Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the courtesy of allowing me to continue my remarks on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. I will give some background on the environmental issues in my electorate of Swan and share where I think the Green Army Program can be beneficial and complement work planned for the electorate by the Liberal state and federal governments. The electorate is bound by rivers on three sides. It contains an extensive wetlands area in the south and contains lakes and swamps in the east. The aquatic surrounds and general environment of the electorate of Swan is a great asset for local residents, who can enjoy rivers, lakes and wildlife in the middle of urban Perth. But these ecosystems have to be maintained, and past actions have created problems which need to be addressed.

Some of these issues are big issues which require significant expenditure and remediation. Take, for example, the spread of the aquatic weed species hydrocotyl in the Canning River Regional Park. There are many types of invasive weeds that need to be managed in the park. There are ongoing projects being undertaken by groups such as the Canning River Regional Park Volunteers, which involve clearing areas of weeds and planting new vegetation in their place. But this hydrocotyl weed is of particular concern due to its extraordinarily high growth rate and the significant resources required to combat it. According to SERCUL Canning River restoration officer Matt Grimbly, hydrocotyl can double its biomass in a period of three days to a week. So, if left unchecked, it can grow right across a water body very quickly. Once it covers the water body, it blocks out sunlight and reduces oxygen levels in the water, making it very difficult for aquatic animals and other plants to survive. The hydrocotyl has been a problem in the Canning River for some time. As Mr Grimbly stated in the Canning Times newspaper on 4 February 2014, the weed, which is native to South America and probably introduced through the pet fish industry, has been in the river since the 1980s and caused a particularly severe problem in the summer of 1992.

I regret to inform the House that this year has been another high growth year for the hydrocotyl. This high growth rate has been noticed by the local environmental groups, which include the Wilson Wetlands Action Group, the Canning River Regional Park Volunteers and SERCUL, as well as by recreational users of the river, such as the Canning River Canoe Club. SERCUL and the Wilson Wetlands Action Group have received some funding from the State Natural Resource Management Program to stop the weed from spreading, but a Swan River Trust report estimates that the mass of weeds weighs in at 2,000 tonnes and will cost $1.2 million to eradicate. The sort of eradication that is required is clearly beyond the means of the local voluntary groups and requires some deeper funding from the federal government. That is why I have at the last two elections put forward, on behalf of the Liberal Party and in consultation with local groups, a $1 million commitment to the Canning River, of which a significant amount will be targeted at the hydrocotyl issue. This is a unique commitment for the Swan electorate, which I am proud to have been able to secure. It was a great moment to see it in the budget papers last night, and I look forward to being part of the process of seeing it delivered for the benefit of the river.

There are other challenges that are being addressed by the state Liberal-Nationals government. A good example of this is the $2.4 million being invested by the Liberal-Nationals government in an oxygenation plant at Langford in my electorate of Swan to reduce the impact of algal blooms and to prevent fish kills. And, on Friday, the WA state government announced a $4.8 million investment to rebuild the Kent Street Weir, which controls the movement of brackish water in the Canning River. The re-establishment of the well-used walkway over the weir will also be included in the works. And then there is the challenge of stabilising the Burswood river land, which has been used as a rubbish dump for many years. The Barnett government has just completed extensive geotechnical works ahead of schedule to prepare the site for a stadium and landscaping precinct. So these are works that require federal government intervention and are certainly beyond the capacity of local groups. An interesting part about the work being done on the stadium at Burswood and something that those on the other side might not be used to is the fact that it is six weeks ahead of schedule.

But, in and around these big issues, there are many problems that can be addressed on a local scale by local action groups on the ground, and this is where the Green Army comes in. Clearing land of weeds and revegetating it with native plants is a common activity of groups, and it gets results. The Prime Minister himself has helped contribute to this effort in my electorate when he got stuck into clearing weeds at Ferndale, with me and a group of volunteers. The result of the work is a safer wetlands environment, with a lower fire risk from the removal of weeds and grasses, more biodiversity, less damaging nutrients in the river, and a more pleasant environment to enjoy.

Since I have been the member for Swan, I have seen the great progress of these activities in areas such as Garvey Park in Redcliffe, Ferndale and Wilson. But, with the large areas of river frontage in the electorate of Swan, there is a need for more action, and the Green Army can spur this on. I am greatly encouraged by the interest already shown in the federal electorate of Swan by prospective project sponsors. The Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council, or EMRC, has applied to the Department of the Environment to be a project sponsor, with the hope of delivering at least two projects in the electorate of Swan—one at Garvey Park in Redcliffe and the other at Tomato Lake in Kewdale. These are two project sites that I proposed at the 2010 federal election for the Green Army Program. Having undertaken a site visit to Garvey Park, where I received a briefing on the riverbank restoration works, I can say there is certainly scope to extend the work via a Green Army project. And there are certainly important works at Tomato Lake—an iconic part of Kewdale and Perth and probably a hidden secret to many people who are not from that area.

There has also been some interest expressed by Perth Airport, which manages a large conservation estate on behalf of the Commonwealth. Many might not be aware when they fly into Perth that there are sensitive wetlands around the Perth Airport site, which Senator Birmingham and I inspected earlier in the year. So my electorate, perhaps more than any other, has the opportunity to benefit from the Green Army legislation, and I look forward to working with the local environmental groups in my electorate of Swan to hopefully maximise the opportunities of this legislation.

The coalition's Green Army Program will encourage hands-on, practical, grassroots environmental action as a means of fixing environmental problems as well as tapping into the knowledge of local communities and encouraging them to identify and fix their own local problems. I say 'hands-on'—and when we say 'hands-on', we mean it. As I said before, the Prime Minister has been down to Ferndale, in the Canning wetlands in my electorate of Swan, getting stuck into helping with weeding in the area, demonstrating his commitment and the commitment of the Liberal Party to practical environmental action. I see the member for Lingiari in the House. I am sure he has often gone down to help out his local community groups with weeding in environmental areas. I am sure he would be able to assure me of that.

I have been a Liberal candidate for the seat of Swan three times and I have been fortunate enough to be elected three times. In those three elections, the Labor Party and the Greens have not put forward a single policy to improve the local environment through environmental action on the ground in the electorate of Swan—not one single policy. In contrast, I am proud to have taken proposals to two consecutive elections for a $1 million environmental program for the Canning River—a program that was put together in consultation with the environmental groups in the Canning wetlands. So it does not surprise me to hear that the Greens are opposing this legislation for the Green Army corps. I think this demonstrates once and for all that the Labor Party and the Greens are not the parties of conservation in Australia.

The Green Army Program is primarily an environmental program; that is its primary goal and it will be judged on the results that it gets. As the minister outlined in his speech, it will bring 15,000 people together, the largest environmental workforce in Australia's history, to provide real and practical solutions to cleaning up riverbanks and creek beds, and revegetating sand dunes and mangrove habitats among other environmental conservation remedial work. It will commence from July 2014 with the rollout of 250 projects in 2014-15. There are three key components to the program. 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 their progress.

The Green Army Program is a benchmark of the Liberal-National coalition government's commitment to the environment. I am pleased that we were able to provide funding to local areas in my electorate. I commend the bill to the House.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to 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.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Green Army Program, or the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. This act amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and clarifies the social security arrangements for participants receiving the Green Army allowance. The Green Army is a key election commitment of the coalition government. It plans to have a green army of 15,000 people—between the ages of 17 and 24 years old—by 2018. This army will be undertaking 1,500 environmental projects, so it is definitely an environmental program; but it is also a training program. In 2014, it is envisaged that we will have 250 projects, with 2,500 people involved. The aim of the exercise is that the trainees also develop work skills, training, and experience. It is envisaged that the programs will deliver lasting community benefits. Some of the projects destined for this program are: revegetating denuded areas—sand dunes, beaches—restoring mangrove habitat; restoring local parks; repairing riparian zones along riverbanks and creeks; and working on improvements to and conserving heritage places, particularly landscapes. The projects also include seawalls, boardwalks, paths to protect wildlife, revegetation with native seedlings, widespread replantings and propagation, and helping to clean waterways.

What constitutes the Green Army? A Green Army team will be a unit of 10 people, with nine trainees and one supervisor. External service providers will be able to bid for projects with project sponsors, and the external service provider will recruit, establish and manage the team. People are already able to register their interest in this scheme. It is not Work for the Dole; it is not forced; it is a voluntary program for 17- to 24-year-olds. They can be gap year students, school leavers, people in other fields of employment, or unemployed. It should be a major boon for people who have not had employment before. The vocational training with the registered training organisation will involve workplace health and safety training and first aid training, as well as on all the equipment. People involved in this program will be suitably trained and skilled during the process but, at the start, all the issues that were just raised earlier should be addressed. That is in the rollout. It is designed that way—so that all those issues are covered in a safe and responsible manner by the external service provider. They are responsible for workplace health and safety and for risk management.

The National Training Wage, which is based on the age and qualifications of the trainees, is the payment method for these teams. Depending on one's age and qualifications, it varies between $608 and $987 a fortnight, which is better than youth allowance and Newstart. But one is also getting the benefit of some vocational training. The teams work for a period of 20 to 26 weeks and, during that time, significant skills can be acquired. One can develop a Certificate II in Conservation and Land Management. One can get a Certificate II in Drainage, or a Certificate I in Construction. The training involves learning the basic skills that one needs to move into the landscaping industry or into construction. All the basics of building earthworks in a vegetation setting, the skills of landscaping—they are all there. In addition there is the net result of a repaired riparian zone or a boardwalk or replantings and rejuvenation of iconic landscapes. So there are an awful lot of benefits that can be accrued in a lasting fashion, for both the individual and the community.

In the electorate of Lyne we campaigned to get two of these in the initial 150 rollout sites. I am pleased to say that we have two which went through that process and were approved. The proponents of that have started the ball rolling, with the paperwork, in putting in their propositions.

These two projects are waterway areas. Kooloonbung Creek requires extension and replantings and the net result will be a lasting walkway through a beautiful nature area that can be accessed by the community. It has huge natural beauty and a mixture of flora and fauna there that will be enhanced by the project. The second project, in the Queens Lake area, is a beautiful area of natural beauty in the Laurieton region. It has an ad hoc series of trails, which can be rationalised and made into a scenic walkway, pathway and shared bikeway and be of great benefit to the community and to all those people working on it.

Subsequent to this program, two community groups have put forward further proposals to link it all together. I thoroughly support that, and we will see if they can get in applications. There are capabilities within this program for people to link proposals into one major project or to have multiple external service providers do all the various sections of it. So it is a very flexible program, which should, in communities that are active, get very good results.

It is voluntary, and I have reassessed that. It is not work for the dole; it is voluntary. People are paid. They are trained, there is workplace health and safety in place and they can still earn extra income. If they do have part-time jobs at the local Macca's or other part-time jobs, as a lot of young people in this age group do—they cannot get together a full 38 or 40 hours a week, so they have lots of little jobs—being involved in this scheme does not preclude them from doing their part-time jobs.

It is a great environmental initiative. One only has to see the outcome of the Green Army program or the similar program that the member for Lingiari alluded to. It should develop good long-term outcomes for individuals and communities. It is not as draconian as the member for Lingiari suggested. There are safeguards in place so that all those issues are addressed. There is extensive information that can be obtained now, on the website, about this proposed program, so I commend the legislation to the House and recommend it highly.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get into the merits of the bill around the Green Army, I want to put on record how shocked I am to be standing here today hearing members of the government say the words 'key election commitment'. Of all the days to be talking about key election commitments and promises, when last night's budget broke so many key election commitments and promises—like no new taxes, no cuts to education and no cuts to health funding—they use that phrase today. To stand in here and say that they are proud to have kept this one key election commitment is something that those opposite should be quite ashamed of, not proud of.

This Green Army program is not the best program we could have in this space. There are a number of people in my local community who have provided me with feedback about their beliefs on the proposal before us. However, the fundamentals of this program build on a Labor legacy that the Keating government introduced in 1992. That program was called the Landcare and Environment Action Program and focused on work opportunities for young people, genuine work opportunities. I can remember, in high school, working with these people. I was a Landcare volunteer and worked side by side with people on this program. They were not only able to learn skills in this space but also able to teach and mentor volunteers like me in this space. That is a big difference between the legacy of this program and the program we are debating today. It is the skill that we will be introducing these young people to and the lack of training that will be in the Green Army program.

Labor has a proud record of standing up for the environment and supporting programs that will genuinely restore our country and tackle climate change. The bill before us, however, does very little to tackle the effects of climate change on our environment. This bill is an employment program, and not a very good employment program for our young people. But are we surprised that this government does not have a genuine employment program for our young people, given the budget it delivered last night? As other people from this side of the House have already said in this chamber, last night's budget is bad for all Australians but particularly bad for young Australians with its attacks on Newstart, its attacks on universities and its attacks on young people trying to get a genuine start.

We have moved an amendment on this side of the House to broaden the debate on this bill, being an employment program, to talk about how participants are protected if injured. We have also introduced in this amendment the kind of training—and have asked questions about the training—that should be provided and what support should be provided for people transitioning into work. There is genuine concern about this bill, which will replace and displace existing workers in this field. Basically, it is an employment program that could undercut the wages and conditions of people currently working in this field. That is something the people in my area, in my electorate, are genuinely concerned about. I agree we need to do everything we can to get young people into work, but programs like this undercut the workers we have. Programs like this do not ensure genuine training. Every individual who can work should be given the chance. But we know we need appropriate support and protection within any form of program to ensure that they do actually get a genuine opportunity. The Green Army bill fails to achieve this objective. There are serious questions being asked about the program and whether it will actually achieve any environmental outcomes.

As I mentioned earlier, I have asked the locals in my electorate involved in Landcare, Connecting Country and other environmental programs what they thought of the government's proposal in this area. Some of the comments that they gave me include: 'The Green Army is just another name for Green Corps but uses a military timbre, a trumpet, a twang to it.' Green Corps, a program under John Howard, ultimately failed for a whole host of reasons. There were some good outcomes which depended upon the expertise or support given by volunteers but not on the program itself. Green Corps, which of course is the equivalent of the Green Army from the Howard days, was basically a source of cheap labour, forcing young people who had little or no interest in the environment to do work the government forced them into. These are comments from people from the Bendigo electorate who were directly involved in the Green Corps program under the Howard government and who have the same concerns about the Green Army Program being rolled out in their community.

Other comments include: 'Locals involved in the environmental industry are very concerned about any programs such as the Green Army that could potentially take away jobs from those with experience, qualifications and insurance and already working in this field, especially concerning their seasonal and casual employment and issues they already face.' Another comment was: 'Under the Labor environmental programs, such as the biodiversity fund, organisations employed work crews that provided the necessary labour and expertise for landscape restoration. My concern is that the Green Army will not have these skills and therefore we will not get the landscape and country restoration we require.' These are the comments that are coming through from my community. They are concerned about the program that is before us. In other words, when Labor was in government we had a program that not only achieved good environmental restoration success but also skilled up the next people to work in the environmental industry. What we have on the other hand from the Liberal-National government, the Green Army Program, will actually achieve the opposite. I hold the same fears about this program as do those in my electorate.

This government simply has no credibility when it comes to the environment. Soon after taking office, the Abbott government began to rush through environmental approvals. One in my own part of the world, just north of my electorate, has a number of concerns. They allowed the reintroduction of cattle grazing on the high country. They argued that it was because they believed that cattle grazing reduced fire hazard. Really, seriously, it is just not true. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that reintroducing cattle grazing into the high country will actually reduce the risk of fire in the state of Victoria. It is just more nonsense from a government that is convinced by rhetoric and not actually wanting to achieve genuine environmental outcomes.

In its first few months, this government showed that the environment was now subordinate to commercial interests. We have seen that again and again every month, as more planning applications favour commercial interests over the environment. The government informed us the Climate Commission was no longer required. I am not surprised, given that the government does not want to actually achieve any genuine reform in this area. Why would it require independent, science based information and advice on climate change—particularly when some in the government are still climate change deniers. Funding for the Environmental Defenders Office, Caring for our Country and Low Carbon Communities have also been cut. Last night's budget had further cuts to this area.

It shows a very stark difference between those in government and those on this side. Funding cuts to organisations will hit my community very hard. A number of clean energy jobs will be lost in communities like Castlemaine, Bendigo and the Macedon Ranges. Despite being a regional electorate, we are an electorate that care very deeply for our country and care very deeply for our environment. This government's proposal and their plan for the environment is not one that we support. This shameful record by the government shows that we cannot trust them on a program like the Green Army Program. Whilst they stand here and say it will be a good outcome for the environment and it will be a good outcome for young people, you simply cannot trust them at their word. They are a government of broken promises. They are a government that will say whatever they can before the election and do what they like once they get here.

The program, as we have already heard, has a number of significant workplace occupational health and safety and employment issues. I share the concerns of my Labor colleagues that this bill does not adequately provide protections for the Green Army scheme, namely in the area of occupational health and safety. What happens if somebody is injured? What happens to their workers compensation? Will they actually receive the support that they need from this government if they actually have an injury whilst involved in this program? These are questions that have not yet been answered by this government, yet I am the last speaker on this bill. We will soon vote on this bill, and these questions have not been answered. Particularly when it comes to your rights in workplace safety, this government cannot be trusted.

We have seen other bills introduced in this House attacking safety at work. Whether it be on the roads or in the country, this government does not stand to ensure that people's rights at work are protected and that they have safe workplaces. We acknowledge that Green Army participants will be paid the equivalent of a training wage. These payments are similar to thousands of payments others receive in vocational training. Yet, unlike other participants like trainees or apprentices, the participants in the Green Army are under the supervision of the Commonwealth. Again, we see the trickiness of this program in avoiding responsibility. By denying them the status of Commonwealth employee this is a government keen to avoid responsibility. Commonwealth employees do actually have support if they are injured and their rights at work are protected.

The question that also has to be asked is: after creating the Green Army, which undercuts a number of jobs already existing in the environment sector, what will the government next create? Will they create a 'white-collar army' which will be responsible for perhaps filling the gap left by the 16,000 public servants that the government sacked last night, including 60 in my electorate when the government last night abolished the Australian Emergency Management Institute? That is an organisation that is responsible for ensuring that all of our emergency services are working together in emergency management. Last night the government tried to sneak that one past us and abolished this institution. We will no longer have a centre of excellence where our people can go to receive the training and the support that they need to be there for our communities in times of crisis and disaster. What will replace it? Will it be replaced at all? Perhaps they will try and create a white-collar army, pay them a training wage and say, 'You can do these jobs instead.'

Displacement and reduction in employment opportunities exist for workers and I am concerned that this government lacks the capability to come up with decent programs—programs that will actually ensure that workers get good jobs at the end of them. The Green Army program, as I have mentioned, will seek to undercut the good work that is already going on, particularly in my electorate. Connecting Country are a community based organisation who currently receive federal, state and local government funding. They are concerned that the Green Army program will see their full-time jobs be replaced with these low-paid, low-skilled trainee jobs. It means that once again the people in my community currently working in this field will find their jobs at risk. It shows that this government lacks the vision or the understanding that is needed in my electorate to tackle climate change and develop environmental programs that will see a real outcome. We have no shortage of volunteers in the Bendigo electorate ready to help out and make sure that we have a strong, healthy environment. But to lead those volunteers we need a strong and skilled workforce. Our fear is that this program, the Green Army program, will undercut the skills and qualifications that we already have in our community.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) bill 2014. I would dearly love to speak on this for an hour because one of my passions is the success of the Green Corps, a previous program implemented by the Howard government. I know the member for Bendigo has not been in the parliament very long, but if she were here long enough I would be able to tell her about some of the huge successes that were seen throughout Australia as a result of that program.

Just a couple need to be put on the record. Green Corps was able to produce something like 5,000 kilometres of walking tracks and boardwalks; it cleared 5,000 tonnes of weeds; it constructed more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing to protect sand dunes and wetlands; and it propagated more than 14 million trees. That is not a bad success, dare I say to the previous member, who wanted to say that the Green Corps program did not achieve anything. I will also address some of the other things she alluded to. I have had three projects committed in my electorate, which I will outline in a moment. It is fantastic that this will engage local community groups, local governments, local environment groups and young people in particular between the ages of 17 and 24, all of which are important to the vital growth of Australia.

In Western Australia we have an unemployment rate of something like 4.9 per cent, but, sadly, in the Peel region—the area that I represent around Mandurah—youth unemployment is heading towards 20 per cent. One in five young people is still struggling to get a job in a resource-rich state like Western Australia. This program will definitely help young people like that. This is evidence of our commitment to the environment, young people working in the environment and the career prospects of those young people. Contrary to what was said by the member for Bendigo, under this program there are training certifications and there are outcomes that young people involved in these programs can transfer to other jobs. The success of this program saw a lot of people that I was engaged with in the electorate go on and get substantial jobs. Unbelievably, this 26-week program started off with 10 young people and sometimes before the program had finished they had been poached or headhunted by the local council, a nursery or an environmental repair agency to go and work for them because they saw how talented and dedicated they were in doing their jobs.

May I also say that all my local governments involved themselves in the previous Green Corps programs: the City of Armadale, the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, the Shire of Murray, the Shire of Waroona and the City of Mandurah. The City of Mandurah was a standout star. It had 22 Green Corps programs and the legacy of those 22 programs is now that many wetlands in the Peel region are protected and enhanced. For example, along the Murray River in North and South Yunderup, the wash from the boats had started to see the erosion of the river banks and the degradation of that whole environment, where the reeds and sedges are basically the lungs of the river—they clean and cleanse and enhance the water quality. The young people were involved in the replanting programs in those wetlands and that river was restored. Man does have an influence and a footprint on our environment and quite often we are obliged to repair it, and that is what these young people did in these programs.

There were so many programs. We were involved with Alcoa, who is the largest employer in the Peel region. They have a large refinery and mining operation in Pinjarra. Alcoa engaged with the local people at Fairbridge to repair a number of rivers and wetlands in that area. I can go on. Coastal dunes were protected from blowouts by putting boardwalks in so that people would not traipse through and further erode them.

The program was an outstanding success. Why did that program fall in a hole? Because the Labor Party took over in 2007. Philosophically they did not agree with this program. They did not agree with Work for the Dole. I will give you examples of the tragedies that stand as a legacy of failure from the Labor Party cancelling this program in 2012. The brook that runs through Jarrahdale—an area famous obviously for its jarrah trees—had been overrun by weeds and needed rock walling, and the Green Army was doing that. The Work for the Dole program was involved in repairing the former mill manager's residence, a cottage with heritage values. The Labor Party cancelled that program because they do not like mutual obligation—we know how they railed against it when it was introduced—and that cottage stands half finished. The legacy is a crumbling cottage that is half repaired.

The Labor Party decided to fold Work for the Dole into the Green Corps program and those proud young people aged 18 to 25 years old in their new uniforms, including boots and protective gear, were joined by long-term, recidivous unemployed who said: 'You don't have to turn up for work. Truancy is just a part of our way of life.' They would turn up drug affected or alcohol affected. Some of them had mental illness issues and should have been in professional care instead of being put on a Work for the Dole program. But Labor rolled all these older people into the Green Corps program and destroyed it. Then they said, 'It doesn't work,' and cancelled the whole thing. That was one of the tragedies that happened previously.

This program is now going to reinstate and reengage young people into community programs that are going to help the whole electorate. The member for Bendigo said that these people are not going to get paid properly, be looked after properly or be able to sustain themselves. They will. They actually will get paid more than the job search allowance. As the previous speaker from Lyne said, they can maintain their part-time work. If they are working after hours or on weekends they can maintain two jobs. At the end of it they will get a certificate that is transportable into a new job.

None of these programs would have existed without the necessary workplace and duty of care obligations in terms of occupational health and safety. They are insured. The member for Bendigo said she was the last speaker on their side, although I see another speaker. The answer to her question is: yes, they have all the insurances that anyone in a workplace should have. We would be irresponsible as a government to set up a program where they were not insured. They get more money and they are looked after and insured. If they get ill or hurt on the job they will receive those entitlements through the set-up of this program.

I want to talk about the programs that are going to be rolled out in the electorate of Canning. As an aside, the age has increased from 17 to 24 and that will include in this program a lot of young people who are volunteers. They are not dragooned or press-ganged; they are volunteers and they proudly involve themselves and engage themselves in the program. Many of them from the previous programs come back to see the results of their handiwork and the work they have done to repair the environment.

Three priority Green Army projects are in the electorate of Canning: the Peel-Harvey Catchment project, the Len Howard Conservation Park project and the Birriga Brook project. The Peel-Harvey Catchment is one of the largest wetlands in Western Australia. It is under stress from nutrients coming down through three rivers: the Harvey River, the Serpentine River and the Murray River. They carry a huge nutrient load from the farming areas and the tributaries go right back into the wheat belt. People put superphosphate on their paddocks and that comes down with the water and you get massive algal blooms and degradation of the waterways in the Peel-Harvey Catchment. As a result, it needs special management.

I digress slightly to say that one of the achievements that we committed to and has been confirmed in the budget is to now have the Peel-Harvey as a stand alone NRM. It is being hived off from the South West Catchments Council, the SWCC. The South West Catchments Council went from Albany right through to Perth. The Peel-Harvey Catchment area obviously starts largely in Harvey and goes north. It is a smaller area but it is a very large, sensitive wetland area and it needs specific management. Minister Hunt should be congratulated on seeing the merits of creating a stand-alone NRM to look after this very sensitive and highly valued wetland and environmental region. It is part of the Ramsar wetlands. The thrombolites, an ancient life form, are in some of those areas there. That shows how valued, how old and how pristine this region is that needs to be looked after. There we have the Green Army program looking at environmental repair projects around Peel-Harvey Estuary.

Also, the Len Howard reserve around Mandurah is an area that needs specific looking after. This wetlands area is in the north-west corner of the Peel Inlet in an area called East Erskine. The park is named after Len Howard, a true champion of environmental causes in the Mandurah and Peel region. The majority of the park is a wetland area which includes walking trails and a number of birdwatching areas, or hides—both of which are popular amongst locals and visitors throughout the region.

Over the past few years, however, these areas have become inundated with fallen trees, debris, rubbish and invasive weeds. The build-up of debris poses a serious fire hazard, especially considering the park's borders are near residential areas around Willoughbridge Crescent et cetera. In addition to this fire risk, residents on these streets have also had to deal with trespassing trail bikes . I am sure that anyone in an outer metropolitan electorate has the scourge of trail bikes chopping through everyone's backyards and nature reserves. They have begun to utilise parts of this reserve and are not only disturbing its sanctity and ambience but also further damaging this valuable wetland area.

The Department of Environment and Conservation manages this park, and the area is located within the city of Mandurah. This is potentially a great tourist attraction, but it is a problem for the region because of its degradation. We are going to fix this up under the Green Army project. We are going to repair the trails; we are going to put bollards in to stop those motorbikes coming through and terrorising not only the residents but also, more importantly, the animal and bird life. We are going to make sure that the area is less invaded for people observing many of the migratory birds in that area by repairing the hides and general access to the area to enhance the area's integrity.

Another project in my electorate is the Birriga Brook project. All of the paperwork has been done for that one. It is ready to go—as they say, it is 'shovel ready'. I congratulate Keith Ellis, the new President of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. They have all their formal agreements in place, and I will be meeting with Keith Ellis and his shire people shortly to get on with this area in Darling Downs. Darling Downs is an area with large blocks where people keep horses, generally. Also, there are bridle trails, walk trails and a fair wetland. The problem with Birriga Brook is that some of the people further up the stream decided that they did not like it going through their properties or wanted to keep the water, so it has been blocked and chopped all the way through. We are going to restore the environmental flows to this brook. We are going to clean out all the weeds and all the rubbish that has been coming down there for ages. At the moment, the stream does not run. It is dead. We want to get it back flowing so that it adds to the environment in the Darling Downs area.

This is a great story. This is a story that should continue so that the young people can repair and enhance the environment. I commend the bill to this House.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this bill before the House, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, and the second reading amendment. This bill is to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to enable a payment of a Green Army allowance. The bill provides for a commencement date of 1 July 2014 and provides for the insertion of a definition of both the program and the allowance. The bill asserts that participants of the Green Army program cannot receive a social security benefit or pension but, rather, will be paid an allowance. This allowance is aligned with the national training wage.

However, participants in this scheme are not even considered workers or employees under the Work Health and Safety Act, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act or the Fair Work Act, as the bill provides for exemptions from all of these acts. On this side of the House, we find it rather grave and concerning that these particular protections are not in place. I am further concerned by the potential risk of job losses or cost shifting within organisations that successfully tender for this program. Whilst in principle the opposition do of course support programs that provide young unemployed Australians an opportunity to gain work experience, and of course we do support a program that has environmental benefits, there are still many wide-ranging issues and concerns that we have about this program. Indeed, many of these concerns were outlined much earlier in the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide.

This program also exposes that the government do not understand or have in place feasible employment and training strategies and plans. We saw that highlighted last night in the budget, with some of the many cuts that were announced. In particular, we saw, in relation to younger people, that the government are slashing a further $1 billion in investment in skills and training by abolishing a whole range of very important programs for our young people. These programs were particularly around apprenticeships, as well. So we know they are not concerned about effectively training young people. This also exposes the fact that the government completely lack a coherent environmental policy. I will deal with that later, but in the budget we also saw a whole range of programs that were cut, funding that was cut and a whole lot of promises that were broken in the area of environmental programs.

On the other hand, the Labor Party has a proud history of protecting both the environment and the economy by creating jobs and protecting longstanding working conditions. Balancing these important factors, indeed, can be a difficult and challenging task—a task that the Abbott government clearly struggles to understand with this Green Army program legislation.

If we look at the Green Army program, it is essentially designed to act as a work experience program. It is a program containing no opportunity for real skill advancement. It lacks training provisions and there is no recognisable certification upon completion. No job search requirements will apply to this program and there are no adequate training components to really enhance long-term employability. It is a work experience program that lacks any assurances that participants will be working or training in safe and regulated environments. Of course, under this bill, participants will not be afforded adequate protections. They will not have the right to seek compensation under federal law for workplace injuries. Make no mistake about this. This is not a program designed to protect the environment; it is not a program designed to combat climate change; and, certainly, it is not a program designed to offer effective and proper training, particularly for younger people.

The first rendition of the Green Army program was originally instituted by the Howard government in 1997 as Green Corps. It was a Work for the Dole program for the long-term unemployed. The Green Corps program included a provision for volunteers. This program did not require legislation and participants received standard unemployment payments and all associated contingent benefit payments. The program required 134 hours of accredited training and participants also had access to a $500 payment during the six months post-participation for additional training. The program has been changed at various points from 1999 to 2007, including the early removal of the $500 additional training payment.

In 2009, following amendments under the Rudd government, the scheme became known as the National Green Jobs Corp. The program provided 130 hours of accredited training, assisting participants to gain a qualification. Workers received standard unemployment payments and the associated contingent benefit payments they were entitled to. Labor agrees that environmental-based work and training programs can be an effective pathway to work for many job seekers as well as potentially providing some environmental benefits. However, it is not in any way a substitute for sound and protected employment strategies. As was highlighted by the budget last night, these are strategies which this government is lacking. Workplace training programs should be targeted, effective and measurable.

We, on this side of the House, know that we should be doing everything we can to get people into work. That requires providing effective training, particularly for our young people. Everyone who wants to work should be given the opportunity to work and to get effective training to enable them to better access those employment opportunities. We know that that can only happen if you have appropriate support structures in place. Labor believes in helping people get a job through the right training and incentives and, most importantly, through an appropriate level of support and workplace protection. As I mentioned, the bill proposed by the government omits much of the detail required on workers' rights, benefits and protection. For instance, access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian qualifications framework is an optional component of the proposed program, to be negotiated with each participant. This does not give us in opposition or the participants in the program any confidence that people will gain access to training.

There are a great many questions that remain unanswered by this government regarding the Green Army. For instance, how will the program support participants moving into mainstream employment? Will there be minimum training outcomes? If so, what are they? Will there be minimum training hours? What protections will there be to ensure no paid jobs are lost due to the Green Army programs and no cost shifting takes place within the Green Army units?

Overall, this bill provides an example of what the Liberal and National parties do best. They rip away awards and protections for employees and trainees and do nothing to ensure long-lasting realistic measures to protect our environment effectively. The government will have you believe that this is an environmentally sound jobs initiative designed to combat climate change. However, the fact remains the Abbott government completely lacks any environmental credibility. The Liberal-National Party has a very long history of cutting environmental protection legislation. For example, it has actively pursued the destruction of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, it has looked to abolish the Climate Change Authority, it has voted against putting a price on carbon, and it has voted against and worked to remove the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, which was expanded in 2012 to create the world's largest network of national parks in our oceans—a great achievement which has been undermined. We know that the federal Liberal-National Party government are looking to pursue the expansion of coal seam gas mining in New South Wales. This is a very big issue in my electorate that I will touch on later on.

We know that there is this long history of environmental vandalism from this government at the federal level, but that is the case at the state level as well. This is reflected in my electorate of Richmond through the concerns its residents have. The New South Wales state government has failed to act on environmental matters and has failed to protect our environment. They are allowing shooting in our national parks, an issue of major concern to many people in my electorate on the North Coast. They are also removing marine parks and failing to protect important coastal reserves like Lot 490 at Kingscliff that I have spoken about before. There is a lot of concern in my electorate about the lack of environmental credibility and the acts of what people refer to as environmental vandalism by the state government. One of the biggest environmental issues showing the lack of awareness of this government is the expansion of coal seam gas mining in my electorate. State National Party MPs are actively pursuing the expansion of the coal seam gas industry by unconventional gas mining on the New South Wales north coast. The community has many concerns about this. Particularly, we feel that it is unsafe. The impact on the health of residents and the environmental impacts are unsafe. We are also concerned about how it will affect us economically through the growth of an industry like coal seam gas mining or unconventional gas mining.

We have a current situation of grave concern at a place called Bentley, which is just outside Lismore. It is the site at which a company by the name of Metgasco is seeking to undertake some exploration of unconventional gas mining. We have hundreds and sometimes even thousands of locals who are camping just outside of there. They comprise a cross-section of people: farmers, retired people, younger children, and mums and dads. They come from throughout the area. There are hundreds of people camping on private land right near the site, all very concerned about the fact that Metgasco may start drilling there. Of greater concern are reports that the New South Wales state government, under the direction of the National Party, intend sending 900 riot police over the coming days to break up a peaceful blockade of people who are on a private farm and are very concerned about what is potentially about to occur there. These people are committed to staying there and making their voices heard. I have grave concerns if these riot police are sent there as the new New South Wales Premier is insisting he will do.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I ask you to draw the member's attention back to the bill in front of us. This is not relevant.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been wide-ranging discussion so far.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed typical of the coalition. When it comes Labor raising concerns about environmental matters they try to shut us down. This is of grave urgency to our community. The National Party is about to send 900 riot police to break up farmers and children. I would like to place on record that the state National Party members for Tweed, Ballina, Clarence and Lismore will be held personally responsible if one person is hurt when they send their riot police into Bentley over the coming days. It is the most shameful act that I have seen this state government pursue. There have been quite a few shameful acts since they were elected but this is absolutely horrendous. It really highlights the lack of environmental credibility the coalition have at both the state and federal levels. We are discussing here the green army, and they have shown their lack of environmental credibility. That certainly extends across the federal government and onto the state government right through all of those issues that I have talked about. In my area I think it is best highlighted by the fact that the National Party actively pursued the expansion of coal seam gas mining—and, when they do not get their way, they send in riot police. So we will be watching very closely what happens over the next few days.

I would like to talk about Labor's proud tradition of protecting the environment.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept the wide-ranging nature of the discussion, but having coal seam gas discussions during a debate on the Green Army Program and volunteer impacts in local communities appears to be straying from the subject matter of the bill.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to talk about Labor's very proud tradition of protecting the environment, which many speakers have highlighted. Indeed, it was the Hawke Labor government which moved to protect the Franklin River from being dammed, it was a Labor government that stopped mining in Antarctica and it was a Labor government that knew we must have action on climate change though a carbon pricing scheme. So whilst we can acknowledge that there may be some minor environmental benefits of a program like the Green Army Program, which I was speaking about earlier, it is simply not a long-term response to tackling very complex environmental issues.

There is still grave concern within the community about climate change. During the election campaign the Liberal and National parties were asked about their inaction on climate change. Their response was—and we have heard it here today—'the green army'. That was it. That was all the response they had, no more. It was just: 'the green army; more magic trees.' That was how they approached it, and unfortunately I think that is what a lot of them still feel about it today.

On this side of the House, we have outlined our position to take serious action not just on climate change but on a whole range of very serious environmental issues. We understand how important it is that we do that. We have also outlined our concerns about the need to have effective employment strategies in place. Planting a tree does not train a person; it does not give them skills for future employment. And it certainly does not combat climate change effectively.

This bill really is a reflection of this government's lack of credibility on environmental issues. As I mentioned before, you only have to look at the budget to see some of the really harsh actions of this government: the budget ripped funds from grassroots environmental programs, from CSIRO and from the Bureau of Meteorology as well as from renewable energy initiatives. The budget broke promises not to cut Landcare funding, ripping more than $480 million out of Landcare and conservation programs. It cut $10 million from the Bureau of Meteorology and $2.8 million from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Of course, it also scrapped climate science research programs across government agencies. So, what happened last night was indeed a reflection of the Abbott government's woeful environmental record. It compounded that record and indeed it compounded the cynicism and distrust that exists in the community when it comes to the coalition and any of their environment related programs.

As I have said, right throughout my area we find examples in a whole range of programs. There is a lot of well-founded cynicism in terms of not only the environmental benefits but also the training benefits of this program. In my area, like many regional areas, we have a very high number of unemployed youth. These youth are always wanting decent, accessible training programs, which of course have been severely slashed as of last night. This program does not provide decent, accessible training and nor does it provide protections for participants. Young people looking for training have very little faith in programs like the green army. So whilst in principle parts of the program could potentially be worthwhile, I just do not trust this government to carry it out because of their record of a lack of employment strategies and a lack of environmental policies. They just do not have any of those effective policies at all. We see that across the board—at the state level and with the current federal government.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Richmond for her wide-ranging contribution and I call the member for Murray.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, which amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. I will stick to the bill. I think it is an insult to the constituency of the member for Richmond that she dismissed one of the greatest youth employment programs that this country has ever seen, particularly given this is a second iteration. I had the privilege of being responsible for the old Green Corps program, which was brought into being under the Howard government. It was a stunningly successful program, which dealt with environmental degradation, supporting biodiversity and a whole range of initiatives right across the country, and it also dealt with cultural heritage. I will never forget the teams I saw employed in the main street of Bendigo helping to rebuild the old iron lace which is a feature of the very old goldfield buildings of Bendigo.

I think it was very sad and cynical that the member for Richmond tried to use this opportunity to bolster up, I guess, her Green party support credentials. After all, she did only receive 33.5 per cent of the primary vote in the last election and she needed the preferences from the Green candidate's 17 per cent of the vote to get her over the line. She spent a lot of time in her speech being critical of the National Party and suggesting that the National Party is the enemy of the environment. Need I remind her that the National Party candidate won the highest number of primary votes in that Richmond campaign. Quite clearly, her locals had a different opinion about the policies and the calibre of the National Party team who wanted to look after the people of Richmond. I am sure those constituents now regret the final outcome of that election.

Let me also say that the previous speaker got it very wrong. I am not sure whether she has not read the details or whether it was just part of her whole cynical approach of saying that this government does not have at its core a profound understanding of the needs of the environment, to sustain the environment and to protect our internationally-acclaimed biodiversity. Amongst other things she said was that this Green Army Program would have no safety protections, that there would be no health and safety measures for participants engaged in the program and that it would not be subject to any special regulations, by-laws and requirements of state and territory governments in respect to their work health and safety laws. Well, that is just rubbish. It is, of course, totally wrong.

As was the case in the old Green Corps, the project sponsors will have to share responsibility for providing a safe workplace, safe access to worksites—all of the measures in Australia that are an appropriate response to people working out of doors or in a heritage location. The member for Richmond was also wrong in claiming that there would be no training outcomes, no certification, or no understanding or acceptance of the efforts made by participants during their training. If the member for Richmond had taken a couple of minutes to read the details of this program, she would have seen that the people who are to undertake this program—it could be for up to six months—will have all of the competencies that they achieve recognised under the Australian National Training Framework. They will get a certificate I or II, depending on what they have done. So her comments are just a nonsense. I hope the member for Richmond is listening to my remarks, so that she does not go on misleading her own young people, who I am sure are lining up—in particular those who are looking for a gap year, are currently unemployed or are not sure if they might want to pursue a full-time career in natural resource management. I hope they get some better support from her if they want to participate in this fantastic new Green Army Program. She really needs to reassess her current response to this program, or her constituents are going to be even more dissatisfied when it comes to the next election.

We have a situation in Australia where unless we have a government sponsored program like the Green Army we are not going to have the work done in places like the great Barmah forest, the biggest red-gum forest in the world. The forest is in my electorate of Murray, so, not surprisingly, I am very concerned about the weed infestation there, the feral animals and the loss of Indigenous heritage values in that place.

The previous speaker, the member for Richmond, said, 'This is a shocking program, because it is going to mean that all sorts of people will go and substitute paid workers for these young people undertaking a Green Army project.' What rubbish! Clearly, she has to get out more and understand the current neglect of national and state parks or public open places, where none of this work is being carried out, because the local council or the state government has other priorities or they do not have the funds. This program moves into those spaces and places in Australia where we do not have any permanently paid workforce doing the job.

We do not have anyone at work continuously or even part time in places like the great Goulburn riverine precinct where, unfortunately, because of new environmental water-holder flows that are being pushed down from the Eildon reservoir, we have massive bank erosion and gouging. Where once the Goulburn River rose and fell according to the seasons, because of the massive flushing through the releases of the Commonwealth environmental water-holder we have destruction of our riparian zone such as we have never had before. So we need replanting of the understorey and the canopy trees all along the Goulburn River. We need to reinstate a lot of the bankside herbage. There is no-one to do that, other than a group like the Green Army. This is going to be a fantastic program in that it offers 17- to 24-year-olds up to six months in a project which has been put forward by their own community. It could be put forward by the local government, it could be a Rotary club or it could be a group of individuals.

The projects, of course, will be carefully assessed on their value, on whether they are real work. We are not talking about painting white rocks; we are talking about real environment and heritage protection work. The projects will require skills and will include training. There will be about nine members in each group and they will have one supervisor. I would hope there would be a fifty-fifty split of young men and women in these groups. In my area I already have a lot of interest from our local Indigenous communities. They see this as a fantastic opportunity for young Indigenous men and women, who are starting to get more of a sense of their own cultural inheritance and their own responsibility for managing the biodiversity in some of their own places like the Cummeragunja old mission station.

This is going to be, following on from our old Green Corps, one of the best opportunities a young person has to try out a career in natural resource management or simply to have a sense of what it is like to get up every day, join a team, do real work and actually do work that is going to give them a sense of contribution to their community. In my area, I am very sad to say, we have up to 20 per cent youth unemployment, particularly in places like the fringes of Shepparton. Many of the unemployed young people are looking for work, but it is not there, or they are so disengaged that they have simply given up. Their lives are spent in a cycle of boredom, helplessness and hopelessness. As a result, we have a huge ice epidemic in my area and also a huge problem with binge drinking. A government like ours understands that putting a six-month program in front of these young people as an option is an enormously valuable thing to do.

It was so disappointing to hear someone carrying on as the member for Richmond did. I know she was desperate to get her green credentials in front of the Greens party to thank them for their support for her in winning her seat. But to misrepresent this program as she did was such nonsense. She said that it would not lead to training credentials and that it was not going to have properly managed occupational health and safety measures, and she suggested that it was going to be about the substitution of other people already employed in full-time or part-time work. I want to reinforce that this program will be the biggest youth environmental program that the country has ever seen. It will give such a boost to the young people who are lucky enough to become a part of it. I do not think you can put a value on work experience of this type for a young person whose alternative is not to be employed at all or not to know precisely if an outdoor job in natural resource management is for them.

This is a superb program. It will, of course, cost us. These young people will be paid the equivalent of a training allowance and the supervisors will be paid appropriately, so there is a cost involved. While there is a cost to us, the benefits and the payback to the environment and the community are enormous. I commend the minister for making sure that this was not only a campaign commitment from us but is being pushed along at a very fast rate. We have a number of projects ready to go right now. In 2014-15 we expect 250 projects, with 2,500 young people engaged. Already in my area projects are queuing up and young people are asking, 'How can we be a part of this great new program?'

I also want to make the point that this is about cultural heritage conservation as much as it is about the more traditional habitat protection, improving water quality, and foreshore and beach restoration. I will never forget a cultural heritage combined foreshore and beach restoration project I went to see when I as managing this program under Green Corps. It was along the foreshores of the western district, around the Warrnambool area. Beach erosion was exposing a lot of Indigenous kitchen middens and tool chips, a lot of great implements and examples of the culture of the people who had gone before. A lot of Indigenous young people were part of that Green Corps team. Can you imagine the excitement of that young team, who were being engaged first of all in identifying and then in protecting and learning about the cultural heritage of their ancestors? It was a stunning project, and one that was not just a six-month on-and-off experience for those people, because the protection of those foreshores went on long after the project had ended.

I remember being down in Tasmania and walking along the kilometres of walking tracks and boardwalks that had been built through some of Tasmania's magnificent wilderness, some of it quite close to places like Hobart. These are public places that had been inaccessible to individuals in wheelchairs or people pushing prams or using walking frames. Through the building of these boardwalks and walking tracks, we are now able to access some of the most magnificent vegetation and ecosystems in the world. This was the work of a local Green Corps team, as they were called in those days. It was hard work. It was not easy. These young people had to build the tracks, cart a lot of timber in and learn how to construct long-lasting timber structures. They built bridges over steams. It was an extraordinary effort, and those boardwalks and the walking tracks associated with them are still there and they are a major tourism boon and benefit to the people who visit.

This business of Green Corps, now called the Green Army, fosters teamwork, local ownership and a community spirit. One of the sad things that comes with unemployment for a young person is isolation, a sense of being friendless, a sense of being completely alienated from the community where you live. Young Green Army people are able to step into a team that is like-minded and is training together. They wear the same uniform, they travel together to the location of the work, and they eat their lunch together. They also engage with the volunteers who have often put up the project in the first instance. One of the things that impressed me most with this program, in its first iteration, was that—say it was a Rotary club or a Lions club that had put up the project—they did not just simply leave the team to it and come back when it was finished and say that it was okay and then move away. They would actually engage with the young team—perhaps have a barbecue. They would get stuck into it and work alongside the team. They would be saying: 'Thank you. Alone we could not have built the new walking track, done the weeding, or regrown of the vegetation, or completed the clearing of the olives in the swamp that they were doing. We have a team of young people from our own community doing the hard work and we thank you for it.'

I commend this program. I think it is magnificent. I think it covers all the bases when it comes to what we need to do to re-engage some of our youth and to give an opportunity to other youths who may simply want to try a new career direction. This program is for them. It is going to deliver many real outcomes for communities that need feral animal work or heritage protection, so I strongly commend this bill to the House, and I say 'shame' to the previous speaker, who either misunderstood or deliberately misled us about this program.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. The great thing about this legislation and the program is its practical environmental benefits. In a moment I will come to some of those practical environmental benefits within my electorate. But I think it is important to reflect on the context in which this takes place. Our approach on this side of the House is to pursue initiatives that have a practical benefit to the environment. You would think that would be self-evident, and something that would be shared on both sides of the House. But what we see on the other side of the House is an ideological approach that favours big government interventions in the economy and the resultant disastrous impacts on small businesses and families. Nowhere is that more clear than in the different approaches on emissions reduction.

There is a bipartisan goal of a five per cent reduction by 2020 in year-2000-level emissions. But where there is a very clear contrast is in the method of achieving that goal. Those opposite, of course, favour the carbon tax—the world's biggest carbon tax, a tax that is costing families $550 each year in my electorate and around the country. A total of 75,000 businesses are paying it and it is having a very practical impact. I was at a dry cleaning business in my electorate the other day where they no longer run their machines past two o'clock in the afternoon because of the impact of the carbon tax on their electricity bills. There is a similar situation down at a local swimming pool. Swimming pools are of course so important for young people. Many of our young kids train there each week. Again, his power bill has gone through the roof, so much so that he is having to consider cutting back on the hours of operation of the pool.

In contrast to that approach, our Direct Action plan, which provides clear incentives for businesses to reduce their carbon footprint, will achieve the same goal of a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 on 2000 levels. So the question is this: if you can achieve emission reductions with minimal impact on the economy, why would you actively choose a mechanism that results in a substantial negative impact on the economy? On one hand you can achieve a similar outcome with a low impact footprint on the economy and on the other hand a very substantial negative impact. The only reason you would do that is if you had an ideological desire to punish certain sections of the economy and to drive up the cost of living, and that is not the way we approach environmental issues on this side of 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, and the debate may be resumed at a later hour.