Page 4070 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 24 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other thing I find difficult to come to grips with is Mrs Carnell saying, "Look, New South Wales are resolving it. New South Wales are going to come to a reasonable outcome". How did New South Wales get to a reasonable outcome? Irrespective of whether it is contained in the Health Act, irrespective of whether it is contained in any other Act, irrespective of whether it is contained in the individual contracts, the simple fact is that they are using the arbitral process. They are using that body as the mechanism to resolve the dispute. That is all that this motion seeks to do. It says, "Whatever gets put on the table gets put on the table". If both parties agree that they appoint a person other than the arbitrator to determine particular matters, so be it; but let this process be the catalyst for resolving the dispute, for getting the visiting medical officers to end their strike, for getting medical specialist services back into the hospital system, and allow the matter to be resolved. That is what this motion is saying.
It was asked, I think somewhat rhetorically, by Mr Kaine, "In reality, what good is this motion going to do?". I will tell you what good it is going to do. If it is passed unanimously by this chamber, it will say to the visiting medical officers in no uncertain terms, "This chamber in its entirety believes that you should end your strike - not end your strike and cave in, but end your strike and accept a proper basis for the resolution of the differences between you and the Government". That is what would be said. Those people would not be getting the succour they are getting from the Opposition to continue the push to hold out. That is what unanimous support for this motion would provide. If it were unanimous, I believe that it would be significant enough to convince the VMOs, in good faith, to approach the commission tomorrow and say, "Yes, we are prepared to be bound by an outcome. We are prepared to end the strike, and we are prepared to negotiate reasonably". That is what this motion, if supported unanimously, would provide.
Let us look at whether or not the Industrial Relations Commission is an appropriate catalyst - a forum, if you like - to start down this track. As outlined by Ms Szuty and by me in my introductory remarks, we have individual contractors. If those individual contractors had an individual dispute about a particular matter within their contract that they wished to have individually sorted out, then I agree that the most appropriate method for its resolution, if they cannot get agreement singularly with their employer as an independent contractor, is to seek to have some independent arbiter resolve that individual contract. That is not the case here. What we have here is a group of persons engaged in or in connection with basically the same profession. Those independent contractors are acting in a collusive manner across and between themselves. They are acting in a manner consistent with all of the philosophies of organised labour. As Ms Szuty said, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot expect to have all of those things which collective bargaining allows you to achieve across an industry and on the other hand say, "We are not prepared to accept the obligations that come with it".
The obligation that comes with collective bargaining, the obligation that comes with the common good as they see it, negotiating in the common good as a collective, is that there must be an umpire. If they do not believe that the individual arbitrator, commissioner whoever, is the appropriate individual arbitrator, attending the Industrial Relations Commission tomorrow still provides
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .