Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3501 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

what we are saying is that everybody else in a commercial arrangement will do it under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 but if you happen to be a VMO negotiating with the health minister, he is going to have the whip hand because he is going to set the rules and principles in writing.

Unless a case can be made, I do not think we should be setting up different systems for different groups. I have not seen any case made that VMOs should be treated differently. What is the case that is so imperative that we should bring on a bill to give a minister power to beat into submission a group of professionals, men and women with qualifications, because the government does not agree with what they should be paid or what their terms and conditions are? I do not think anyone in this place believes that that is fair.

I think what has to happen when we get to the detail stage is either all words after "Commercial Arbitration Act 1986"be removed so that arbitration for VMOs, like everybody else, is conducted under the Commercial Arbitration Act or the minister should make up a much better case than he has for wanting these special powers that I think are well and truly beyond the pale.

Mr Speaker, this is a very important piece of the legislation. On the one hand it is offering some protection for VMOs from the Trade Practices Act but, on the other hand, this is being done under the veil, the guise, of giving a minister powers far beyond the minister's need, and I think far beyond the realms of fairness. I will be asking members when they consider the amendment on Thursday: what is this urgent need to have a different set-up for VMOs; and why is it that the minister gets to determine all of these things? There is a note in the bill that says:

Proposed section 33G (6) states:

We have only got a two-month timeframe in which to do this and six weeks or more of that could be taken up from when the minister tables the notifiable instrument and the Assembly determining whether it is fair and reasonable. The whole process may be concluded by 28 November-I doubt it-but sometime before then or after then the Assembly may determine, depending on the sitting pattern and when the minister tables the notifiable instrument, that the minister was not fair, that the minister had not got it right. So, again, there has been too much haste too late; a sense of unfairness in a bill that is not necessary; a process that shows and reveals the inactivity and inaction of the health minister and his lack of interest in his portfolio; a blatant lack of fairness for individuals; and, of course, a minister trying to get the power that he thinks he needs to get the outcome he wants rather than ensuring that all parties in this process are treated fairly.

The minister's tabling speech also talks about the attempt to bring the contracts, I suspect, back to standard contracts. He talks about the need to eliminate the inequities that have arisen in recent years between medical specialist groups and to establish more consistent performance requirements for each group. I think that is code for lowest

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .