Why has Australia not joined FIP?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

netizens

I believe New Zealand has joined but not Australia. What do the Australians know?

toeslayer

 

The reason was mostly to do with the extraordinary amount of money that FIP were wanting from Australia to join, for which APodC could see zero benefit for its members.

 

This is not a new issue - this first came up 4-5 yrs ago.

 

What is FIP?

 

It may be something A Pod C would like to reconsider. It costs us about $NZ10 per member to be a member of the International Federation of Podiatrists (FIP). I believe we get good value for our members' money.

 

The kind of money that FIP were asking from APodC a few years ago was a lot more than that per member. No one that time could see any value for the amount of money being asked.

 

Craig et al

When I attended the conference in Copenhagen I spoke to several of the executive and they all were surprised at the costs quoted by 'informed sources,' for Australian membership. According to them it was erroneous and I was shown the formulae and it seemed quite reasonable then and now. There were certainly latent expenses involved with two delegates required to attend meetings etc but nothing like the figures which were suggested at the time.

I would think in terms of a cost benefit analysis linking to FIP at this time might have a considerable advantage. Becoming part of the global podiatry movement can only benefit resiprosity and I am sure the Australian input to the College of Podiatry Educators would be one most welcome by the international community.

With regard to changes to Registration in Oz and the mandatory CPD which lies ahead belonging to an organisation which already has in place a CPD system for its membership (which is my understanding) surely must be an advantage for Australian Pods.

What say you?

toeslayer

 

As a Board member of APodA(vic) at the time, those were the figures that came through to us.

 

Do you really believe they were the actual figures though Craig?

One does tend to wonder considering the agenda's (and ego's) in the Podiatry World at times, whether we are led astray by certain people.

 

Paul,
The FIP was discussed when I was still on the A.Pod.C. board, over 10 years ago, and from the communications recieved, the fees for the A.Pod.C would have needed to rise by about 20%. The A.Pod.C. has sent delegates to the FIP meetings, and from what I understand continues to be in some level of discussion. With the APMA joining a few years ago, and NZ more recently, the Euro focus of the group is slowly changing, and it may well be worth the A.Pod.C. reconsidering, if the price is right.

 

netizens

As I understand calculation for annual membership of FIP is based upon a formula. FIP is an organisation registered in France and the currency is in Euros.
The fee is based on the number of active members of that country (professional association) in the preceeding year. Associations with more than a 1000 members the fee is 7800 Euros ($11801) plus 0.780 E for each member over 1000.

e.g.
Calculation for 2000 (members) is E8580 ($12984) per annum or E4.29 ($6.49) per member.

Countries where there is no FIP Member Association the individual membership fee is E179.52 ($271.65).

toeslayer

 

If it was worthwhile I am sure people would be happy to pay an extra 20% if that is what was required.

The fact of the matter is for the money APodC actually receives I believe members currently have a right to feel disgruntled.

 

APODC capitation has increased approx 100% in the past 5 years to fund activity for the podiatry at a national level and is now close to $300 per member that comes from the membership fee levied at a state level.

fees would be lower and APODC would have the funds to consider FIP...... IF membership levels nationally were higher. 50% registered Pods do not contribute financially to the progression of Podiatry with association membership.

put FIP on the APODC agenda with a letter to the APODC board.

 

Would like to see a cost analysis of exactly how and what that was spent on and the exact benefit application to each member (on a broad scale of course).

...and now with federal registration and the relative deteriation of state controls/regulations there is surely a reason to ask the question:

Do we need individual state Associations? Or do we simply need a National Council? I am sure this will generate some debate and passion, but theoretically State Associations will be made redundant over coming years surely.

Maybe look at it in reverse, Membership would be higher if value for money was seen by the Podiatry populous. Its a double edged sword and two lane highway....there will always be members who will not partake, and that is their right.

Absolutely - or maybe even better a State Association President or Board member can take it to their meeting and have pressure applied from within???

 

we are in a federated structure for which there is always debate about the advantages and disadvantages. (which I think should be considered in light of the best way to service the membership)
National registration of the profession is not necessarily the impetus for Nationalisation of the professional representative body. State associations still provide member service and APODC represent the profession on National issues and design standards and national frameworks for Podiatrists. Implementation in our current structure is at a State level.

Membership value ? yes this is important but what is the measure ?

 

Can we at least consider aligning ourselves with mainstream health bureaucracy terminology.

The Australian Podiatry Council and the Australian Medical (or Dental) Council are two very different beasts - representing different things, and with different roles in society.

Everyone knows that the Australian Medical Association is the peak body representing the medical profession, and aligned to the state branches of the AMA. Ditto the Australian Dental Association, the Australian Physiotherapy Association, et al.

IMHO, we need to have rebrand APodC as Australian Podiatry Association (ie the national office), and retire the term Australian Podiatry Council. It is confusing to health bureaucrats, other professions and the media.

Then we can think more about what the role of state branches can and should
be.

Eventually a future Australian Podiatry Council (ie an evolved ANZPAC) can have a similar function to the AMC and ADC.

My 2 cents,

LL

 

No debate necessary - it either works or it doesn't.

I am sure this is arguable especially amongst current members who want more bang for buck and non members who don't see the value....State Member Associations provide a service no doubt, whether that service is actually warranted by membership or whether that service serves the purpose of none other than the Board members who initiate it is another matter for argument.

Maybe that is what they "should" be doing but where is the evidence that they have done that? Most changes are implemented by individuals, as I stated above for personal reasons. i.e. a Podiatric Surgeon who wants changes to federal acts for "professional" (and subsequently personal) gain.

I doubt you will be able to remove state representation completely, but I don't think federal representation should rely on state involvement solely.

The measure is the amount of members you actually have. If 50% of your profession are not members, maybe something is wrong? What other measure do you have?

I agree on the majority with Tony here - bring it into line with National Standards and Terminolgy use of all other health professions. I would argue (I could be wrong so please feel free to point it out) that the ACPS has had more success in political lobbying than APodC in any given period regardless of subject matter.

Why?

Everyone knows exactly what the ACPS is lobbying for possibly. What exactly does the APodC lobby for and when was the last time the APodC did not defer to a State Association for independent state based lobbying?

As an example what hand to APodC have in Victorian S4 drugs - which granted is a state issue. If they are the implementation, design and structure people what exactly did they do? Or was it a small band of Victorian Podiatrists who were pro active enough to invest in their own beliefs for their own personal/professional gain?

Something has got to give here, my 2 cents - abolish all Councils and State Associations and form one united Australian Podiatry Association representing the profession with a branch dedicated to lobbying. Then as Tony suggests form an evolved ANZPAC type Council. It would be cheaper, more cost effective and save on staff time and resources.

In the past this has been an "no go area" for discussion, but I think the times are changing so much we will be forced to make the change.

If one of those member benefits and changes is to join FIP then so be it!

 

It is a concern that the professional body only represents 50 % of Podiatrists but who would you listen to as a bureaucrat a body representing Podiatrists or a single Podiatrist. GP membership of the AMA is less than 25% of all GP's certainly in Victoria- but they have a fair voice on matters affecting all Medico's.

would APODC or a new national 'Australian Podiatry association ' be more sucessful in producing outcomes than the current structure of APODC and MA's? i don't know- maybe. it would still be under resourced.

any discussion should consider how best to serve members- if so it is a valid debate.

 

I don't know - I reckon you could put forward a pretty good debate at present that single Podiatrists have been more successful in things like legislation change than our "Professional Body". Mark Gilheany would be one person I could single out as an example of this but I am sure there are lots of others...

But this is exactly Tony's point - they are successful not because of numbers but because of what they stand for. This is exactly the reason Mark Gilheany has successfully lobbied for legislative change.

How so? Do you think the current APodC is under resourced? Are the MA's under resourced? I am interested in your opinion of this.

Agreed - but all to often even the MA's think it best how to "make money" rather than "serve members".

PS - I simply picked 50% as a rough number - is that even close to correct? I would have thought it be higher actually...

 

The influence of individuals in producing legislative change in our profession can never be under estimated- that I acknowledge. However there has always been individuals within the professional bodies that do good work for Podiatry as a whole.

To answer if APODC and MA's are under resourced- If being under resourced is having to prioritize one project over another and not do everything - well yes they are all under resourced . To make judgment as to effective use of current resources - that is a debate I am not having .

MA's only have an interest to make money to improve service to members - no other reason.
I accept service to members can always improve - Is it any different in other organizations?.

Become active in your Member association and have a say - they do want to hear from you

 

Very well said cookster - but go on, step out on a limb in an anonymous forum and have a crack!!! Why not put it to the public? I think I know the answer - because neither you or I would report on it favorably at present would we? Maybe the smaller states MA's might be better at this???

If the above statement was true then the FIP should be a no brainer. The MA's have an interest to make money to better build the MA through more staff, better facilities etc... May be I am speaking out of school, but I don't see MA's ploughing funds raised into anything other than projects to make more funds. Whether those projects are "services" to members is extraordinarily debatable. If MA's did indeed provide invaluable services to members then there should be little reason for members not to join.

Point in order does/did APodC really need the liquor license they currently/used to hold for their premises? Do we really require individual state cnferences or would funds be better spent for members doing a yearly single conference?

Simple fact is, services provided to Podiatrists through the MA's is extremely limited at best. I think we have already established that APodC as a group has not facilitated the legislative changes required or needed for our profession, nor have they successfully developed a national framework or guidelines for all aspects of Podiatry alone let alone the members who it represents - yet. Will they in the future? I don't think it can be done with the current setup and as Tony has suggested it requires a massive rethink and restructure.

The first step is realizing we can do better, the second step is actually doing better!

You are correct it is no different in other organizations, we are extremely hard on ourselves because we are a small group - that has its positives and negatives.

Anyhow, I have poured enough fuel on the fire in this thread - my thoughts are known and I can't add anything more I feel. Thanks cookster for the discussion, it has been excellent.

I emplore APodC and the MA's to take what is important to members to heart and spend some serious cash in proactive areas of future professional growth - even if that is against individuals personal pursuits.

If the FIP is one of these areas then we should go after it diligently.

 

As an Australian reg pod working in Europe.

What does joining the FIP bring to Australia in terms of +ve. I would think that having Australia as part of the FIP will benefit the FIP. Which you can argue will be good for podiatry but I don´t think that it will make any differnce to Podiatry in Australia.

Some of the the FIP member countries do not complete what I would call the bare minimal levels to use the word Podiatry or what ever is the equilivant in that language.

So before Australia joins there should be a true world wide definition of what a podiatrist is and what standards must be maintained to use the title such as using autoclaved instruments.

So I beleive FIP should invite some people from Australia to help develope these types of questions and answers and once they have been settled then Australia should join.

Why Australia would pay to help does not make sense to me and staying out but saying something once the standards have been lifted we will join if you want our input please fee free to ask.

my 2 cents