Publications
The Specialist
Issue 67 - June 2006
Proudly Sponsored by:
- There must be a better way to deal with registrar rosters
- Rationing - and the Minimologist
- Employment Court interim injunction highlights importance of MECA provisions
- Pan Professional Medical Forum and Medical Council elections
- New South Wales staff specialist salaries pose challenge to New Zealand
- Mapp bill creates risks for health sector recruitment
- Industrial Officer
- SMO salary survey, 1 July 2005
- DHB superannuation contributions
- Diary these dates!
................................................................................................................
There must be a better way to deal with registrar rosters
It is that time again when SMOs, RMOs and DHB managers’ frustration levels increase to even higher levels than the previous experience (which itself was higher than the time before that); it is time for the renegotiation of the collective agreement covering RMOs represented by the Resident Doctors’ Association (RDA), now the RMO MECA.
By the time this article is published it is most likely that the national RMO strike on 15-20 June would have concluded. In the absence of an unexpected development further strike action may also have been called. Then, at some point following a continuation of the deteriorating adversarial relationship between the RDA and DHBs (and after leaving patients as the ‘meat in the sandwich’ with SMOs, nurses and other health professionals coping with maintaining emergency and acute services during the strikes trying to protect them from becoming ‘mince meat’), an unsatisfactory deal will be struck that will leave everybody more unhappy than they were before the process began.
The Likely Outcome
But RMOs aspirations will not have been met while SMOs and DHB managers will still be stuck with rosters that are the bane of many of their lives. And then, somewhere in the following 12-24 months the whole process will start again with everyone more dissatisfied and angry than they presently are.
This is an inevitable consequence of a strategy of “show-down at OK Coral” being met with “bring it on punk”. All that varies is the particular role play, one or the other, that either party performs at any particular moment.
It is too easy to blame those who take strike action for the effects and pressures of this action. It takes two to tango and sometimes strike action can be provoked as much as anything else. The ASMS has itself undertaken strike action back in early 2003 in South Canterbury but it was confined to electives.
This depressing outcome is almost as predictable as night following day. For a sector that prides itself on intellectual human capital surely we can do better rather than everyone spitting tacks, frothing at the mouth and blaming someone else for this state of affairs. It might be helpful to examine some of the drivers of this situation that we all find ourselves in.
RMO drivers
What motivates the RMOs through the RDA? Two things stand out. The first, which is what the DHBs themselves have acknowledged, is history! The prevailing sentiment in the RDA is that they have had to fight hard to provide safe hours for RMOs and that further improvements are required. Their assessment is that they cannot rely on managerial goodwill to deliver safe working hours and therefore tight protective provisions in their MECA are required. Given the ASMS’s experience of provisions such as time for non-clinical duties this assessment of the attitude of DHBs has resonance.
Second, there is a shift among younger doctors (evident among a growing number of ASMS members as well) that they want a more balanced life, including between their work on the one hand and the rest of their life on the other. This is a generational shift which is often described as seeking a better work-life balance. Generational attitudinal shifts such as this can’t be ignored. The problem is that they are not easy to anticipate and usually only becomes evident well after it has occurred. This is not confined to this generation of RMOs and also applies to those which preceded it. One also can’t ignore the additional impact of increasing student debt looming in the background as well. The fact that RMO hours and protections have improved over past years and that they also compare favourably internationally does not alter the fact of this generational shift; historic and international comparisons cut little ice.
SMO drivers
Then there is the attitude of SMOs, particularly those working in services that depend on registrar rosters. While there are a range of views the most prevalent are that these rosters have become so restrictive in their focus on safety that they are negatively affecting service delivery and training and with flow-on consequences for SMO-RMO teamwork, mentoring and collegiality. Within this prevalent view there are in turn various degrees of sentiments from irritation to intense frustration with many SMOs driven to distraction. The creation of a fiscally rewarding and perverse internal RMO locum market has been another source of grievance.
Logically this should be resolved collegially by SMOs and RMOs as many of the latter will one day become the former and one should have the same high interest in training, at least, as the other. But the rosters arise out of a collective agreement negotiation in which the two parties are the RDA (on behalf of RMOs) and the DHBs as the employers.
DHBs’ performance
The track record of DHBs and their predecessors to date have been less than impressive. They have botched their way into these outcomes by not obtaining the expertise of SMOs over the implications for service delivery and training for proposed changes to registrar rosters in earlier negotiations and now we have to rely on them to botch their way out of it.
Everything suggests that the performance of the DHBs’ national representatives in the current negotiations will continue the practice of botching. To date their biggest blunder was the first version of their proposed ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ which would have, in the inconceivable scenario of the RDA accepting it, given the DHBs the power after a bit of process to unilaterally determine RMO terms and conditions of employment; rather like forgetting to cover the iron fist with velvet. From that time on whatever level of trust and confidence that existed between the DHBs and RDA had gone. Even though the DHBs softened their approach in the next version of their ‘Memorandum’, the damage was done. Launching an aggressive media strategy on the eve of scheduled negotiations which would have provided the last opportunity to avert the strike virtually guaranteed that the strike would proceed.
Is there another way forward?
It is unlikely that the DHBs at a national level have the aptitude to sort this underlying problem out. It is not easy. If the ASMS had a magic bullet to solve it we would have pulled the trigger long ago. But perhaps it is time for the medical profession to take the initiative. Perhaps through the auspices of the Council of Medical Colleges as, aside from the embryonic Pan Professional Medical Forum, the largest organisation of the profession, to take the lead in conjunction with the RDA and ASMS. Perhaps this could involve a new approach by first looking at how best to construct registrar rosters that in the first instance enhance rather than inhibit service delivery and training, along with teamwork, mentoring and collegiality. Then they can be subject to a safe hours’ test with whatever modifications might be required to achieve this. This would be different from the present focus on safer hours and protective processes as the starting point.
Widening the brief of what is discussed and minimising, but not forgetting, the role of DHBs at least at the first cut would not guarantee success but at least it might have the first essential prerequisite—goodwill by the participants. It is precisely this prerequisite that has been lost in the DHBs-RDA relationship. If we do not find a better way for doing things then we can be reasonably confident that the current mess will continue, hostilities will increase and the most likely outcome is that New Zealand will lose its attraction as a good place for RMOs to train and remain.
Ian Powell
Executive Director
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
Rationing - and the Minimologist
I have had a dream.
We trained all our self selected professional life to see patients, to do something for them, even if “only” to reassure that nothing serious or sharp needs to be done. To work with our primary care colleagues to jointly manage the full anxious to acute spectrum of sickness. To try and juggle the unmet need with the unfound supply. Sometimes we assumed that when a GP referred a patient to a clinic, seeing that patient was what was required. Sometimes we knew that it would take some time for that patient to be seen. Sometimes we realised that there was little chance of seeing the patient unless resources changed. Sometimes we called it rationing.
We now find the rationing to even be seen in a hospital clinic is by duration on a list. And that more than six months means culling. Whether the rationing is a result of not enough of us, or not enough of those we work with, or unrequited individual and group expectations (a.k.a. “need”) the time on a list is all that matters.
How should the list be rationed? Us labelling all as “urgent” is no honest solution. Nor is third party culling by sending away all rated as “routine”. There must be a dreamier way.
Simple – train the minimologist.
This new specialist will be expert in not only “first do no harm” but also in “first do no thing”. They will be incentivised for inaction. They will be rewarded for not seeing patients, for declining referrals, for denying tests and treatment. Therapeutic catatonia will be their measure of success. They will defy demand from the safety of distance. The minimologist will not need clinic rooms, will not need nurses or allied health professionals. With broadband and a fax they will work from afar, will work across DHB boundaries, will not need car parks or bicycle sheds.
And their training will not need fourteen years from starting medical school. They will not need to balance apprenticeship with skills acquisition. They will not need years of roster relief and internal locums. They may benefit from a little exposure to strict rules preventing them primarily seeing patients in their first years after medical qualification. From minimising of risk by keeping them from any bodily contact with patients until grey hairs have sprouted or thinned. In only a few brief years they will be fit for purpose.
With these minimologists expertly rationing, the other specialties will be left to efficiently use their limited resources for the few allowed to see them, and will not have to bother their brains over lengths of lists or rationing by any other name.
Because by every other name rationing has not been as sharp, not been as clear, not been as cruel, not been as stuck in the craw. It has masqueraded as sustainable thresholds, clinical or financial. As national referral criteria, seldom referred to, by referrer or by referee. The minimologist will fix all that. Will free up technologies and those who use them, medicines and those who prescribe them, clinics and those who clutter them. Hospitals, nay health systems, will be easier to manage, quicker to count, nicer to understand. More productive. More proficient. More effective. More efficient. Minimologists will bring joy to funding divisions, to executives, to select committees, to ministers and ministries.
Then the phone rang…
It was the on duty RMO. Seeking advice, reassurance, and maybe my presence. And re-establishing the strands of connectedness with the luminous layers of professional responsibility that keep the system alive at all hours of the day and night. The gossamer threads that link skills, knowledge, apprenticeship, experience, wisdom and respect. For the benefit of the emergency, the crisis, the chaos, the unpredictable, the uncertain, the challenging, the complicated. The rude raw hopes and tears of patients who know not their level of need - only that it exists.
That it does not respect rationing in the middle of the night, and may not in the calm storms of their daily pursuits. Especially if the very word is dodged. If trite neologisms are concocted to hide the reality. When rationing is not acknowledged, the fabric of the system unravels. Inability to deliver care frustrates and forces the fine and the fantastic away from a public hospital system, to private or overseas practice. We begin to stare at a future funding the refuge of the deranged or the dodgy.
That is no place for me or those I care for. In every sense of the words.
So let us use the real word. Call it rationing. Tell it like it is. And lead, as true professionals, those minimologists who would duck the reality, to confront what rationing requires, and what it delivers.
Jeff Brown
National President
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
Employment Court interim injunction highlights importance of MECA provisions
Last month the ASMS sought an interim injunction from the Employment Court to halt the Otago and Southland DHBs from proceeding with the privatisation of their hospital laboratories. Our application was successful and the full case will be heard at a later date by the Employment Relations Authority. The successful interim injunction does not ensure that the full case will also be successful as other factors may come into play.
Nevertheless if one separates the Court’s decision and conclusions from the specific case it demonstrates the importance of several important clauses in the national DHB MECA which might otherwise have been seen as a ‘warm and fuzzy’ and nice but unimportant process.
Much of the case centred on Clause 44 of the MECA which covers consultation. Its key elements include:
- DHBs required to invite affected SMOs to participate ‘at the earliest practical opportunity’ when a DHB is considering a review that ‘might result in significant changes to either the structure, staffing or work practices’ affecting them.
- Before a DHB ‘undertakes any review which might impact on the delivery or quality of clinical services, it shall consult and seek the endorsement’ of the ASMS ‘as to the purpose, extent, process and terms of reference’ of the review.
- Where there are unresolved ‘serious professional or clinical concerns’ arising out of any concluded review, there is to be an agreed process for resolution of these concerns.
The Employment Court’s decision was clear in observing that these requirements had not been complied with by the two DHBs. Further, the judge noted:
I gain the impression from this evidence that the DHBs regarded the obligation to consult to be in the hands of the ASMS who, having heard of the proposals for change, should have reacted to them. This does not fit well with the requirements for consultation in the MECA.
The law on consultation is well settled and does not need repeating here. What can be said is that consultation is more than notification…it is not enough for the employer to say “please let us know if you have any concerns”…there is a strongly arguable case that such consultation as was relied on by the DHBs was far from adequate.
Although one swallow does not make a summer and although the final decision on this particular case may be determined on other factors, the Employment Court’s conclusions about the MECA’s consultation obligations are heartening and good evidence why the ASMS should continue to focus on rights and protections as well as ‘pay and rations’.
Ian Powell
Executive Director
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
Pan Professional Medical Forum and Medical Council elections
[On 7 April the Pan Professional Medical Forum, comprising the Council of Medical Colleges, ASMS, Resident Doctors’ Association and the Medical Association, wrote to the Minister of Health, Hon Pete Hodgson, following the completion of the election conducted by the Medical Council for the four medical practitioner positions on the Council.
Under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act the medical profession lost its right to elect the medical practitioners who make up four of the 11 positions on the Medical Council. Instead this decision rests with the Minister of Health although the Council’s election constitutes a recommendation to the Minister.
The Pan Professional Medical Forum was formed out of the recognition of the weaknesses of the medical profession’s pan professional representation and the importance of collectively advocating positions that the profession broadly has a shared view over.]
Dear Minister
The Pan Professional Medical Forum (PPMF) was established to provide a forum for discussion and action by its four constituent members (NZMA, CMC, ASMS and NZRDA). The Forum through these organisations represents approximately 96% of registered doctors in New Zealand, and therefore speaks for over 11,000 doctors on global issues on which there is consensus.
The Forum is aware that the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) has forwarded to your office the names of the four highest polling candidates from the recent MCNZ elections. It is our wish that you appoint these doctors to the MCNZ.
In your response to us dated 15th February 2006, you state that it may not be appropriate to appoint these doctors automatically, as it is necessary to ensure the overall “balance of skills” on the Council. It is our belief that you as Minister can ensure that this balance is achieved through the remaining six ministerial appointments to the Council. This is similar to the current situation with District Health Boards, where a number of members are elected and balance of skills, ethnicity, etc is achieved through additional ministerial appointments.
You also stated that your first priority in making appointments to MCNZ is to ensure the health and safety of the public. It is clear that the medical profession as a whole would share your concerns in this area.
The MCNZ states that its strategic goals towards 2010 are to:
- Implement mechanisms to ensure doctors are competent and fit to practice.
- Improve public understanding of the Council and its role in implementing the primary purpose of the HPCAA [Health Professional Competence Assurance Act].
- Improve standards of practice and maintain self-regulation with input from the public, profession and stakeholders.
- Increase awareness of medical regulatory and workforce issues both in New Zealand and globally.
The PPMF believe that, for both you and the MCNZ to achieve your important objectives, the Council must have the confidence not only of the public, but also of the medical profession.
31.7% of doctors voted in the recent MCNZ election. This is a high poll for such an election and reflects the importance that the medical profession attaches to its representation on the Council. We contend that the profession will only have confidence in the Council if the highest polling candidates are appointed to it.
We look forward to your early response on this issue of prime concern to the profession.
Yours sincerely
Jeff Brown Ross Boswell
President Chairman
Association of Salaried Medical Specialists New Zealand Medical Association
Phil Bagshaw Deborah Powell
Chairman Secretary-General
Council of Medical Colleges in New Zealand New Zealand Resident Doctors Association
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
New South Wales staff specialist salaries pose challenge to New Zealand
Recently the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission determined a 14% salary increase effective on 1 July 2005 for staff specialists employed by the state government. This followed a successful case taken by the ASMS’s kindred union, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation (ASMOF).
In New South Wales it is the state government, with the health department acting as its agent, which is the employer of area health service staff (area health services being broadly comparable to our district health boards although they are not responsible for primary care) compared with New Zealand where the DHBs are the employer. Staff specialists are the same as specialists in New Zealand except that most surgeons in the state are visiting medical officers covered by another agreement that is also determined by the Industrial Relations Commission.
The 14% increase should be put in perspective. It is part of a wider settlement much of which was agreed between ASMOF and the health department, which included four further 3% increases over a four year period. The compounded effect of these increases represents a 29% increase over four years. It should also be noted that there is no equivalent of job sizing in New South Wales, no enhanced rate for working on after-hours call duties, and no availability allowance. Instead they are all subsumed in a universal allowance of 17.4% which is then itself subsumed or incorporated into these salaries rather than sitting on top of them.
There are also important differences in industrial law and systems between New South Wales and New Zealand. New South Wales (its wider state sector is not affected by the controversial federal industrial law because of special legislation adopted by the state parliament) has a greater emphasis on centralised arbitration. In contrast, New Zealand has a greater emphasis on collective negotiation with a marginal at best role for arbitration (there is no equivalent body to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, for example).
In its deliberations the Industrial Relations Commission noted the following points:
- It was accepted by both the health department and the union that there were significant shortages of staff specialists. Australia is well ahead of New Zealand in workforce planning, in particular in data collection. Information from the Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee proved to be invaluable. The shortage was assessed as greater than 10%. The Commission therefore concluded that ‘there are grounds for increasing salaries on the basis of a shortage of staff specialists.’
- It endorsed the following statement in the ASMOF submission on non-clinical duties which is pertinent to New Zealand:
The indirect impact [of shortages] is that the pressures inevitably mean that time ordinarily allocated to non-clinical duties, including teaching and research, has been steadily eroded at the further cost of morale and retention and recruitment. To the extent that these features of staff specialist employment hold attractions to trainees—potential trainees can now only see career opportunities as a staff specialist diminished.
- Average regular hours per week (excluding working on rostered after-hours’ call duties) were 46.80. These increased to 49.07 when regular worked on-call hours were included. [This data suggests that average weekly hours worked on after-hours’ call duties was 2.27 compared with an estimate of around 4 in New Zealand. The difference may be due to a greater level of registrar support in New South Wales.]
- Salaries needed to be increased if staff specialists were not to leave the public system and undertake full private practice including working as VMOs. This was especially the case as the work of staff specialists and VMOs was very similar.
- The large increase was justified because there ‘has been a significant net addition to the work requirements of staff specialists’. This includes significant ‘changes in the nature of work, skill and responsibilities required or in the conditions under which work is performed’.
No one part of the world is the same as the other and there are always different exigencies and drivers. However, the proximity of New South Wales to New Zealand, the strong similarity in medical work in both regions, and New South Wales’ use of more favourable terms and conditions of employment to recruit from New Zealand to address shortages, means that we ignore this outcome at our peril.
Ian Powell
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
Mapp bill creates risks for health sector recruitment
The National Party’s industrial relations spokesperson, Wayne Mapp MP, has introduced into Parliament a bill that if adopted into law would create serious risks for New Zealand’s ability to recruit quality candidates to vacant positions (including senior doctor) from overseas or even within New Zealand in our health system. It is called the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Bill, also widely known as the Mapp Bill, and it is presently before the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee. After considering the serious implications of the Bill for the health system the National Executive decided that the ASMS should make a submission to the select committee outlining our concerns.
The Bill provides for a period of 90 days where no rights to personal grievance exist. Personal grievances provide employees with important rights in contesting alleged unjustifiable actions of an employer, including dismissal. In practice the major impact of this would be to take away any requirement for employers such as district health boards, which in many centres is the largest employer, to give a reason for dismissal of employees in the first 90 days of their employment with an employer or any requirement to follow a procedurally fair process. This 90 day period will apply each time any employee changes employer.
The effect of the Bill appears to be to stop either an individual employment agreement or a collective employment agreement applying for the first 90 days of employment with a new employer. It also takes away any rights to use the mediation service during this period or to invoke the disputes procedures under the Employment Relations Act. The mediation service is a statutory body set up to help resolve employment relationship problems between employers and employees. The only actions someone can take would be for breach of contract or an action under the Human Rights Act.
The Bill is a private members Bill and was referred to a select committee on a very narrow vote margin dependant partly on the Maori Party voting in favour of referral. The Bill is being promoted on the claim that it will encourage employers to take on employees that might not work out.
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
SMO salary survey, 1 July 2005
The ASMS has completed its 12th survey of full-time equivalent (FTE) salaries for senior medical staff at district health boards and their predecessors. DHBs were asked for the number of senior medical staff on the base salary steps (notional 40-hour week) of the scale in the national DHB MECA as at 1 July 2005. The full details of the survey are available on the ASMS website www.asms.org.nz. This is the first survey since the implementation of the DHB MECA. Over the 12 month period the mean specialist salary increased by 6.7% and the mean medical/dental officer (previously MOSS) salary increased by 9.3%.
The survey reports on FTE base salaries. It does not take into account:
- hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week;
- the availability allowance (retainer for being on call); or
- any other special enhancements.
The table below summarises national trends. On 30 June 1993 the mean FTE specialist base rate was $85,658. By 1 July 2005 this had increased to $140,583 (a raw increase of about 64.1% since 1993). This represents a 6.7% increase on the 2004 mean.
For medical and dental officers the equivalent salary movement to 1 July 2005 was from $67,457 on 30 June 1993 to $111,088 (a raw increase of about 64.7%). This represents a 9.3% increase on the 2004 mean. This is the biggest increase in ten years and includes the effects of the implementation of the DHB MECA.
Table 1.1 Summary of national mean full-time equivalent base salary
|
SPECIALIST |
MEDICAL AND DENTAL | |||
|
YEAR |
Mean Base |
Annual |
Mean Base |
Annual |
|
1993 |
85,658 |
67,457 |
||
|
1996 |
100,547 |
4.5 |
74,845 |
3.0 |
|
1997 |
105,560 |
5.0 |
80,812 |
7.8 |
|
1998[1] |
108,438 |
2.7 |
84,541 |
4.6 |
|
1999 |
112,055 |
3.3 |
86,743 |
2.6 |
|
2000 |
116,755 |
4.2 |
89,812 |
3.5 |
|
2001 |
120,942 |
3.6 |
91,931[2] |
2.4 |
|
2002 |
125,289 |
3.6 |
96,207 |
4.7 |
|
2003 |
129,743 |
3.6 |
100,002 |
3.9 |
|
2004 |
131,740 |
1.5 |
101,640 |
1.6 |
|
2005 |
140,583 |
6.7 |
111,088 |
9.3 |
The following two tables are ranked according to total mean FTE base salary in each DHB and also break down on the basis of gender. Please note that rankings can be skewed by local factors such as the proportion of younger senior medical staff in a DHB.
Table 1.2 Mean full-time equivalent salary for specialists
|
RANK |
DHB |
TOTAL |
FEMALES |
MALES |
|
1 |
West Coast |
154,346 |
150,000 |
154,708 |
|
2 |
Wairarapa |
152,600 |
137,500 |
153,679 |
|
3 |
Whanganui |
150,951 |
148,227 |
151,950 |
|
4 |
Bay of Plenty |
149,655 |
151,783 |
149,092 |
|
5 |
Southland |
147,929 |
142,346 |
149,616 |
|
6 |
Nelson Marlborough |
146,287 |
140,654 |
147,348 |
|
7 |
MidCentral |
143,519 |
138,205 |
144,945 |
|
8 |
Waikato |
143,111 |
139,302 |
143,964 |
|
9 |
Auckland |
142,524 |
136,958 |
145,076 |
|
10 |
Hawkes Bay |
141,469 |
134,563 |
142,439 |
|
11 |
Capital & Coast |
140,638 |
139,576 |
141,000 |
|
12 |
Otago |
140,232 |
135,910 |
141,901 |
|
13 |
Hutt Valley |
139,963 |
137,022 |
140,915 |
|
14 |
Tairawhiti |
139,950 |
131,900 |
141,560 |
|
15 |
Taranaki |
138,408 |
129,100 |
140,795 |
|
16 |
Canterbury |
137,853 |
131,596 |
139,695 |
|
17 |
Lakes |
136,440 |
128,500 |
137,952 |
|
18 |
Waitemata |
135,809 |
131,385 |
137,900 |
|
19 |
Counties Manukau |
135,241 |
134,329 |
135,579 |
|
20 |
South Canterbury |
134,980 |
135,500 |
134,935 |
|
21 |
Northland |
133,198 |
129,694 |
134,647 |
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE[3] |
142,148 |
137,336 |
143,319 |
Table 1.3 Mean full-time equivalent salary for medical and dental officers
|
RANK |
DHB |
TOTAL |
FEMALES |
MALES |
|
1 |
Wairarapa |
122,700 |
115,500 |
124,500 |
|
2 |
Tairawhiti |
122,700 |
123,500 |
122,167 |
|
3 |
South Canterbury |
122,167 |
121,500 |
123,500 |
|
4 |
Hawkes Bay |
120,955 |
114,700 |
126,167 |
|
5 |
Whanganui |
119,625 |
- |
119,625 |
|
6 |
West Coast |
119,500 |
123,500 |
116,833 |
|
7 |
Counties Manukau |
117,100 |
116,400 |
117,333 |
|
8 |
Waitemata |
116,432 |
114,692 |
117,563 |
|
9 |
Northland |
116,300 |
109,500 |
120,833 |
|
10 |
Lakes |
115,950 |
111,750 |
117,000 |
|
11 |
Bay of Plenty |
115,575 |
117,150 |
114,000 |
|
12 |
Capital & Coast |
114,947 |
114,750 |
115,286 |
|
13 |
MidCentral |
114,425 |
116,300 |
112,550 |
|
14 |
Nelson Marlborough |
110,611 |
97,300 |
115,731 |
|
15 |
Hutt Valley |
109,889 |
107,750 |
111,600 |
|
16 |
Southland |
106,750 |
106,625 |
106,875 |
|
17 |
Taranaki |
105,222 |
107,750 |
104,500 |
|
18 |
Canterbury |
105,217 |
101,900 |
107,769 |
|
19 |
Waikato |
104,905 |
104,000 |
105,462 |
|
20 |
Auckland |
104,780 |
109,183 |
101,844 |
|
21 |
Otago |
101,667 |
95,417 |
107,917 |
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE[4] |
113,686 |
106,151 |
114,717 |
[1] There was no return for Auckland Healthcare for 1 July 1998
[2] This figure has been amended from the 2001 salary survey.
[3] This figure has been calculated as the average of the averages.
[4] This figure has been calculated as the average of the averages.
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
DHB superannuation contributions
Since 2000 the ASMS has collected information on membership of superannuation schemes. The 2005 survey grouped SMOs into three categories (a) the former government schemes run by the National Provident Fund and Government Superannuation Fund (access to these schemes was closed off in 1992), (b) DHB subsidised schemes provided by the national MECA and its predecessor collective agreements, and (c) other arrangements.
The following table sets out this information:
| DHB | GSF & NPF |
EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION |
OTHER | TOTAL |
|
Northland |
13 |
64 |
|
77 |
|
Waitemata |
27 |
27 |
|
54 |
|
Auckland |
184 |
337 |
|
521 |
|
Counties Manukau |
45 |
45 |
|
90 |
|
Waikato |
79 |
149 |
21 |
249 |
|
Lakes |
8 |
25 |
33 | |
|
Tairawhiti |
4 |
23 |
19 |
46 |
|
Bay of Plenty |
21 |
66 |
87 | |
|
Hawkes Bay |
27 |
22 |
49 | |
|
Taranaki |
14 |
38 |
52 | |
|
Whanganui |
10 |
39 |
49 | |
|
MidCentral |
36 |
49 |
85 | |
|
Wairarapa |
4 |
9 |
13 | |
|
Hutt Valley |
18 |
56 |
74 | |
|
Capital & Coast |
51 |
93 |
144 | |
|
Nelson Marlborough |
26 |
70 |
52 |
148 |
|
West Coast |
6 |
4 |
1 |
11 |
|
Canterbury |
26 |
257 |
283 | |
|
South Canterbury |
9 |
15 |
24 | |
|
Otago |
21 |
70 |
91 | |
|
Southland |
15 |
19 |
34 | |
|
TOTAL - 2005 |
644 |
1477 |
93 |
2214 |
|
TOTAL - 2004 |
665 |
1381 |
61 |
2107 |
|
TOTAL - 2003 |
695 |
1042 |
84 |
1821 |
The following table outlines the changes from 2003 to 2005 (in 2000 64% were in GSF/NPF and 36% in pre-MECA DHB collective agreement schemes; the latter has increased to 66% over five years).
|
YEAR |
GSF & NPF |
MECA SCHEMES |
OTHER |
TOTAL |
|
2005 |
644 (29%) |
1477 (66%) |
93 (5%) |
2214 |
|
2004 |
665 (32%) |
1381 (65%) |
61 (3%) |
2107 |
|
2003 |
695 (38%) |
1042 (57%) |
84 (5%) |
1821 |
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
Diary these dates!
ASMS 18th Annual Conference: Thursday 2 - Friday 3 November 2006
Delegates required
The ASMS meets the cost and makes all travel and accommodation arrangements for ASMS members to attend its 18th Annual Conference as delegates. It will be held at Te Papa on 2-3 November (Thursday, Friday).
Dinner and Pre-Conference Function
In addition to the Conference there is a Conference dinner on Thursday 2 November. Delegates are also invited to attend an informal cocktail function on the evening of Wednesday 1 November to be held at the Boatshed on Wellington's waterfront.
Leave
Clause 30.1 of the MECA includes provision for members to attend Association meetings and conference on full pay. Members are advised to start planning now and encouraged to make leave arrangements and register without delay.
Registration of Interest
Please help us plan for another great Conference and to assist with travel and accommodation reservations by taking a minute to fill out this form and either post, fax or emial the details back to our Membership Support Officer, Kathy Eaden, at ke@asms.org.nz. The ASMS meets these costs for delegates.
Name:
.............................................................................
Employer:
.............................................................................
Address:
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
Special Dietary Requirements:
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
Phone:
.............................................................................
Your interest in registration will be confirmed with your local branch secretary as each branch is allocated a set number of delegates. Extra members are welcome to attend the Conference as observers.
Further information about the Conference can be obtained from the National Office or online at www.asms.org.nz
Top of Page
................................................................................................................
