❓ Mr. Grylls questions the Minister about the low uptake of state EEAs compared to federal AWAs, suggesting state agreements are unworkable. The Minister defends state agreements, criticizes federal AWA standards, and accuses the federal Employment Advocate of undermining the 'no-disadvantage' test.
AnsweredQoN 634Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s comments in Saturday’s The West Australian , wherein he alleged that federal workplace agreements are unfair to employees. (1) Will the minister admit that the only reason companies are looking to register federal agreements is that the state employer-employee agreements put in place by his Government are unworkable? (2) Will the minister please explain why only three EEAs have been registered in a six-month period against 13 400 applications for Australian workplace agreements, of which 30 to 40 per cent are from Western Australia? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
(1) Will the minister admit that the only reason companies are looking to register federal agreements is that the state employer-employee agreements put in place by his Government are unworkable? (2) Will the minister please explain why only three EEAs have been registered in a six-month period against 13 400 applications for Australian workplace agreements, of which 30 to 40 per cent are from Western Australia? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
(2) Will the minister please explain why only three EEAs have been registered in a six-month period against 13 400 applications for Australian workplace agreements, of which 30 to 40 per cent are from Western Australia? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
(1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
(1) Will the minister admit that the only reason companies are looking to register federal agreements is that the state employer-employee agreements put in place by his Government are unworkable? (2) Will the minister please explain why only three EEAs have been registered in a six-month period against 13 400 applications for Australian workplace agreements, of which 30 to 40 per cent are from Western Australia? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
(2) Will the minister please explain why only three EEAs have been registered in a six-month period against 13 400 applications for Australian workplace agreements, of which 30 to 40 per cent are from Western Australia? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
(1)-(2) I will address first the member’s statement about the article in the newspaper. I certainly have great concerns about the way in which Australian workplace agreements are being recognised and registered. I am doing some work to find out why they are not upholding standards. The minister in Victoria instigated a report, and that report showed that, in numerous cases, workplace agreements did not meet the no-disadvantage test. In Western Australia, I am aware that the Employment Advocate has also sought to put in place a policy that undercuts the no-disadvantage test. I believe that is illegal. It is very difficult for the Commonwealth Government to talk about upholding the law when I have presented the evidence to the minister that his own agency, in allowing the registration of AWAs, is not upholding the law. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: That is not true. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why is it not true? Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Show us your evidence. Give us the examples. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The example is that the Employment Advocate has allowed employees to use choice so that they do not receive the normal payments that should be made for working those hours. The member in red on the other side is trying to be a red herring and to take us off track. The fact is that there is real reason for concern about the way in which the federal Government is allowing AWAs to be administered. That is one reason that very few people are turning to employer-employee agreements - EEAs. If employers want to undercut wages, and the federal Government has no standard wage and is quite willing to allow people to undercut the standard of wage that should be paid, those people will not turn to Western Australian employer-employee agreements, which guarantee basic rights to the working men and women of this State. Clearly, there are a few employers who simply wish to undercut wages. The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
The member needs to be careful about advising people of that, because if a High Court decision overturns those Australian workplace agreements, small employers could be very badly hurt by having to back pay tens of thousands of dollars because they have not paid the proper wages. As the member has indicated, a small number of EEAs have been registered, which is due in part to the fact that no-one is pushing them, unlike what was done with workplace agreements. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and other bodies are not pushing them; they are advising people to go to AWAs. Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
Secondly, as I indicated, AWAs are now being used in a way that undercuts standards, so those people who wish to undercut the proper standards will not turn to a fair and proper means of employment such as our EEAs or the award. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kingsley to order for the first time.
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.