Page 4068 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 24 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: We offered them $132 an hour.
MR KAINE: You offered them, obviously, nothing they find acceptable. If I had said to the trade unionists, when they came into my office after I invited them up there, "I am not interested in your viewpoint; just go away", I would have had a problem on my hands too. But I did not do that. I listened to what they had to say, and when I felt that the public servants who had been negotiating on my behalf were wrong I acknowledged that. When the trade unionists left my office they were happy with the outcome. You can do that, Mr Berry. You are just as good a man as I am, underneath that exterior. For heaven's sake, do your job and solve the problem - and do it today.
MS SZUTY (12.09): Madam Speaker, I support the motion proposed by Mr Lamont. I will not be supporting the amendment to the motion proposed by Mr Humphries earlier today. My only regret is that the Industrial Relations Commission will not be in a position to order the doctors back to work while the current dispute goes through the arbitration process, as it can with unions covered by registered awards. It is my belief that, as visiting medical officers are happy to accept minimum conditions, as per the deed of understanding which was created in 1987 and renewed in 1990, they should also accept that an independent arbitrator, the Industrial Relations Commission, should be turned to when there is a dispute of this current magnitude in existence, one that is affecting many people in our community.
I do not believe that the doctors want to be in the position they currently find themselves in; that is, responding only to emergency cases, and even then in a restricted capacity, observing people whom they would normally treat as public hospital patients being taken interstate and their suffering extended. While I am sure that the doctors would say that it is the Government's fault that they are in this position, I believe that difficulties exist with their approach to this dispute. Of course it is to be expected that, when their income and tenure are threatened, doctors would respond by refusing to accept lesser conditions, which would be the reaction of many people placed in this situation. But how do the doctors see themselves? Are they contractors who accept the terms of their contracts and then renegotiate for the best deal they can get, or are they members of a collective bargaining organisation? If they see themselves as the latter, then they are honour bound to accept the offer of arbitration.
I have heard much during the last few weeks about the costs to doctors of running their private practices and that these costs are a factor in their demands for maintenance of the status quo. But the question can be asked: What other group in our community claiming to be contractors negotiates with one group, ACT Health, on the basis of what it costs to provide services to another group, private patients?
There is no doubt that doctors provide an invaluable service in our community. In a perfect world, they would be paid sufficiently to meet all of their needs. However, as a community we can no longer make those commitments to any group of workers. Many people are unable to find work; many workers need to have their income supplemented because their expenditure exceeds their income. It is a current reality that many workers cannot make plans based on their incomes constantly increasing or even remaining the same. The reality is that, by being in private practice, doctors are in fact operating small businesses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .