The AMA has warned that rosters can be unlawful because inherent in the arrangement of allocating periods of duty between the participants is a restriction of services, rendering the arrangements unlawful under the TPA irrespective of their 'genuineness'. Further, sometimes fee agreements and other unlawful arrangements would be necessary to ensure the viability of medical rosters needed to provide essential medical services, particularly in areas where there is a doctor shortage.

The AMA and the ACCC have opened frank dialogue and have improved communication under the new ACCC leadership. The ACCC's TPA kit for medical practitioners consists of documents that explain what arrangements are and are not lawful under the TPA and explain to doctors that rosters are not unlawful if they meet certain criteria. The AMA is committed to assisting the ACCC in this work.

In turn, however, the AMA would like the ACCC to have a better understanding of those situations where it is not practical or realistic for those criteria to be met by reason of which some communities go without the roster and work share arrangements that they ideally need.

In response the ACCC invited the AMA to resubmit specific examples of the types of roster and work share arrangements that to establish for the public benefit might breach the TPA.

The AMA forwarded a submission dated 4 August 2004 to the ACCC to demonstrate the many circumstances, in an environment of an Australian workforce shortage, where roster and work share arrangements that, far from being 'sham' arrangements, are aimed at improving the provision of health services, and yet potentially breach the TPA.