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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3569 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Second is provision for a new negotiating period, which must not be less than three months. It allows the minister to set a maximum negotiating period. I believe this is in the public interest. We cannot afford to have protracted negotiations which take years. That would not be in the best interests of harmony and cooperation in the health system-neither would it be in the best interests of relationships between the VMOs and the government.

So, whilst ensuring that we have a reasonable minimum period of time, which ensures that the government cannot railroad changes through, at the same time we have a framework which does not permit negotiations to be strung out over a lengthy period of time. I think that is in the best interests of everyone concerned.

I think it would be fair to say that most VMOs simply want to get on and do the work they are so highly trained to do, without having to worry about the provisions of their contracts, as long as they know they are fair and reasonable and take account of their skills and levels of training. That is indeed the approach the government is seeking to address.

Another matter raised in the discussions relates to the resolution of issues by mediation prior to arbitration. That was not in the bill. This is an omission which-I think quite rightly-the doctors associations have highlighted to the government. The government is quite prepared to address that issue.

Concern has also been raised about the terms and conditions of the arbitration framework. The change the government is proposing there is to put in place words which require the minister, in setting the rules and principles of the agreement, to be fair and reasonable.

I want to refute a comment from Mr Smyth. Mr Smyth said that this will be fair and reasonable, based on what the minister thinks. It will not be. It may be in Mr Smyth's interests to beat that up, but it is simply not the case. The government has sought the advice of Parliamentary Counsel to look at appropriate words that will guide the minister's determination in relation to the rules and principles for arbitration.

The term "fair and reasonable"has been defined in case law-indeed, in National Mutual Life Association of Australia Limited v Jevtovic, a case in the Federal Court in 1997. The judge adopted the Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition of the term, which means "just, unbiased, equitable and impartial".

It is on those terms that the minister must set the rules and principles of arbitration. The government thinks that that is a reasonable position and one which ensures that the minister must have regard for those principles-that the minister must make sure that the principles and rules are fair and reasonable, knowing that they will not stand up unless they are consistent with that case law example. That will address, I hope, the concerns of doctors associations in that regard.

Finally, I want to respond to the comments made by Ms Dundas. Ms Dundas raised a number of issues about work force shortages. As in many other parts of Australia, we

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