Sydney

The notifier was to provide any witness statements upon which it would rely by 5pm on 31 March 2025 and the respondent any statements on which it would rely by 10am today.

so ASMOF couldn't get any doctors together between 5pm and 10am to give evidence about the public health effects of the strike

There was no objection to any of the statements and the witnesses were not required for cross-examination. The respondent did not call any evidence in reply.

The impact on patients of such industrial action, including the potential for delays in admission or discharge of patients, delays in elective procedures to permit emergency treatment of otherwise more urgent patients, the possibility of junior doctors or less specialised doctors in a particular field having to treat patients they would not otherwise treat, increased waiting times in the emergency department, longer transfer of care times between ambulance and emergency departments and delayed consultation of patients in wards.

ETA: there is apparently public holiday staffing. I would have made the point that either public holiday staffing is adequate to mitigate risks, or NSW health is lying.

It is unnecessary to go further because the respondent confirms that industrial action is planned. Mr Lisser submitted that the respondent was aware of the risks industrial action may bring within the health system and intended to give notice to the various health entities of the action to be taken in their areas of responsibility on 2 April 2025.

The quote is important in several respects. First, it demonstrates clearly the respondent has a direct role in organising and coordinating the industrial action. Second, it demonstrates an awareness that minimum staffing may not be met without the respondent’s intervention to direct people to work. Third, it demonstrates that it is discouraging members from advising local management of the scope of industrial action to be taken in their areas.

The union's executive officer accepted that there were risks.

The respondent accepts those propositions. Indeed, it accepts that orders will be made. The respondent argues, however, that the extent of those orders should be reduced. I have understood that to mean that the reference to “members” should be removed from the orders sought. The difficulty with that proposition is, as Mr Lisser submitted, the members are the union. He also submits that the life of the orders should be reduced to one week in lieu of three months.

It basically caved to the orders.

Unless this was a deliberate strategy to say 'look at us, we're so tough, we won't give in to the IRC's orders', I can't imagine why you would run a case like this.