Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2264 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

That agreement was entered into freely, in a way that involved Totalcare, the unions and a majority of employees of Totalcare agreeing to the package. Given that they agreed to the package, they have an industrial agreement which was overseen by the Industrial Relations Commission. Is it not appropriate then that we let that process continue and let it resolve this matter? Is that not consistent with what Mr Berry was saying to us just last week with respect to Legislative Assembly members staff?

In this case an agreement has been entered into, auspiced by the commission. Why should it not be the basis on which this matter is resolved? Even if there was not an agreement which had been duly executed by the parties, is it really appropriate that the Assembly should intervene in the matter so as to dictate to the government-or a government agency, in this case, Totalcare-how it will conduct its industrial relations?

It is a dangerous precedent to set. Mr Berry is effectively interposing in a matter which has always been regarded as an executive decision-if not an executive decision of the government per se, then a decision of a board or managing body of a territory-owned corporation or statutory authority.

We have had a number of debates about this over the years, in which we have consistently taken the view that these matters should be left to the agencies concerned. Mr Kaine may remember some of those debates, because we were involved in some of them, in which it was made clear that that was the responsibility of statutory agencies or government bodies.

Let us put this principle to one side and assume that it does not matter; that the Assembly can interpose itself in industrial disputes and become an arbiter, a de facto industrial commission, stepping in and deciding whether employer or employee is right in an industrial dispute. If we make that very large assumption, is it appropriate that we should intervene in this particular matter?

Let me put on the record in respect of paragraph (1) of this motion that Totalcare has identified 34 potentially excess positions following the loss of the Housing maintenance contract. At this point, no Totalcare employee has been made redundant. If and when redundancies are offered to Totalcare employees, Totalcare advise me that they will be offered on a voluntary basis. That is, nobody will be required or forced to accept a redundancy.

I am advised that the redundancies will be considered only as a last resort after options for redeployment within other areas of the company are considered. Totalcare is at this very time working with agencies all across the ACT government, including DUS, to attempt to find redeployment opportunities for those staff. Totalcare is also dealing with the employees, although they have not reached an amicable agreement at this stage.

The average redundancy payment that will be offered to people on a voluntary basis is $38,000. That does not include additional amounts potentially available under the enhanced redundancy packages. I am advised that the four separate offers over and above the award are $10,000 for each employee made redundant, $5,000 for employees with one to five years service, $10,000 for those with five to 10 years service and

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .