Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I acknowledge the contribution by the member for Swan. Let me assure him that, long before he was in this place, I was advocating for these issues. In fact, in 1992 I was fortunate enough to be the parliamentary secretary responsible for employment, education and training, and introduced what was then called the LEAP, the Landcare and Environment Action Program, which was terminated, unfortunately, when John Howard came to office in 1996.

This program, LEAP, introduced by the Keating government in 1992, sought to improve the long-term employment prospects of young people aged between 15 and 20 through formal training and practical experience. The program also aimed to broaden participants' practical know-how and to equip them with new skills specifically for projects promoting land care, environment, cultural heritage and conservation activities. I was fortunate, during the period in which I was responsible for that program, to be able to visit programs right across the country that enhanced the cultural and environmental amenity of communities around Australia.

For me, it was a signature program because it not only showed our absolute commitment to addressing environmental issues but also looked at how we might develop an environmental workforce from within the community, and give them an opportunity to serve and put in place quite valuable contributions to their local communities, which they did. I remember vividly going across a boardwalk outside of Darwin which was developed as a result of this program and the joy and enthusiasm of the participants who were involved.

Participants were paid a taxable training allowance that varied according to their age. The course consisted of 26 weeks of formal and on-the-job training, which was delivered by service providers contracted by DEET, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, as it then was, through a public tendering process. Service providers made available practical experience placements within projects that were focused on land care, cultural heritage or conservation. It was open to all people aged between 15 and 20 who were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service, as it then was, the CES—which, sadly, no longer exists—but special priority was given to the long-term unemployed and disadvantaged job seekers. This was a labour market program designed to address the needs of unemployed persons and, at the same time, give them an opportunity to contribute to their communities through being involved in enhancing their local environment through a number of measures. Sadly, as I said earlier, the Howard government terminated the program in 1996.

Now we have this Abbott government introducing key elements of the LEAP. Unfortunately, the Green Army Program, as it is to be called, lacks direction and key protections for those undertaking the program. Why should we not be surprised by that? Because last night's budget made it very, very clear what this government thinks of young Australians. What this government is now telling young Australians is: 'You're on your Pat Malone. We'll give you obligations; we'll make you do things; but you're on your Pat Malone.' It is a disgraceful way to treat young Australians.

This Social Security Legislation (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, by its very nature, demonstrates why we should be concerned about the Abbott government generally and, compounded by the budget last night, demonstrates what they think of working Australians and young Australians in particular. Under this bill, recipients of Green Army allowance cannot also receive a social security benefit or pension, with the exception of family assistance and childcare payments where participants are eligible. Income-testing arrangements will apply to the social security pension of a Green Army participant's partner, and 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. The government are actually trying to wipe their hands of any responsibility for engaging these young people in activities under this program.

In particular, proposed clause 38J, to be inserted in the Social Security Act, provides that a participant in the Green Army Program is not an employee of the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, is not an employee within the meaning of section 5 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 and is not an employee for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009.

This area has an absolute lack of protection for program participants as a direct result of this. We are concerned, on this side of the parliament, that this bill does not provide adequate protections for participants in the scheme—namely, in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. Labor accepts that we need to do a great deal more to be satisfied that the participants in this program will be covered by relevant state legislation and insurance held by service providers and the Commonwealth. We will need to continue to audit work safety to make sure that the interests of the young Australians who are involved in this program are, in fact, properly protected—because it is clear to us there are real questions about whether or not this government has that intention. We need to broaden the nature of the debate on this bill to a much wider discussion on how participants are protected if injured and what training is or should be provided—what supports will be provided to assist people to transition into work and what risks there are for the displacement of existing workers. We are deeply concerned, on this side of the parliament, that there are insufficient protections for participants in the areas of occupational health and safety, workers compensation and rehabilitation. Why is it that these workers do not have employee status, even though they are to be removed from the social security system and paid an equivalent training wage? Why is it they are denied employee status?

We also need to make sure there is no displacement of people who are currently engaged in these activities by this new workforce. There is an absolute lack of detail about the training provisions envisaged for this program, namely: the specified minimum hours; the provision of accredited and recognised training; and opportunities for ongoing training and career pathways. We are not convinced that this program will be supporting young people to make the transition to meaningful work and further training opportunities.

We need to contemplate those statements in the context of the budget that was delivered here last night. What we know is this government, as a result of last night's budget, has sent young Australians looking for work a really strong message: that it does not give a toss, with its savage cut of $1.2 billion to income support for people under 30—the very same people who are to be affected by this legislation. From 1 January next year, people under 30 who need Newstart or youth allowance will be forced to wait six months before receiving any support. What do you expect them to live on if they cannot find a job? Are they to be at home with their parents? Do we assume they have parents who can support them? Do we assume they have a home to go to? Are they to be homeless? What strategies are being proposed in this budget to make sure that young people who are seeking work are properly cared for? Effectively denying them an income for six months—I know what that will guarantee. It will guarantee hurt; it will guarantee suffering; it will guarantee pain.

But there seems no limit to what this government will do to young Australians. It blames them for their plight. Depending on where you live, you may have no opportunity to access either training or employment. You might have no opportunity if you are in my electorate of Lingiari, where we have a dispersed population in rural communities and the population in those places is largely Aboriginal. There is little work opportunity and few training opportunities. What is to happen to those young people? There are, of course, families. You can expect to see young women, in particular, bearing children in their teenage years—so these might be young mothers, young parents, with kids and at the age of 26 you are telling them, 'Hey! Can't find a job? Not in training? No income.' What sort of government does that to the people of Australia? Yet here we have it: this is all because we are to 'share the pain'. What pain? I cannot see pain being shared by the Prime Minister who gets on radio and says, 'Look, I've taken a $6,000 pay cut.' He is earning half a million dollars—who gives a toss about his 6,000 bucks?

I care about these young Australians. The minister opposite, Minister Joyce, should care about the young Australians who live in regional and remote areas of this great country of ours, because they will be most adversely affected by the changes introduced as a result of the budget last night. I wonder what happened in the cabinet debate, or if there was a debate. Was it all just done by fiat? We know that young people under the age of 24 will be shifted from Newstart onto the lower youth allowance, making them $48 a week worse off. How can you contemplate effectively cutting the income of young Australians under the age of 24 by 48 bucks a week? What impact do you think this may have on them and their families? How do you think it might impact on their life opportunities? How do you think these young people will access medical care? After all, they will be required to pay a co-payment. Tie it all together and what you see is a recipe for national disaster; yet there are no apologies from this government.

Whatever merits there may be in the bill before us, in terms of the program which is being proposed by the government, we have serious reservations about aspects of this bill. On the one hand the government is trying to tell young Australians that it can provide them with this opportunity for training, and on the other hand the government is telling them that, once they have finished their training, if they cannot find a job they can expect to have their allowances cut. What does that tell you about the government's belief in young Australians?

As a result of the government's twisted priorities, this budget will see an unemployed 24-year-old lose almost $2,500 a year. So Tony Abbott—the Prime Minister—is paying an extra six grand in tax, and young Australians under the age of 24 are going to lose $2½ thousand in payments. How does that square up? How can any reasonable person say that that is fair and equitable? I don't think any fair and reasonable person will say it is fair and equitable. Under the Abbott government's budget, young low-income earners bear the brunt, with support for low-income earners maliciously cut. The Abbott government has slashed skills and training, which have been hit by a $500 million cut. They are cutting nearly $1 billion dollars in support payments under the Tools for Your Trade program. We cannot believe this government. They are not fair dinkum. They have targeted the most vulnerable in our community—and young Australians are among the most vulnerable. They should be ashamed.

See this speech in context