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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3744 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

I foreshadow an amendment to Ms Dundas' amendment which addresses the issue in a more appropriate manner.

MS TUCKER (5.21): I will not support this amendment. I understand that the crossbench members have agreed to support the government's amendment to Ms Dundas' amendment and that would need to happen with this amendment, too. I am not quite sure of the argument for having have it in two places, but you would have to amend this amendment as well. I will not support Mr Smyth's amendment, but it will still get into the legislation in an amended form.

Amendment negatived

MS DUNDAS (5.21): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 3766].

Mr Speaker, this amendment is a simple one. We have already briefly had a discussion about what it does. The government bill provides for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a deadlock in negotiations regarding the VMOs' working conditions and my amendment makes it a requirement for the appointed arbitrator to have experience in determining conditions of employment.

The ACT VMO association was concerned that the wording in the original bill, which required appropriate experience, could result in an arbitrator being appointed who had extensive experience in arbitration but not in arbitrating employment matters. This is a minor amendment to address those concerns.

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has assured me that there are many people with such expertise in the private sector who are able and willing to act as arbitrators in circumstances such as these, but I know that the government has foreshadowed an amendment to my amendment to change the wording to say that the relevant experience would be "including determining industrial awards". I do not have any difficulty with the subsequent wording and I am glad that we were able to work between the officers to get this right and make this legislation a little bit better.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (5.23): Mr Speaker, I would urge members not to support Ms Dundas' amendment so that I would get to move my amendment No 3. If members look at the system that I would prefer to set up what they will see that it would take out of the hands of the minister some of the power that is being concentrated through these amendments to the Health Act.

In the existing section 33G (3) the minister is not only a player in this event but also the rule writer and the umpire. I think anyone with any sense of Australian fair play would not like to see that happen. The current section 33G (3) says that the arbitration must be conducted under the Commercial Arbitration Act 1986 and in accordance with the principles and rules determined in writing by the minister. The minister is going to be at the negotiations, he is now writing the rules and he will probably be interpreting the rules.

The reason I talk to it at this point is that, if members go ahead with Ms Dundas' amendment, my amendment No 3 cannot be moved and we would then have a system set

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