❓ The WA Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection expresses serious concern over the Office of the Employment Advocate's interpretation of the 'no-disadvantage test' in Australian Workplace Agreements, arguing it undermines worker protections and potentially violates federal law.
AnsweredQoN 407Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Is the minister aware that the Office of the Employment Advocate is interpreting the no-disadvantage test underpinning federal Australian workplace agreements in a way that leaves Western Australian workers worse off than they would be under the award? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. This causes me a great deal of concern. The Office of the Employment Advocate is a government agency that has the role of promoting Australian workplace agreements. It also has a regulatory role in their registration. It has stated that in Western Australia people can pass the no-disadvantage test for an Australian workplace agreement by employees saying that they choose - I repeat, choose - not to receive the money that would be due to them if they worked extended hours or on weekends. That is the same principle as saying that people can be slave labour if they choose to be. It is an absolute travesty. In my view it is a total breach of federal law. The federal law sets a no-disadvantage test that requires to be benchmarked against the award. The Employment Advocate is saying that employees can choose to work for less. That is totally outside my understanding of employment law in this State and across Australia. However, that is what the Employment Advocate is saying. At a recent ministerial council, I raised this matter with the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Hon Tony Abbott, who pleaded ignorance and said he knew nothing about it. I have now written to him pointing out what I see as a totally unacceptable situation of trying to lower standards of employment. I hope that he will address this matter and bring it to an end before it gets challenged in the courts. There is a real risk to employers who enter into this arrangement, because they might find themselves in jeopardy at some future time when it is overturned by a court. The interests of employers will not be served if they are caught in that way. Many other employers who have been faced with transitional issues as a result of this State’s changes are sorting the matter out on a basis that will take the whole thing forward with some stability. A range of employers, such as Foodland, have introduced enterprise bargaining agreements to give them an arrangement by which they can pay a standard rate across their hours of trading. There are ways of solving the problem without going outside the law of this nation and accepted decent standards of employment. The federal Government had better stop this nonsense or it will lead to further disruption in the workplace as a result of lowering the standards of employment in this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for the question. This causes me a great deal of concern. The Office of the Employment Advocate is a government agency that has the role of promoting Australian workplace agreements. It also has a regulatory role in their registration. It has stated that in Western Australia people can pass the no-disadvantage test for an Australian workplace agreement by employees saying that they choose - I repeat, choose - not to receive the money that would be due to them if they worked extended hours or on weekends. That is the same principle as saying that people can be slave labour if they choose to be. It is an absolute travesty. In my view it is a total breach of federal law. The federal law sets a no-disadvantage test that requires to be benchmarked against the award. The Employment Advocate is saying that employees can choose to work for less. That is totally outside my understanding of employment law in this State and across Australia. However, that is what the Employment Advocate is saying. At a recent ministerial council, I raised this matter with the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Hon Tony Abbott, who pleaded ignorance and said he knew nothing about it. I have now written to him pointing out what I see as a totally unacceptable situation of trying to lower standards of employment. I hope that he will address this matter and bring it to an end before it gets challenged in the courts. There is a real risk to employers who enter into this arrangement, because they might find themselves in jeopardy at some future time when it is overturned by a court. The interests of employers will not be served if they are caught in that way. Many other employers who have been faced with transitional issues as a result of this State’s changes are sorting the matter out on a basis that will take the whole thing forward with some stability. A range of employers, such as Foodland, have introduced enterprise bargaining agreements to give them an arrangement by which they can pay a standard rate across their hours of trading. There are ways of solving the problem without going outside the law of this nation and accepted decent standards of employment. The federal Government had better stop this nonsense or it will lead to further disruption in the workplace as a result of lowering the standards of employment in this State.
I thank the member for the question. This causes me a great deal of concern. The Office of the Employment Advocate is a government agency that has the role of promoting Australian workplace agreements. It also has a regulatory role in their registration. It has stated that in Western Australia people can pass the no-disadvantage test for an Australian workplace agreement by employees saying that they choose - I repeat, choose - not to receive the money that would be due to them if they worked extended hours or on weekends. That is the same principle as saying that people can be slave labour if they choose to be. It is an absolute travesty. In my view it is a total breach of federal law. The federal law sets a no-disadvantage test that requires to be benchmarked against the award. The Employment Advocate is saying that employees can choose to work for less. That is totally outside my understanding of employment law in this State and across Australia. However, that is what the Employment Advocate is saying. At a recent ministerial council, I raised this matter with the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Hon Tony Abbott, who pleaded ignorance and said he knew nothing about it. I have now written to him pointing out what I see as a totally unacceptable situation of trying to lower standards of employment. I hope that he will address this matter and bring it to an end before it gets challenged in the courts. There is a real risk to employers who enter into this arrangement, because they might find themselves in jeopardy at some future time when it is overturned by a court. The interests of employers will not be served if they are caught in that way. Many other employers who have been faced with transitional issues as a result of this State’s changes are sorting the matter out on a basis that will take the whole thing forward with some stability. A range of employers, such as Foodland, have introduced enterprise bargaining agreements to give them an arrangement by which they can pay a standard rate across their hours of trading. There are ways of solving the problem without going outside the law of this nation and accepted decent standards of employment. The federal Government had better stop this nonsense or it will lead to further disruption in the workplace as a result of lowering the standards of employment in this State.
At a recent ministerial council, I raised this matter with the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Hon Tony Abbott, who pleaded ignorance and said he knew nothing about it. I have now written to him pointing out what I see as a totally unacceptable situation of trying to lower standards of employment. I hope that he will address this matter and bring it to an end before it gets challenged in the courts. There is a real risk to employers who enter into this arrangement, because they might find themselves in jeopardy at some future time when it is overturned by a court. The interests of employers will not be served if they are caught in that way. Many other employers who have been faced with transitional issues as a result of this State’s changes are sorting the matter out on a basis that will take the whole thing forward with some stability. A range of employers, such as Foodland, have introduced enterprise bargaining agreements to give them an arrangement by which they can pay a standard rate across their hours of trading. There are ways of solving the problem without going outside the law of this nation and accepted decent standards of employment. The federal Government had better stop this nonsense or it will lead to further disruption in the workplace as a result of lowering the standards of employment in this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for the question. This causes me a great deal of concern. The Office of the Employment Advocate is a government agency that has the role of promoting Australian workplace agreements. It also has a regulatory role in their registration. It has stated that in Western Australia people can pass the no-disadvantage test for an Australian workplace agreement by employees saying that they choose - I repeat, choose - not to receive the money that would be due to them if they worked extended hours or on weekends. That is the same principle as saying that people can be slave labour if they choose to be. It is an absolute travesty. In my view it is a total breach of federal law. The federal law sets a no-disadvantage test that requires to be benchmarked against the award. The Employment Advocate is saying that employees can choose to work for less. That is totally outside my understanding of employment law in this State and across Australia. However, that is what the Employment Advocate is saying. At a recent ministerial council, I raised this matter with the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Hon Tony Abbott, who pleaded ignorance and said he knew nothing about it. I have now written to him pointing out what I see as a totally unacceptable situation of trying to lower standards of employment. I hope that he will address this matter and bring it to an end before it gets challenged in the courts. There is a real risk to employers who enter into this arrangement, because they might find themselves in jeopardy at some future time when it is overturned by a court. The interests of employers will not be served if they are caught in that way. Many other employers who have been faced with transitional issues as a result of this State’s changes are sorting the matter out on a basis that will take the whole thing forward with some stability. A range of employers, such as Foodland, have introduced enterprise bargaining agreements to give them an arrangement by which they can pay a standard rate across their hours of trading. There are ways of solving the problem without going outside the law of this nation and accepted decent standards of employment. The federal Government had better stop this nonsense or it will lead to further disruption in the workplace as a result of lowering the standards of employment in this State.
I thank the member for the question. This causes me a great deal of concern. The Office of the Employment Advocate is a government agency that has the role of promoting Australian workplace agreements. It also has a regulatory role in their registration. It has stated that in Western Australia people can pass the no-disadvantage test for an Australian workplace agreement by employees saying that they choose - I repeat, choose - not to receive the money that would be due to them if they worked extended hours or on weekends. That is the same principle as saying that people can be slave labour if they choose to be. It is an absolute travesty. In my view it is a total breach of federal law. The federal law sets a no-disadvantage test that requires to be benchmarked against the award. The Employment Advocate is saying that employees can choose to work for less. That is totally outside my understanding of employment law in this State and across Australia. However, that is what the Employment Advocate is saying. At a recent ministerial council, I raised this matter with the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Hon Tony Abbott, who pleaded ignorance and said he knew nothing about it. I have now written to him pointing out what I see as a totally unacceptable situation of trying to lower standards of employment. I hope that he will address this matter and bring it to an end before it gets challenged in the courts. There is a real risk to employers who enter into this arrangement, because they might find themselves in jeopardy at some future time when it is overturned by a court. The interests of employers will not be served if they are caught in that way. Many other employers who have been faced with transitional issues as a result of this State’s changes are sorting the matter out on a basis that will take the whole thing forward with some stability. A range of employers, such as Foodland, have introduced enterprise bargaining agreements to give them an arrangement by which they can pay a standard rate across their hours of trading. There are ways of solving the problem without going outside the law of this nation and accepted decent standards of employment. The federal Government had better stop this nonsense or it will lead to further disruption in the workplace as a result of lowering the standards of employment in this State.
At a recent ministerial council, I raised this matter with the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Hon Tony Abbott, who pleaded ignorance and said he knew nothing about it. I have now written to him pointing out what I see as a totally unacceptable situation of trying to lower standards of employment. I hope that he will address this matter and bring it to an end before it gets challenged in the courts. There is a real risk to employers who enter into this arrangement, because they might find themselves in jeopardy at some future time when it is overturned by a court. The interests of employers will not be served if they are caught in that way. Many other employers who have been faced with transitional issues as a result of this State’s changes are sorting the matter out on a basis that will take the whole thing forward with some stability. A range of employers, such as Foodland, have introduced enterprise bargaining agreements to give them an arrangement by which they can pay a standard rate across their hours of trading. There are ways of solving the problem without going outside the law of this nation and accepted decent standards of employment. The federal Government had better stop this nonsense or it will lead to further disruption in the workplace as a result of lowering the standards of employment in this State.
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.