Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014. I acknowledge at the outset that we do not oppose this legislation. We acknowledge that it provides only a small part of the program but it does provide the necessary legislative underpinning to give effect to payments and allowances for program participants. But one of the critical issues here is: have you got it right? The way you test whether you have got it right is to look at the program, to look at the detail and to look at what the program is going to achieve. You look at how it is going to achieve those things to provide value for money for the Commonwealth and, more importantly, for participants.

What we see from those opposite are slogans; what we have not seen is the detail of how they are going to meet all requirements in the program, those I have just outlined and for individuals who are going to participate. Those opposite can push all that aside and say, 'We'll sort that out on the way through.' If you are going to run a program like this, it is not a case of sorting it out on the way through. If you look at previous examples in this area, they have not ended well. In this instance workplace rights are paramount, to ensure that individuals who participate in these programs are protected and have sufficient workers compensation cover, that they are paid for what and they have a meaningful outcome to contribute to society through a program like this and not just a slogan to be bandied about. They are the critical parts of any program like this that you would want to see. And can we see it? No, we cannot see. It is opaque like this government. The government does not want to provide the detail—just like in immigration and in other areas.

What we will continue to do—and the Senate is fortunate to be able to do this—is to ensure the effectiveness of this policy. While similar programs have had a long pedigree under governments of both sides, this budget allocates a significant amount of funding to establish this Green Army at the expense of many programs that go to the environment and conservation areas, programs which had been very effective over a long period. Skills and training programs have also been cut to allow this program to go forward. It is the prerogative of the government to do that, but you want to see an outcome. I am concerned that this will produce very little outcome. And where is the detail for the $2.5 billion which the government is committing to its Emissions Reduction Fund? It is not there. Again, they have just set up another slush fund.

I am concerned that they are simply setting up slush funds for money to be handed out to direct action, to add the Green Army to it and say that all of this will contribute to reducing greenhouse gases and that this is our commitment to improving outcomes for young people and also to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. But you would want more than simply the money in a bucket and some people sitting around with a shovel and then digging holes for trees. What you want is more transparency: how they are going to achieve these goals, how they are going to manage these programs and provide value for money, how the programs will be measured to see what outcomes they produce and, importantly in the Green Army space, how to protect individuals to make sure that they have an outcome.

If you look at some of the examples from the past in this area, the main concern you have, when you boil it all down, about a program such as this Green Army program, is this: is the Commonwealth providing a sufficiently robust duty of care to support the Green Army participants? And you come to the conclusion that—based on past practice, where previous coalition governments have made arrangements such as this—this concern should not be dismissed lightly. This concern has been expressed during this debate. I hope it is a concern that will not come to fruition because, if it does, it will not be those opposite, the constructors of these programs, who will be affected; it will not be the ministers or other people who sit in this chamber; it will not be me. It will be the young, vulnerable individuals who will participate in these programs, full of excitement about doing the work, who will find that the protections that should ensure that they are taken care of are not there. As I have said, if you look at past practice, you will see that those fears are there. And those opposite have not done any work to disabuse this chamber of those views at this point.

So I hope that, in the summing up speech by the duty minister, they can disarm me of my concerns and give me the assurance that these programs will be well managed, that they will take into consideration the nature of the individuals who work in these programs—that they will be young and may be vulnerable—and that sufficient workers compensation and protections will be put in place for these workers, and that they will be working for a goal.

It would be good to see an Australian standards framework put in place. It would be good to see that participants could get certification for the types of work that they participate in. It would be good to see how the end results are going to be measured. It would be good to see how all of that work will come together to give meaningful work to individuals.

Also, in the summing up speech, it would be good to see how the minister can address the ACTU's concerns as put by ACTU President Ged Kearney. She is reported to have said that she is highly critical of the Green Army program. The concerns of the ACTU are reflected in the question: are they going to take away well-paid, well-protected jobs from people and replace them with low-paid, unsafe jobs done by these people? It would be good to see in the summing up speech that that concern is scotched completely—to see that that is not the aim of this program.

In this instance, the summing up speech is an important part of this debate, because it is where we, the opposition, can hold you, the government, to account for the work that you are going to commence today. You will not be able to say in three, six or 12 months time, 'We weren't aware of all these concerns.' You should be able to say, 'We knew of these concerns, we understood them and we then said what we would do about them to ensure that that was not going to be the outcome—that they were going to be addressed right from day one,' because, if it is about getting people who are on the margins of the workforce into work, then there are benefits that can be shared, but if it is about taking well-paid jobs with individuals in them already and shunting out those individuals through this Green Army program, then that would not be a good outcome, quite frankly, at all. That would be about an ideology, not about the individuals and their opportunities. If you examine the past practices and learn from those experiences, then you can take the opportunity of addressing them in the broad work which you are going to commence—because it appears that the work to construct the program has not been done to date, other than constructing a broad slogan.

Another area which I touched on in the beginning which did concern and continues to concern me is this: where is the money coming from? If you look at the budget, the Green Army program is receiving a substantial amount of funding—at the expense of other successful environmental and conservation programs. Programs like Landcare are receiving almost a $500-million cut, along with cuts to research. So if you are going to take away very successful existing programs, then take it on notice that I will continue to oppose those cuts where they trash good work and do not allow good work to be continued. Many other programs will also be affected. There are almost $150 million in cuts to the CSIRO, as well as the 500 jobs. It does seem clear to me that this is a government that simply does not value or understand the importance of science and research. I also worry about how much they value the work of the natural resource management area, and the various bodies that make up that area—56 in total—and the work that they do on the environment, through volunteers, including the work that Landcare does. I worry about how much they value the work that the CSIRO does. They are slashing funding to those bodies to support this program. Ultimately that is a choice I can complain about. What I can do, though, is hold this government to account for its failings in both areas. If the result is that you do not advance and improve on the environmental outcome that the NRMs do, that Landcare does, and you have a less effective program, such as the Green Army, and also do not ensure that the young vulnerable people who work in that program are looked after, you have failed abysmally to ensure both the environmental outcomes and the work outcomes for these individuals.

If you look at the work being done in these areas, it is as broad as it is large. The Landcare groups that I have visited and met over the years have done significant work in ensuring that our environment is well taken care of. They work all through the South-East Queensland catchments. Senator Nash is nodding. I assume you know them and work with them from a New South Wales perspective. You would have NRMs in your group. If you think they are unimportant, you should also contribute to this debate, Senator. They are important and what you are doing is now making it completely unclear how they are going to be funded into the future. Perhaps the Nats are not sure of this; perhaps again the Liberals are treating them like doormats. The money is being taken out of Caring for Our Country, a significant program that farmers all across Australia participate in and work in. You are taking it into the Green Army program, but what you are doing then is leaving groups such as those in complete limbo as to the work that they will be doing into the future. Both Landcare and NRMs are a great concern for me and for those groups and many of the volunteers that work in that area.

I turn to how the government is going to provide the outcome of a reduction in carbon. We continue to remain very concerned about direct action, its effectiveness and expense as a policy. I think you will find over time that it will have a negligible effect on emissions reductions and it will not do the job you have said it will do. Labor continues to be concerned that $500 million is taken from Landcare and that any conservation benefit from the Green Army will be cancelled out by the value of the work the Landcare volunteers do that will no longer be done. The National Party knows quite well that Landcare have spent an enormous amount of time in rural Australia working with farming groups and individual farmers to improve outcomes for the environment that farmers have engaged in. I will give one example. One Landcare group in New South Wales had spent 10 or 15 years working in the rural area and a local farmer had not participated in assisting them in that work, but over time they drew him in. Why? Because he could see the benefits to the local environment and decided to participate and work with Landcare to improve the whole catchment with them.

You are putting at risk all of that with the reduction of funding that could occur in this area. Farming communities will not volunteer because what they may expect is your Green Army to turn up to fix all of their problems. You know that is not going to happen. You know that those outcomes are far from evident. What you have done, though, is create uncertainty where certainty existed. That is a problem you will have to address as a government in these areas, because the Landcare groups and natural resource management structures do need certainty on where their funding is going to come from so that they can continue to do the good work that they currently do.

You have as a government given repeated assurances to the opposition that this program's guidelines and contractual arrangements address all of our concerns around training opportunities and occupational health and safety, and the summing-up speech gives you the perfect opportunity to do that again. But you could add a little bit more detail when you do provide that summing-up rather than an assurance. Maybe I am a little harsh, but from this government an assurance is, quite frankly, not good enough. What I would want to see from this government is a commitment that the participants will have the opportunity to obtain formal qualifications, that you will provide structured training, that you will provide safety and safeguards that are required.