Page 1335 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry made some interesting comments about the AMA and the Pharmacy Guild. The AMA is a very good example of what I have just said. The AMA, to my knowledge, currently has about 44 per cent membership. In the ACT and many other parts of Australia the number of GPs who are members of the AMA is exceedingly low. Why is that so? It is because it is not compulsory and because GPs have perceived, rightly or wrongly, that the AMA has not been adequately representing their interests with government. That means that the AMA has had to restructure its organisation and go out there and encourage membership. That has to be a good idea. It has to improve the basis of the organisation and the way the organisation represents its membership.
The Pharmacy Guild is in the same position. When, a couple of years ago, the Pharmacy Guild ended up in a fairly long and protracted dispute with government, what happened? We had a quite substantial membership drop-off, and rightly, because the membership perceived that the organisation, a union, was not representing its interests appropriately. For us to get the membership back, we had to pull up our socks. We had to perform better. Surely that can only improve the way the Pharmacy Guild, the AMA or a union represents all of its membership, whether it be in Sydney, Canberra or wherever.
Again going back to my industry, one Mr Berry likes to pick on - - -
Mr De Domenico: And knows nothing about.
MRS CARNELL: And knows nothing about. As I said, this industry is very heavily female, young people and so on. Those people often work casually or part time. We have problems where they are required to pay up front for their union membership. These are people who are not earning a lot of money and often have not worked for a couple of weeks or more. I accept that in pharmacy we very rarely see a union delegate; they do not seem to care too much at all, which certainly reflects the problem with the current award.
I think this sort of approach to women and young people in our work force in the retail industry is discriminatory. Asking people like that to pay substantial amounts of money up front, in many circumstances, so that they can keep their job, is hugely discriminatory. It is a union that is not having to perform for those people. They are casual, they are part time, they come and go out of the industry; but they are being required to support an organisation that is of limited relevance to them and has done nothing for them. They are not likely to stay in the industry, in many circumstances, but that does not mean anything. It does not mean anything that they cannot afford it; it will be up-front money, regardless. If anything is discriminatory, that must be, and I cannot understand how you could argue for one moment that that is not the case. I return to my original comment. Unions must - - -
Mr Berry: Compliant ones.
MRS CARNELL: No, not compliant unions; all unions, whether they be employer based or worker based, must earn their membership. If they do not - - -
Mr Connolly: Employer based unions are the ones you like, are they?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .