Page 4063 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 24 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is only suiting this Labor Government now to rewrite history and pretend that those disputes were somehow settled on unacceptable terms. The first whisper we hear about any problem with those contracts is in 1993. In 1990 and 1991, when they were actually settled, there was not a word. (Extension of time granted)
These hypocrites opposite pretend that they somehow were the champions of the public purse back in 1990 and 1991 and that we should never have settled those matters on those terms, but there is not a shred of evidence to support the contention that they were actually concerned at the time. They were not. Mr Berry wants to rewrite history to suit his own purposes, and he knows that it is just a load of baloney.
This motion calls on us as an Assembly to give carte blanche to this Government. That is not appropriate. I think it is more appropriate for the Assembly to press the Government to resume face-to-face negotiations between the Minister and the AMA to settle this dispute. To that effect, Madam Speaker, I have tabled an amendment, which I think has been circulated to members, that replaces most of the words in this motion with these words:
... urges the Minister for Health and the Visiting Medical Officers to immediately re-enter face-to-face negotiations to end the dispute in public hospitals, including if necessary arbitration as outlined in previous Visiting Medical Officers contracts.
A lot has been said across the chamber about the extent to which VMOs are subject to the Industrial Relations Commission processes.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, you will have to move that amendment.
MR HUMPHRIES: I will do so at the end of my remarks, Madam Speaker. There has been debate about whether the VMOs are subject to those sorts of industrial processes, and I think that debate, frankly, is quite pointless. It seems to me that we have a perfectly good procedure for resolving this matter, and that is to follow the processes outlined in the previous VMO contracts, which is to have an arbitrator appointed who is acceptable to both the parties.
Mr Berry: They can raise it in the Industrial Relations Commission.
MR HUMPHRIES: Hang on! Mr Berry says that they are intransigent, but he is being intransigent on this point. They say, "Let us have an arbitrator, as outlined in the VMO contracts" - contracts Mr Berry has lived with for the last two-and-a-half years. Will he accept an independent arbitrator outside the Industrial Relations Commission? Will he accept that? He turns away. He faces somebody else. He will not answer that question. The answer, of course, is no. He will not accept an arbitrator who is not formally part of the Industrial Relations Commission.
Mr Berry is digging in his heels every bit as far as the doctors are supposedly digging in their heels. For that reason, it is essential that we do not try to arbitrate this dispute in this place on terms which say that the VMOs must do everything the Government have demanded, and that is it. This amendment to the motion says in much more succinct terms that the parties must negotiate and, if they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .