❓ Mr. Logan questions the compliance of the federal Employment Advocate with the Workplace Relations Act, referencing a specific case involving BGC and unsigned agreements. Mr. Kobelke's answer strongly criticizes the federal government's failure to uphold its own laws.
AnsweredQoN 585Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Given the minister’s previous concerns at the federal Government’s failure to require the Office of the Employment Advocate to comply with the commonwealth Workplace Relations Act 1996, is there any evidence that the federal agency is now complying with the law? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
As I have said in this place on a previous occasion, I find it incomprehensible that this federal Government fails to uphold its own law - the law of the Commonwealth. The example I gave was that by using this frivolous idea of choice one could undermine the no disadvantage test for Australian workplace agreements, but this is now another example of the Employment Advocate, as the supposed administrator of Australian workplace agreements, being caught operating outside the law. This involved a decision brought down by Justice French, who commented on the fact that a person had had his workplace agreement registered when he had not signed it and claimed that he had not even seen it, even though the Workplace Relations Act requires that it should be signed and in by a certain date. However, the standard practice of this company - BGC - was to transmit the agreement electronically, without signatures, and have it registered outside the date set down in the Act. What response do we see from the Employment Advocate and the Howard federal Government? They refused to uphold their own law. We are quite familiar with the Howard Government being deceptive and tricky and failing to tell the truth, but this is another example of how it simply does not uphold and respect the rule of law. This shows the abysmal path down which we are going with the Howard Government.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: As I have said in this place on a previous occasion, I find it incomprehensible that this federal Government fails to uphold its own law - the law of the Commonwealth. The example I gave was that by using this frivolous idea of choice one could undermine the no disadvantage test for Australian workplace agreements, but this is now another example of the Employment Advocate, as the supposed administrator of Australian workplace agreements, being caught operating outside the law. This involved a decision brought down by Justice French, who commented on the fact that a person had had his workplace agreement registered when he had not signed it and claimed that he had not even seen it, even though the Workplace Relations Act requires that it should be signed and in by a certain date. However, the standard practice of this company - BGC - was to transmit the agreement electronically, without signatures, and have it registered outside the date set down in the Act. What response do we see from the Employment Advocate and the Howard federal Government? They refused to uphold their own law. We are quite familiar with the Howard Government being deceptive and tricky and failing to tell the truth, but this is another example of how it simply does not uphold and respect the rule of law. This shows the abysmal path down which we are going with the Howard Government.
As I have said in this place on a previous occasion, I find it incomprehensible that this federal Government fails to uphold its own law - the law of the Commonwealth. The example I gave was that by using this frivolous idea of choice one could undermine the no disadvantage test for Australian workplace agreements, but this is now another example of the Employment Advocate, as the supposed administrator of Australian workplace agreements, being caught operating outside the law. This involved a decision brought down by Justice French, who commented on the fact that a person had had his workplace agreement registered when he had not signed it and claimed that he had not even seen it, even though the Workplace Relations Act requires that it should be signed and in by a certain date. However, the standard practice of this company - BGC - was to transmit the agreement electronically, without signatures, and have it registered outside the date set down in the Act. What response do we see from the Employment Advocate and the Howard federal Government? They refused to uphold their own law. We are quite familiar with the Howard Government being deceptive and tricky and failing to tell the truth, but this is another example of how it simply does not uphold and respect the rule of law. This shows the abysmal path down which we are going with the Howard Government.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: As I have said in this place on a previous occasion, I find it incomprehensible that this federal Government fails to uphold its own law - the law of the Commonwealth. The example I gave was that by using this frivolous idea of choice one could undermine the no disadvantage test for Australian workplace agreements, but this is now another example of the Employment Advocate, as the supposed administrator of Australian workplace agreements, being caught operating outside the law. This involved a decision brought down by Justice French, who commented on the fact that a person had had his workplace agreement registered when he had not signed it and claimed that he had not even seen it, even though the Workplace Relations Act requires that it should be signed and in by a certain date. However, the standard practice of this company - BGC - was to transmit the agreement electronically, without signatures, and have it registered outside the date set down in the Act. What response do we see from the Employment Advocate and the Howard federal Government? They refused to uphold their own law. We are quite familiar with the Howard Government being deceptive and tricky and failing to tell the truth, but this is another example of how it simply does not uphold and respect the rule of law. This shows the abysmal path down which we are going with the Howard Government.
As I have said in this place on a previous occasion, I find it incomprehensible that this federal Government fails to uphold its own law - the law of the Commonwealth. The example I gave was that by using this frivolous idea of choice one could undermine the no disadvantage test for Australian workplace agreements, but this is now another example of the Employment Advocate, as the supposed administrator of Australian workplace agreements, being caught operating outside the law. This involved a decision brought down by Justice French, who commented on the fact that a person had had his workplace agreement registered when he had not signed it and claimed that he had not even seen it, even though the Workplace Relations Act requires that it should be signed and in by a certain date. However, the standard practice of this company - BGC - was to transmit the agreement electronically, without signatures, and have it registered outside the date set down in the Act. What response do we see from the Employment Advocate and the Howard federal Government? They refused to uphold their own law. We are quite familiar with the Howard Government being deceptive and tricky and failing to tell the truth, but this is another example of how it simply does not uphold and respect the rule of law. This shows the abysmal path down which we are going with the Howard Government.
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.