Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To resume where I left off yesterday on my contribution on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, we believe that the Green Army program should be considered as ordinary income—and participants remain eligible for income support—or there be mandated a minimum number of hours per week that ensures that the amount received by the participant is not less than the amount that they would receive under youth allowance. There is also a denial of basic compensation if participants are injured at work. Participants in the Green Army program are not regarded as employees or trainees. Participants will not be entitled to the protection of workplace health and safety laws, workers compensation laws, superannuation, leave, job protection, antidiscrimination protection or fair dismissal procedures. They will exist in a vacuum.

Clearly this program is not a genuine training program and will continue many of the disempowering and exploitative practices of other earlier programs. Given that many program participants are likely to be highly vulnerable, with some having just left school, they should be afforded the strongest possible workplace protections. Workers who are injured at work should be able to receive compensation for that injury. Workers who are harassed, bullied or discriminated against should be able to turn to the relevant Commonwealth ombudsman, and the structure of this bill does not offer these guarantees. The Australian Greens will not support any 'workforce' program where the workers are not legally workers and have no workplace rights.

The Australian Greens recognise that providing ongoing training and support and designing and implementing programs that will lead to genuine outcomes requires administrative funding for both the sponsor and the service provider organisations, yet the program guidelines do not demonstrate that this funding will be adequately provided. A lack of administrative funding will prevent organisations from delivering quality programs that would have genuine environmental and social benefits.

Even if all these practical design flaws were addressed, there is still no reason to believe that this program will lead to work readiness or genuine environmental outcomes. In fact, during the consultation phase of the program, the department was quite clear in stating that this is not a job readiness initiative. After participants come out of the six months in the program, they are likely to be even less work ready than they were when they entered it because a job seeker participating in this program will no longer be actively looking for permanent work or connected to their job service agency, so they are going to be caught between the two.

The department has also acknowledged in the information it provided about the project guidelines that the skills obtained by the participants are unlikely to lead to employment in the environmental area. This is because they will just basically be planting trees. This scheme is extremely unsuitable for young job seekers. A training program should lead to clear employment prospects, but, given that accredited training is not necessarily a part of this program, there is absolutely no guarantee that participants will build their skill level to that required for further employment.

Even if these concerns were addressed, the readiness to move into study or employment is not particularly useful if there are neither jobs nor transition pathways available to the program participants. The reality is that this government is putting more pressure on environmental funding, and it is likely to reduce rather than increase the number of employment opportunities available to young people in natural resource management. At this point, I flag that I am moving a second-reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate

(a) notes the recent reduction to Landcare funding;

(b) regrets that the Green Army Programme funding allocation will in part replace the funding that was previously available to Natural Resource Management groups to undertake high quality conservation work and that the net effect of this program will be to transfer funding from skilled Natural Resource Management workers with a long term focus, to unskilled, work-for-the-dole style volunteers and short term projects; and

(c) condemns the Government for introducing a program that will reduce the funding available for conservation in Australia.

The dismantling of the Biodiversity Fund, which would have injected millions of dollars of program funding into NRM, is a prime example of this.

Nor has it been shown that this program could lead to genuine environmental outcomes. Previous programs that directed unskilled workers to undertake environmental works have been largely unsuccessful in delivering significant and lasting environmental outcomes. The examples that I have seen which have in fact had positive environmental outcomes have been delivered by very dedicated conservation, Landcare or NRM type groups that put in a lot of volunteer hours themselves to make them work. I do not think that the model that is going to be presented here with the Green Army will ensure that sort of commitment from a lot of the organisations involved, and I seriously doubt that we are going to get strong environmental outcomes out of this process. The Murdoch University Professor of Sustainability, Glenn Albrecht, is reported as having said:

If it's really just weeding and tree planting, similar to the sorts of things that were done under the Howard government's programs, a lot of that work, particularly in periods of savage drought, was simply undone because there was no long-term follow up …

The Green Army may increase the number of people working in the landscape, but, by its very nature as a supposed training program, it cannot replace the work of skilled environmental workers. But, if the gutting of the Landcare management program continues, the Green Army is likely to just allow program sponsors to replace what would otherwise have been done by that workforce with Green Army workers on cheap, casual wages but with fewer on-costs, and the workers do not even get the benefits of proper training or support that will in fact make them job ready. This is a keep-people-busy program rather than a training program.

By replacing rather than expanding our pool of environmental workers, the government will further undermine the quality of Australia's conservation workforce by taking away well-paid jobs and replacing them with low-paid, unsafe jobs. This should not be a program for providing an alternative, cheap workforce for rural and regional employers, but that is what it is going to be. It will soak up available NRM funding, which will not have either an environmental outcome or a significant job or training outcome for the people involved. It will look like it is doing something, but you will not get those environmental outcomes. It will not be strategic.

Another point that has been raised with me is that people in the bush are very concerned that in fact they would not even see assistance from the Green Army because it will be hard to get these workers out past peri-urban projects. So you will also see a distortion of where the Green Army actually goes.

In conclusion, it is nothing short of exploitative to direct potentially tens of thousands of unskilled young people into short-term projects which will not lead to permanent employment, simply to cover up the fact that this government is not prepared to take genuine action on eitherproviding positive incentives or genuinely supporting young people with training and helping them overcome their barriers to employment. It will not provide genuine action on environmental issues.

This is particularly disturbing, given that the government are also cutting back on both higher education funding and supports available to help young people enter the workforce on a permanent basis. It seems that they are having a go at every end, which will make life harder for young Australians who are trying to find work and who are trying to acquire skills. This measure keeps people off income support for a period but does not enable them to genuinely gain the skills that they need if they do want to enter NRM or Landcare. This bill is not supported by the Greens. There are too many fundamental flaws in the scheme. It is a repeat of schemes that have not provided significant outcomes for either the environment or young people. It should go back to the drawing board. We should have genuine training requirements built in. The Landcare groups and the NRM groups that are expected to deliver this program should have their funding returned to them. We need to invest in Landcare.

The Minister for Agriculture, Minister Joyce, said that the Green Army is a replacement for Landcare or an addition to Landcare. It is not a replacement for Landcare and Landcare groups are furious about that. They need proper funding, not funding taken off them to give to the Green Army. The Greens will not be supporting this bill.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is remarkable that we are here in the Senate today debating the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, which delivers for the environment, delivers for young Australians and yet we have opposition from no less than the Australian Greens. It is of course an important package and it is an important delivery of an election promise that the coalition made. It is important that we achieve this and achieve the benefits it will deliver for local environmental projects and the opportunities for many young Australians.

The Green Army is a key coalition election commitment. We committed some $525 million to this project over four years, a scale of commitment and funding that I would have thought would have been welcomed by all around this chamber.

It will commence from July this year. The Green Army will generate real benefits for the Australian environment and will give young Australians, aged between 17 and 24, the opportunity to gain training and experience in both environmental and heritage projects in delivering those projects on the ground.

This bill provides a framework for the operation of the Green Army scheme. It provides certain specifics around how it will interact in particular with social security arrangements. It specifies that participants in the Green Army scheme cannot also get social security payments or benefits; that participants are not considered employees for the purposes of Commonwealth laws; and that income-testing arrangements, where a partner receives social security payments or benefits, are duly adjusted to take account of their participation in the Green Army arrangement.

This is important because the Green Army will ultimately be a very large program involving a large number of young Australians. In fact, it will become Australia's largest ever team supporting environmental action across the country, building to some 15,000 young Australians, aged between 17 and 24, by 2018. These young Australians will work as small teams, supporting practical, grassroots environmental and heritage conservation projects across urban, regional and remote Australia.

Delivery of the Green Army project is well underway, as evidenced of course not only by this legislation but also by request tenders for service providers that opened on 31 March and closed on 7 May, as well as the opportunities that people have had to comment on the selection guidelines to ensure that this is indeed a rigorous process that delivers for both the environment and young Australians.

From July this year, 250 Green Army projects will be established in the first year of operation. This will provide work experience and training to around 2½ thousand participants in that first year of operation. These young people will work around 30 hours per week. They will be paid wages commensurate with a minimum trainee wage. A minimum trainee hourly wage for a 21-year-old, for example, ranges from between $14.76 and $16.45 per hour, as well as a fortnightly allowance, recognising the nature of the work and training that they will be doing, of between $885 and $987.

In delivering the Green Army, our government are delivering on an election commitment taken to both the 2010 and 2013 elections. Pleasingly, in the lead-up to the 2013 election, more than 150 projects were announced and committed to by the government. I was pleased to have been there both initially in the Sydney harbourside suburbs, with the now Prime Minister and now Minister for the Environment, for the announcement of the Green Army policy in the 2013 election, and later to announce and support many different projects during that campaign. These projects that we committed to pre election will be rolled out as a priority from July this year.

In our home state of South Australia, Madam Acting Deputy President Ruston, one of these projects is within the Mount Laura Conservation Park, which is aimed at protecting the natural environment of the conservation reserve from soil erosion, stormwater damage and unauthorised access from random off-road vehicles. You can see the type of practical work that is envisaged from these projects that will give real experience to young people on the ground, as well as delivering tangible and practical benefits to the local environment and to environs such as the Mount Laura Conservation Park.

I was pleased to join the member for Longman, Wyatt Roy, during the campaign at Burpengary Creek to announce the major riparian repair and boardwalk project that will be funded and built as part of the Green Army operations along the fringe of that creek

The work at this site will involve the removal of lantana and other pest flora, invasive species that harm the operation of the creek and other native species in that area. It will support the revegetation of 100,000 native trees and shrub plantings, in what is a beautiful part of Queensland that I would encourage many people to visit.

Up in the Northern Territory, Green Army projects will include: the eradication of Gamba grass in the Greater Darwin area; Rapid Creek and Mitchell Creek conservation projects; and a 'toadbuster team', which will see strategic fencing placed in and around water sources to prevent cane toad access to water and try to stymie the growth of the cane toad population in the Northern Territory. These are once again, truly practical measures that will deliver real benefit to the local environment in these communities.

The Green Army will make a significant difference to local environs, to our overall environment, to the management and support of threatened species and of course to the environment for local communities, through projects that include: propagation and planting of native seedlings; weed control; revegetation and regeneration of local parks; habitat protection and restoration; and creek bank restoration.

The Green Army is building on the Howard government's successful Green Corps program, established in 1996 to employ young people in environmental projects similar to this to preserve and restore our natural and cultural environment. That is a program that is still fondly spoken of by many of those who participated in it; many of whom have gone on to a lifetime of volunteerism or work supporting local environmental activity.

Participants will be eligible to receive an allowance and will have the opportunity to gain certificate I or certificate II qualifications in a range of areas—including, land management, park management, landscaping or horticulture. At the same time as improving the local environment and providing opportunities, the Green Army will foster volunteerism, teamwork, local ownership and community spirit in all of the areas of its operation.

I commend this bill to the Senate as I commend the Green Army program to all Australians. I look forward to seeing its exciting delivery over the years ahead. It will see tens of thousands of young Australians given an opportunity to give to our environment.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014.

The green light for the creation of a Green Army to deliver environmental projects in Australian communities was first given with legislation passing the House of Representatives on May 15. This important milestone followed the commitment of $525 million over four years in the federal budget. The Green Army will generate real benefits for the Australian environment and will give young people aged 17-24 the opportunity to gain training and experience in environmental and heritage conservation projects.

The Green Army is a key coalition election commitment and will support practical, grassroots environment and heritage conservation projects across urban, regional and remote Australia. From July this year, 250 Green Army projects will be established, providing employment and training to around 2,500 participants. The Green Army will become Australia's largest-ever team supporting environmental action across the country, building to 15,000 young people by 2018. It is capable of delivering 1,500 on-ground environmental projects in communities across Australia.

The Green Army will make a real difference to the environment and local communities through projects such as restoring and protecting habitat; weeding; planting; cleaning up creeks and rivers; and restoring cultural heritage places. More specifically, as Minister Hunt said to the House on February 24, the Green Army will make a real difference to the environment and local communities through projects such as: propagation and planting of native seedlings; weed control; revegetation and regeneration of local parks; habitat protection and restoration; improving water quality by cleaning up waterways; revegetation of sand dunes and mangroves; creek bank regeneration; foreshore and beach restoration; construction of boardwalks and walking tracks to protect local wildlife; and cultural heritage conservation.

More than 150 projects were announced by the coalition during the 2013 election right across Australia—for example, the Cumberland Conservation Corridor in Sydney; the Kings Bridge to Duck Reach area of the South Esk River in Tasmania; at Cape Moreton on Moreton Island, in Queensland; at Victoria's Barham River system between Apollo Bay and the Marengo Flora Reserve; in the Mettams Pool area in Stirling, Western Australia; and within the Mount Laura Conservation Park in South Australia.

Most importantly the Green Army will provide opportunities for our young Australians looking for a hand-up rather than a handout, as it provides training. It is an initiative designed to be built from the grassroots; fostering teamwork, local ownership and community spirit. The Green Army will deliver tangible benefits for the environment and skills development for thousands of young Australians. It will have significant benefits for young Australians. This is both an environment program and a training program. It will help young people increase their skills base, gain practical experience and enhance their job readiness. It is a matter of choice for our young Australians because it is voluntary. It will recruit young people ages 17-24 who are interested in protecting their local environment while gaining hands-on practical skills and experience. Participants will be eligible to receive an allowance and have the opportunity to gain certificate I or certificate II qualifications in areas such as land management, park management, landscaping or horticulture.

Projects announced during the election campaign will be rolled out from July. This is an example of the coalition government at work, rolling up its sleeves and working carefully and methodically to deliver its promises and commitments to the Australian people.

Applications for service providers closed on 7 May for the tender. Applications for additional first-round projects were subject to a tender process, which closed on 9 May; and, to be eligible projects, had to be ready to commence between July 2014 and June 2015. Applications are currently being assessed, and then Minister Hunt will announce the project in the coming weeks.

Round two of the applications for projects will be released in due course. Projects will be assessed on a merit basis against their environmental benefits, their contribution to the local community and their potential to enhance skills training for participants. I understand that project proposals submitted by individual groups and organisations to the Australian government are diverse. The passing of this legislation will be great news for communities around Australia that will benefit from the rollout of very worthwhile environmental projects.

Given the time, I will not go through the specifics of this bill. I know that Senator Birmingham has indicated some of those specifics. I say, though, that a priority for investment through the initial rounds of the program will be our election commitments. The projects will run between 20 and 26 weeks with participants having the opportunity to develop job ready skills and to undertake training. A Green Army team will be made up of a team supervisor and up to nine eligible participants. While participating in the program, participants will receive a Green Army allowance, which will be disbursed by the provider. Those receiving such an allowance will not receive a social security benefit or social security pension simultaneously—in other words, no double dipping. Team supervisors will be employed and paid a wage by the service provider. Placements will be of a six-month duration and will provide an alternative to income support for young Australians interested in engaging in work-like experience, activities and training.

The Green Army is a central component of the government's cleaner environmental plan, which is focused on the four pillars of clean air, clean land, clean water and heritage protection. Clean land is essential for a cleaner environment. Our plan is focused on cleaning up and revegetating urban and regional environments and other complementary reforms to strengthen natural resource management and landcare delivery across Australia. The Green Army itself complements the government's Direct Action approach to climate change. It will provide Australians with the opportunity for individuals, communities, organisations and companies to help address our environmental challenges and reduce our emissions on the lowest possible cost basis.

The Green Army builds on the Howard government's successful Green Corps program established in 1996. Over the life of the Green Corps program, participants delivered the following outcomes: propagated and planted more than 14 million trees; erected more than 8,000 kilometres of fencing; cleared more than 50,000 weeds; and constructed or maintained more than 5,000 kilometres of walking track or boardwalks. I wanted particularly to speak on this bill to acknowledge the success of Green Corps in the Illawarra, where my electorate office is located and where I grew up. Along the shores of Lake Illawarra, close to where my parents' home is located, I observed the success of many young Australians who enthusiastically and diligently turned the Lake Illawarra foreshore into a stunning environment where people now walk, talk and play. Also, it was my great pleasure to participate in quite a number of presentation ceremonies after people received their certificates.

Regrettably, though, under Labor's watch, this important initiative was torn apart, rebadged and failed to improve the environment. Then, consistent with other Rudd-Gillard-Rudd programs, it was terminated in 2012. Young people no longer had the opportunity to gain practical skills and improve their local environment. Labor's approach to the environment is to hit families, businesses and the economy with the carbon tax. The carbon tax is an attack on the entire Australian economy. What is worse is that it does not even work. Despite a $7.6 billion tax, emissions for the first 12 months barely changed, by 0.1 per cent. While I am talking about Labor, let me reflect on Labor's commitment to the environment. It is embodied in a carbon tax—and 'Electricity Bill' Shorten is living up to his name.

This project is a plus for the all sections of society, even the Greens. This is surprising, given their claim to green credentials. We are even proposing to look after protected species. The minister recently noted a significant proportion of the work will be focused on protecting species, such as the Tasmanian Devil, the quoll and the bilby—Australian mammals which have been critically damaged or endangered—and yet the Greens are not going to support this bill.

In summary, this is an initiative that has something for everyone, whether it is local or community based or broader with regional benefits. It will provide opportunities for and engage young Australians with a passion for horticulture and community, and protecting endangered species, the beaches, parks, waterways and paths by roadways. I commend the bill to the House.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had a forum last week in my electorate that involved a number of participants from Salvation Army job providers and a whole range of other people associated with young people getting jobs in our community. One of the things that they talked about in that process was the concern that they had about what this bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014, would mean for young people and the lack of training and other progressive opportunities beyond the Green Army program. The main thing they talked about was what the program will actually deliver to the young people who are involved in it and what the outcomes were that they would achieve. There are a number of questions that they still have in relation to that.

We believe that environmentally based work and training programs can be effective. They can be an effective pathway to work for many job seekers and they can provide environmental benefits, but they need to be implemented in a proper way where the people involved not only have a good outcome but also have a job to go to at the end of the day. There are a number of questions that remain unanswered in relation to this.

We agree that we need opportunities to get as many people into work as we can, that every individual who can work should be given that chance, but we know that can happen only with appropriate support. That is one of the things we are not sure about with this bill. Does it have appropriate support for young people to gain the skills to have the support they need, to have supervisory experience given to them by trained supervisors? There are a number of issues on which we would like some answers.

One of the main issues is about what it is going to do to young people in terms of coverage under the workplace health and safety act, the compensation act and a range of other questions which are still not answered. There needs to be access to formally recognised training delivered by a registered training organisation under the Australian Qualifications Framework, which gives confidence to participants that they will get appropriate training. We did not get that sense of confidence from people who support job seekers, certainly not in my community, and this is one of the major problems we see with this bill. There is no confidence out in the community in people who are responsible for looking after job seekers to provide them with support and give them confidence to go forward. There are a number of matters in this bill which need to be rectified in relation to that.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, you have one minute.

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

I can do a lot of damage in one minute, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will commence and will continue my speech later. At this stage I cannot support this bill. I believe it is important to provide training pathways and support to help people find gainful employment. In that sense I support the intention of this bill and particularly its aim of linking social and environmental outcomes. They are laudable aims, but my fear is that this bill as it stands does not achieve those aims. Instead, it is missing essential, basic safeguards that would ensure both the protection of workers in the program and the outcomes the bill seeks to achieve.

Debate interrupted.