Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2265..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
$15,000 for those with over 10 years service. On top of that, there is $1,000 per year of service, to a maximum of $20,000. There is additionally $5,000 for employees with up to five years service and then the $1,000 per year of service, up to $20,000. I think they are reasonably generous packages. I suppose that is a subjective matter, but they appear to be not ungenerous at least.
Mr Berry suggests that in paragraph (2) that Totalcare workers should be offered packages at least equal to those offered to ACT forestry workers. The ACT forestry package was in a unique situation. Workers in ACT Forests were affected by the fact that Forests had to be fundamentally restructured as part of restructuring of the forestry industry in the ACT. There was little likelihood that forestry workers made redundant from ACT Forests would be able to obtain the same kind of work within the ACT-not impossible but unlikely.
I doubt that the same could be said of the workers who may become redundant under this arrangement, which I emphasis again is potentially up to 34 people-not necessarily 34 people but up to 34 people. I think it is unlikely that at least some of those people will not find alternative employment. When the decision was announced by the tender process that the ACT Housing contract should be handed over to private operators, I met with the two operators who had been successful in winning the contract and they agreed that they would interview ACT Totalcare employees to consider whether they would be employable within their organisations. That may still be the case.
In the time remaining to me, I urge members not to intervene effectively as parties to this dispute. If we do that, it is a very slippery slope indeed to slide down.
Suspension of standing order 76
Motion (by Mr Berry ) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:
That standing order 76 be suspended for the remainder of the sitting.
MR BERRY (10.56): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to include an amendment which has been circulated in my name. After the word "that" in the first line, it will insert the words "this Assembly directs". That will make it clear. Mr Osborne's amendment will probably get up, but I just want it made clear.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, you are foreshadowing an amendment, I think.
MR BERRY: No, I am seeking leave to include it.
Mr Humphries: It means that Mr Osborne has to change his amendment to fit in, if that is the case.
MR BERRY: No, it does not.
Mr Humphries: Yes, it does, because there will be many words different to the ones in the existing motion. You will have to withdraw the motion and move an amended motion. Why don't you move your amendment as an alternative amendment to Mr Osborne's amendment?