❓ Mrs. Guise asks if the WA government made a submission to the Senate inquiry on workplace agreements, given their experience under the previous government. Mr. Kobelke confirms a submission was made and details the Gallop government's reasons for abolishing them, citing worker exploitation.
AnsweredQoN 536Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I note that the Senate is currently conducting an inquiry into workplace agreements. Did the state government make a submission to that inquiry, given the state’s experience of workplace agreements under the previous coalition government? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. I table a copy of the submission that the government has made to the Senate inquiry. [See paper 801.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for the question. I table a copy of the submission that the government has made to the Senate inquiry. [See paper 801.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
I thank the member for the question. I table a copy of the submission that the government has made to the Senate inquiry. [See paper 801.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
[See paper 801.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for the question. I table a copy of the submission that the government has made to the Senate inquiry. [See paper 801.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
I thank the member for the question. I table a copy of the submission that the government has made to the Senate inquiry. [See paper 801.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
[See paper 801.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : We believe that Western Australia should make a submission because the workplace agreements of the previous Liberal government showed why workplace agreements should not exist across Australia and why the Gallop government has abolished the workplace agreements within state legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Vasse to order for the third time. Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE : There is a range of reasons that workplace agreements were used to exploit people. That is not to say that many good employers could not use workplace agreements in a very responsible way. However, they are a means of employment that enables some employers to exploit their workers, and when some employers do it, others have to follow in order to be competitive. Although that exploitation can exist in many ways, I will be brief and mention how the wages that people receive under workplace agreements can be exploited. First, the minimum wage under workplace agreements is not the award minimum; it is the minimum set under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act, which is $50 a week below the minimum wage in the rest of Australia under the previous Liberal government. This government dealt with that situation. Clearly, people are $50 a week worse off if their workplace agreements are set at the lowest adult wage. In addition, the extra benefits that flow to people who are employed under award conditions are stripped away under workplace agreements. In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
In 2001-02 the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training did a study on workplace agreements in Western Australia. It found that 74 per cent of workplace agreements provided no weekend penalty rates of pay. Of course, many people work overtime during the week and at weekends to pay off the car or to pay a mortgage on a home. Penalty rates are very important to ensure that people are able to make ends meet and look after the needs of their families. The study also found that 67 per cent, or two-thirds, of workplace agreements provided no overtime rates of pay; that is, two-thirds of workers on workplace agreements who worked additional hours to make extra money to pay off the car and pay the bills did not get overtime rates of pay. The study found that 56 per cent of workplace agreements provided for an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate; that is, more than half the workplace agreements in Western Australia had a rate of pay below the award minimum. Clearly, those workers were not paid a wage that enabled them to look after their needs and the needs of their families. The study also found that 49 per cent of full-time, part-time and fixed-term agreements absorbed annual leave into the ordinary hourly rate of pay. People lost their annual leave; that is, they were promised extra pay, but it was absorbed at lower rates so that they did not get any annual leave. Finally, the study showed that 75 per cent of all the agreements analysed were without any provision for pay increases. The workplace agreement might last for five years, and there was no guarantee of any pay increase in those five years. These are just some reasons that we abolished workplace agreements in this state. We want to ensure that the federal Parliament, through the Senate inquiry, and the people across Australia know that going down the Howard path of promoting workplace agreements and forcing people onto workplace agreements means lower wages and living conditions for ordinary Australians.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.