aim of linking social and environmental outcomes.

They are laudable aims, but my fear is that this bill as it stands does not achieve those aims.

Instead, it is missing essential basic safeguards that would ensure both the protection of workers in the program and the outcomes the bill seeks to achieve.

There are basic rights all workers in Australia deserve, whether they are participating in the mainstream

workforce or in a program like the one proposed in this bill.

Instead, people participating in the program will not be subject to any Commonwealth laws or protections. They will not be considered workers, trainees or volunteers under the law.

It is important to remember that many of the people who would be participating in this program would be some of society's most vulnerable: young, or disadvantaged, or disconnected. They may not have a lot of workplace experience or may be suffering from physical or mental health issues.

These are people who deserve protection in the workplace the most.

I note that the Government has stated that contractual protections will be built into agreements with service providers, but in my view that is nowhere near good enough.

It is also not good enough to say that providers will be bound by any state or territory laws that apply, given that most of these powers were handed over to the Commonwealth to form a national framework in 2010.

Access to the Commonwealth system would provide a more appropriate level of protection to participants in the program.

During the inquiry into the bill, the Law Council submitted:

" The Green Army Programme Guidelines do provide that Project Sponsors and their subcontractors must comply with the provisions of all relevant work health and safety laws, provide a safe working environment, and develop project specific work health and safety plans... However there is a significant difference between a contractual obligation to ensure safety (which might, if breached, mean that a service provider has their contract terminated) and the sanctions of criminal law that come

with being bound by workplace health and safety legislation. "

The submission continues:

" A contractual obligation to the Commonwealth to protect workers from injury does not provide the workers themselves with any compensation or redress if they are injured at work... The provision of insurance cover will mitigate the risk to some extent, but it is not clear why voluntary workers should be disadvantaged relative to other trainee employees in relation to workplace health and safety and income protection. "

I support these comments. At the very least, participants in the program should be considered to be trainees or volunteers, and given the legal protections that offers.

1 also think it's important to note the concerns that have been raised in relation to minimum payments under the scheme.

As others have said, participants in the scheme will not receive any other social security payments. There is no minimum payment or minimum hours to be worked, so participants could be far worse off in the program compared to receiving assistance.

I note the Senate Education and Employment Committee recommended that a minimum number of hours be mandated in the legislation to ensure reasonable payments to participants.

In addition to this, I believe those payments should be part of the means test for Newstart and other allowances, to make sure participants don't miss out and still get a fair go.

Lastly, I am concerned about the lack of requirement in the legislation for providers to offer training paths to participants. Without valid and useful training options, there is, as currently designed, potentially no long term benefit for participants and the program may do nothing to encourage and support people into the workforce.

Ultimately, while I broadly support the intention of programs such as the Green Army Programme, I cannot support this legislation without amendment.

There are essential safeguards missing from this legislation that will put participants in the program at risk. While I understand the provisions in this bill are similar to previous programs, there is no reason why participants in the Green Army Programme should be exempt from such basic rights.

Further, a lack of minimum payment levels and training programs will mean that participants may not only not benefit from the program, but may be worse off.

Mr Deputy President, the aim of supporting people into the workforce is a worthy one. But this bill does not achieve that aim and may in fact cause harm to the people involved in the Green Army Programme. I will not be supporting the bill without significant amendment to address these problems and ensure the safety and wellbeing of the program's participants.

Debate adjourned.