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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3568 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The bill provides for a commercial relationship, between the territory and VMOs. VMOs have been seen by this government, and by all previous governments, as contractors-and the relationship is a commercial one. VMOs are not employees. The VMOA is seeking to go to the Industrial Relations Commission to obtain the commission's approval for VMOs to be recognised as employees for the purpose of the Workplace Relations Act, to form their own industrial organisation and to effectively have the right to collectively bargain and take protected industrial action.

That is a significant change in direction and not one that the ACT government believes is in the public interest. I think members in this place would appreciate that VMOs already have significant bargaining power, which they have exercised on other occasions. To allow VMOs to take protected action would not be in the public interest, when it comes to the provision of important medical services for the community. That is the reason why the ACT government is opposing the application of the VMOA in the Industrial Relations Commission.

Through this legislation, we are seeking to achieve a framework for negotiation which has not existed before. Previously, we have negotiated with VMOs one on one-all 190 of them. That has been an extensive, laborious and difficult task which has not led-particularly in the situation of the last round of negotiations-to any consistent outcomes. We have seen situations of VMOs within a particular specialty performing equivalent volumes of work being paid highly differentiating sums of money, simply because one was able to negotiate more effectively than the other.

We do not believe that is fair to the VMOs-nor do we believe it is in the broader public interest. Hence, the approach adopted by the government is to provide for a consistent bargaining framework-one within which all VMO negotiations will be conducted and within which the terms and conditions of a contract will be broadly agreed and largely consistent. That is the approach underpinning this legislation. I think members understand that, because they have indicated that they are prepared to support it in principle.

The amendments I have circulated to members will be dealt with, I would hope, on Thursday. I wrote to all members last night indicating what those amendments were, providing copies and offering an opportunity for a briefing on them. These amendments are the result of discussions that I and ACT Health have had with the AMA, the VMOA and individual VMOs. They have stressed their concern and a degree of reservation with certain provisions of the bill, and we are moving to address those issues.

To foreshadow what these amendments are about, they firstly recognise that the VMOA is an organisation which would potentially want to be a bargaining agent, consistent with the terms of the bill. They are concerned that the current provisions of the bill do not provide for their association to be a bargaining agent, because they are not incorporated.

They are not incorporated because they are seeking to be recognised as an organisation in the Industrial Relations Commission. The government accepts that that is an issue of concern. We do not want to exclude the VMOA from potentially becoming a bargaining agent, so we are prepared to propose an amendment to the bill to allow that to take place.

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