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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3745 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

up that is run by the minister for the minister and playing with the minister, instead of the system of arbitration that we all know in this country, which should be independent. I believe that independence goes with this.

The provision does say that the principles and rules determined in writing by the minister will be a notifiable instrument. We will be told what they are, but we will not have the opportunity to vet them. That is why I am saying that, if you were to reject Ms Dundas' amendment and go with my amendment No 3, you would have a much simpler system. It would be a much more elegant system in that its simplicity would mean that if you wanted to make it complex and you wanted to bring in the Commercial Arbitration Act and everything that flows from that you could, but it would be good if people could sit down around a table in a room and negotiate amongst themselves a much quicker and more equitable outcome.

As you can see from the statement of principles that I have put forward, section 33G (5) as it currently stands puts efficiency first, effectiveness second and quality of health service third. I think that the quality of health service must be up front, but it should also be efficient and effective. I think that we are sending the wrong message. The system is too prescriptive. It is a system that I think will become process driven. It is a system that concentrates way too much power in the minister's hands and it is a system that effectively cuts the Assembly out of scrutiny because, even though the instrument will be notified, our opportunity to have a say in it will be very much limited.

I would ask members not to vote for this amendment. It is an interesting bill. It is a bill that allows some VMOs to collectivise so that they can be worked over together in a group. That is what will happen simply because the minister will end up with all the power. That is not negotiation.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (5.26): I move the amendment circulated in my name to Ms Dundas' amendment No 1 [see schedule 4 at page 3766].

Mr Speaker, the government will be supporting Ms Dundas' amendment as amended by the amendment I have just moved to her amendment. My amendment proposes that the issue of having an arbitrator experienced in determining conditions of employment be deleted and, instead, experience in determining industrial awards be included.

The purpose of that is that VMOs, as members should understand, are not employees; they are contractors. The amendment clarifies that situation and avoids the inclusion in the bill of language which would suggest that there is some kind of employment relationship when, clearly, there is not. I am pleased that there has been some agreement between the government and the crossbenchers on this issue and I thank the crossbench members for their support and cooperation on that.

Mr Speaker, in reply to Mr Smyth's assertions, again we see Mr Smyth trying to talk up the prospect of confrontation. That may be very much in his political interest, but it is not in the public interest. That is exactly why the government is proposing the approach that it is proposing today-to achieve an outcome which is in the public interest, which respects the rights of VMOs but also respects the right of the territory to negotiate in a

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