Page 4069 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 24 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They take on the same responsibilities as other small businesses and accept the risks associated with that decision, including the fact that their incomes can be directly affected by a downturn in patient numbers and by the economic climate.
I believe that the Government has offered every opportunity to the doctors to have their contracts dispute heard by an independent arbiter, the Industrial Relations Commission. The commissioners have the expertise to hear and arbitrate on complex contractual matters and, under the model of workplace bargaining arrangements, will have a role to fulfil in relation to enterprise agreements. While the doctors may not feel that they can be compared to employees, they must still face the reality that months of negotiations have left the ACT without a full range of hospital services and with a stalemate situation which at the moment can produce only further acrimony between the parties involved and suffering in the community. This is not the outcome the community, this Assembly or the Government wants. I believe that it is important that the doctors accept the conditions of their deed of understanding and accept the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission.
In future, the situation should be clear cut - that future contracts are contracts and not de facto tenure agreements. No-one else in the community has access to automatic renewal of contracts, only options. Workplace reform is the currency of the 1990s. The current dispute needs to be resolved through arbitration, and I feel that it is now incumbent on the doctors to recognise that they cannot now refuse a legitimate avenue which remains open to resolve this dispute.
I strongly urge the visiting medical officers, in the interests of the people of Canberra, to avail themselves of the remedy for disputes, which they agreed to in 1987 and 1990. In so doing, I would ask that both parties go into that process of arbitration with a willingness to accept that the outcome from that process is bound to be more productive than any further public argument and continuing distress to the people of Canberra.
MR LAMONT (12.15): Madam Speaker, I thank Ms Szuty in particular for her contribution. The issues raised succinctly in her address to this Assembly predicate the basis upon which I believe that this motion should be considered by the Assembly. There are a couple of matters I wish to lay to rest. First, Mr Humphries said, "It really is just a motion put up to prop up the Government". The simple fact is that, as I said to him last night in the Administration and Procedures Committee, I believe that it is appropriate that the Assembly discuss and consider this matter and that as a private member I had a right to place on the notice paper for consideration whatever motion I believed was appropriate.
I hoped that out of this motion we would have all-party support for a method of resolving this dispute. That was my desire. Lo and behold, at 20 minutes past 10 this morning, before this Assembly sat, Mrs Carnell advised that her party would not be supporting the motion. Before we sat this morning, the advice I received was that Mrs Carnell had made that announcement. What we find, Mr Humphries, is that before we came into this chamber your leader had already determined that you would not support it. Is it any wonder that, with some degree of passion, I will admit, I addressed myself to the general issue that is the subject of this motion?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .