Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (21 February) . . Page.. 139 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

there was a Federal Labor government in place, I think it was in 1983, that that was changed and payroll deductions were restored. Do not attempt to perpetrate the fraudulent claim that the CPSU somehow collaborated with you in attempting to remove payroll deductibility of union dues.

Mrs Carnell: I did not say that. I said that they were aiming at getting their members to change the way that they paid their union fees, which is true.

MS FOLLETT: We have only to remember back to this morning. My memory appears to be better than Mrs Carnell's and my hearing is certainly better than hers, because that is not what she said. She was attempting to blame the CPSU for her actions on payroll deductions.

Mrs Carnell: That is absolutely a fraudulent claim.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Interjections are out of order.

MS FOLLETT: The fact of the matter is that this was an action taken by the Government, unilaterally of course. You did not consult with anybody, let alone the unions affected. It was an action that, I would argue, was totally illegal, given that a contract clearly existed between the unionist and his or her union. That contract can be broken only by one of those parties - not by a third party, the Government.

That contract was threatened in a move that I believe was probably illegal. It was probably illegal; it was most certainly discriminatory. Mrs Carnell at no stage threatened people's health fund dues and at no stage threatened their payroll deductions for their housing trust payments, their mortgage or any of that. As we saw from the opinion offered by the former Attorney-General, Mr Connolly, the action taken by the Government was clearly discriminatory; it was in breach of the ACT Discrimination Act.

Mrs Carnell: It was one opinion.

MS FOLLETT: It was one opinion, from the member whom the Government has just appointed to the bench. I think it ill behoves them now to denigrate his views. In fact, I find that quite extraordinary. I really cannot believe that the Government, in its squirming, would reach such abysmal depths. I am sorry, it has thrown me off my speech; it really has. I find that extraordinary. There is no doubt that the action taken was discriminatory compared to any other form of payroll deductions. The Government sought to ban only payroll deduction of union dues.

Even in their correspondence with staff, the advice given was incorrect, misleading and totally irresponsible. They said at one stage that they would suspend the requirement for annual renewal. There is no requirement for annual renewal of that authority. It says on the salary deduction authority:

This authority shall remain in force until revoked by me in writing.

That is the union member. There is no requirement for that to be renewed annually. That was a totally false piece of information offered to the work force.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .