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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3503 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

given to one particular group of workers in our community. It seems to me that the VMOs will be able to engage in collective bargaining but have arbitration, that they will retain their individual contractor status but they can collude, that they can avoid the restrictions of the ACCC collusive tendering restrictions, and that they will have all the freedoms and protection of commercial operators as well as the benefits of acting as a collective. I am interested also in the fact that they are able to have arbitration and that this is not available to other workers under the Workplace Relations Act. It seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable for, say, computer programmers to then go to the government and say, "Well, we are in a similar situation. We would like to have those kinds of protections and special arrangements as well."

I have received correspondence, as I think other members probably have, from the ACT VMO Association which, as I understand it, is seeking registration as a union. I also understand that the government is opposing this, and that raises a few general questions, which maybe the minister can answer. One question is about the jurisdiction of the two acts. We would have the Workplace Relations Act and then we would have this act. I do not know what the position would be with the Workplace Relations Act if one of these groups of VMOs became a union. I imagine that that act, if they wanted to use it, would take precedence over the ACT act.

I do not know whether they would be successful in registering as a union, but I am interested to know what the minister thinks about that and what the implications would be if in fact they were granted the status of a union. I am interested to know why the government is opposing this. Hopefully Mr Corbell will deal with that in his wrap-up to this debate.

In his presentation speech the minister spoke about value for money for the ACT community. The history of negotiations between VMOs and governments, both Liberal and Labor, is obviously well known to most of us and there is a real concern in the context of value for money that we have this group who have very strong bargaining power and are not afraid to use it. Unlike Mr Smyth, I am concerned that we are giving them a lot of capacity to collectively use their might to get what they want, which will be higher salaries, because that is what people go for. This legislation gives them definite protection which other groups in the community do not have. I am even interested to know what salaried medical officers think about their colleagues being given these protections.

I would like to know how existing contracts will be affected if this legislation changes the arbitration arrangements in favour of VMOs. What will the difference be in the doctors' situation? I hope that the minister could elaborate and explain that a little bit more comprehensively as well.

Although we have not reached the detail stage consideration of this bill, I would like to make some comments about some of the amendments. I note that under proposed section 33G arbitration will be conducted under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 and in accordance with principles and rules determined in writing by the minister. I am not quite sure when we will get to see that, whether they are disallowable or what their status is. I would like to know what the situation is before I am asked to vote on this.

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