ASMS Direct - Issue 2010-14

27 September 2010

Dear Member

We welcome any feedback on the contents of the 14th issue for 2010 of ASMS Direct, our national electronic publication.

Remember to regularly access the ASMS homepage www.asms.org.nz which has been revamped placing greater importance on presenting latest news and articles about significant health sector issues. We have now also added an RSS feed to the homepage to make it easier for members to receive latest news items without having to visit the website to check for new additions. All you need do is ‘click’ on the RSS feed icon on the homepage and subscribe to that ‘feed’.

The subscription ‘window’ will ask you to name the file for that information ‘feed’ to load to and will give you the option to have this added to your favourites toolbar (recommended as this makes the items very easy to access). Full instructions are available from that window and if it is the first time you have subscribed to an RSS feed it would pay to look at those. Once you have subscribed the RSS feed will automatically check for new items added to the ASMS “Latest News & Reports” column and allow you to view those in your named folder rather than having to go to the ASMS website to look.

This copy of ASMS Direct focuses on:

• 1. Government health policy objectives threatened by specialist workforce crisis
• 2. Punitive amendments to the Employment Relations Act
• 3. CTU: 80% Oppose changes to dismissal laws
• 4. Reminder: Annual Conference Organisation, 18-19 November, Wellington (Te Papa)

1. Government health policy objectives threatened by specialist workforce crisis

The threatening of government’s health policies by the specialist workforce crisis in DHBs is the front page feature article in the recently mailed out September issue of The Specialist. It is accompanied by a comparison of the minimum specialist base salary gap between Australia and New Zealand which reveals a pay gap ranging from nearly $70,000 to over $90,000(A). Or, to put it another way, a first year specialist in Australia on the bottom step earns around the same as someone at the top of New Zealand’s 15-step scale.

Other important articles and columns include:
a. Punitive amendments proposed to Employment Relations Act.
b. Amending the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act.
c. National President’s column on ‘fair and loathing’.
d. Medical Protection Society on ‘driven to distraction’.
e. Revitalising ASMS branches.
f. Linking New Zealand to Mid-Staffordshire.

2. Punitive amendments to the Employment Relations Act

The ASMS has made a submission to Parliament’s Transport and Industrial Committee on the government’s amendment bill to the Employment Relations Act. The submission was approved by the National Executive and is available on the ASMS homepage www.asms.org.nz. Last week the ASMS also appeared before the Select Committee to give oral submissions. The ASMS was represented by me along with Assistant Executive Director, Angela Belich and Senior Industrial Officer, Henry Stubbs. Below is a paraphrasing of my opening oral submission:

The Bill has greatest impact on the more vulnerable parts of the workforce. For example, the public health system workforce is stratified because it provides a 24/7 universal service characterised by complexity and requiring a range of occupational groups. Taken together provisions of the Bill have an intimidating effect varying according to the level of vulnerability and quality of employment relations, culture and practices. We want the senior doctor voice to be heard alongside the voices of those not so well placed and more at risk parts of the workforce.

But even for senior doctors as a relatively well placed occupational group there are serious concerns and risks that conflict with the Bill’s aspirations of fairness, flexibility and efficiency.

The government has a policy of enhancing clinical leadership in DHBs, such as In Good Hands, which the ASMS actively supports and promotes. This offers enormous benefits to be realised in improving effectiveness and efficiency (both clinical and fiscal). But the negativity and restrictiveness of the Bill risks offsetting this.

The DHB workforce, including senior doctors, is in fragile state. Currently, with exceptions, there are reasonably good at the moment in respect of senior doctors but two to three years ago it was in a bad space. Historically over the years this has had ups and downs. The situation is changeable. The impact of the Bill could be severe if its punitive elements were applied during one of the downs.

The specific issue of the 90 day trial period needs particular mention. It is important not to confuse the rhetoric over trial or probation periods with unfair dismissals. In some circumstances trials may be justified but the loss of the rights of protection against unfair actions is not. As it happens, specialists already have a trial period of at least 13 years if medical or dental school training is factored in. This would further jeopardise our ability to recruit internationally.

Another specific issue is the removal of reinstatement as the primary remedy in the event of an unjustified dismissal ruling and increasing the discretionary power of employers to dismiss employers (ie, after the first 90 days) by changing the ‘test of justification’. This can be expected to lead to an increase in the number of doctors dismissed or have ‘managed exits’ arranged. It risks also having the effect of muzzling doctors from speaking out even where this is in the public interest.

The public will not tolerate a doctor who cuts process corners in the diagnosis or treatment of their illness; a doctor should not have their career cut short or prejudiced by an employer cutting process corners in disciplinary proceedings.

It is disappointing that this Bill is promoting a discernible lower standard of natural justice and fairness than provided for doctors and dentists under the Medical and Dental Councils and the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal are required to adhere to.

3. CTU: 80% Oppose changes to dismissal laws

On 19 September, the CTU released the following slightly edited media statement reporting a survey on the government’s proposed changes to the dismissal laws:

The CTU has released a UMR survey which shows that 80 percent of New Zealanders oppose the Government’s planned changes to dismissal law. The CTU commissioned the survey from UMR because previous polls focused on the trial period aspect of the 90 day proposal, rather than the removal of the right of appeal against unfair dismissal.

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill No 2 will allow all employers to engage a worker with no right of appeal against unfair dismissal in the first 90 days.

A UMR Research telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of 750 New Zealanders responded to the following question:

Do you think that all employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed, even if their dismissal was during the first 90 days of their employment?

The response was:
Yes: 80%
No: 18%
Unsure: 2%

Peter Conway, CTU Secretary said, “the Government needs to rethink this policy. While a previous survey showed a majority favour a trial period, this survey shows a much larger majority of New Zealanders oppose any removal of the right to appeal against unfair dismissal in that period”.

“The CTU is not against trial periods. Nor do we oppose fair dismissal. But this Bill goes too far by removing the right of wage and salary earners to appeal against a dismissal, no matter how unfair, in their first 90 days of employment. Each year, there are hundreds of thousands of workers starting a new job so can be affected by this policy”.

Peter Conway said that the response to this poll shows that people from across the spectrum of incomes, ages, regions and occupations strongly oppose what the Government is doing.

4. Reminder: Annual Conference Organisation, 18-19 November, Wellington (Te Papa)

The ASMS Annual Conference on 18-19 November again promises to be an exciting event with its programme including:
· National DHB MECA negotiations.
· Hon Tony Ryall, Minister of Health
· Professor Robin Gauld reporting the results of the joint University of Otago-ASMS survey on the application of the government’s In Good Hands policy statement on clinical leadership in DHBs.
· Professor Alan Merry, Chair of the Establishment Board of the Quality & Safety Commission.
· Achieving clinical leadership in primary-secondary collaboration with Margie Apa, Deputy Director-General of Health, and Dr Bev O’Keefe, Executive Chair of General Practice New Zealand.
· Revitalisation of ASMS branches.

There are still some delegate positions available. If you are interested in attending please contact Membership Support Officer, Kathy Eaden at ke@asms.org.nz.

Back to top

Kind regards
Ian Powell
executive director