❓ Question regarding the federal Minister for Employment's view on Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and the concept of 'choice'. The Minister's response criticises the use of 'choice' in AWAs, citing an example of coercion and alleging a failure to uphold the law.
AnsweredQoN 371Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the minister comment on the view of the federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, expressed in a recent 7.30 Report program, that Australian workplace agreements were introduced to provide choice and flexibility in the workplace? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. It is interesting that Liberals at the federal level are now copying members opposite, when they were in government, with the use of this word “choice”. As a clear example of this, just a few weeks ago I went to a childcare centre in North Perth. A young lady who had worked there for some time was being advised by the new management that she had the choice between signing an Australian workplace agreement and losing her job. That was the choice put to this young lady who, with her partner, had just decided to make an offer to purchase a home. Mr A.D. McRae: The members opposite still like having a fear factor in every contract of employment. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for the question. It is interesting that Liberals at the federal level are now copying members opposite, when they were in government, with the use of this word “choice”. As a clear example of this, just a few weeks ago I went to a childcare centre in North Perth. A young lady who had worked there for some time was being advised by the new management that she had the choice between signing an Australian workplace agreement and losing her job. That was the choice put to this young lady who, with her partner, had just decided to make an offer to purchase a home. Mr A.D. McRae: The members opposite still like having a fear factor in every contract of employment. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
I thank the member for the question. It is interesting that Liberals at the federal level are now copying members opposite, when they were in government, with the use of this word “choice”. As a clear example of this, just a few weeks ago I went to a childcare centre in North Perth. A young lady who had worked there for some time was being advised by the new management that she had the choice between signing an Australian workplace agreement and losing her job. That was the choice put to this young lady who, with her partner, had just decided to make an offer to purchase a home. Mr A.D. McRae: The members opposite still like having a fear factor in every contract of employment. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
Mr A.D. McRae: The members opposite still like having a fear factor in every contract of employment. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for the question. It is interesting that Liberals at the federal level are now copying members opposite, when they were in government, with the use of this word “choice”. As a clear example of this, just a few weeks ago I went to a childcare centre in North Perth. A young lady who had worked there for some time was being advised by the new management that she had the choice between signing an Australian workplace agreement and losing her job. That was the choice put to this young lady who, with her partner, had just decided to make an offer to purchase a home. Mr A.D. McRae: The members opposite still like having a fear factor in every contract of employment. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
I thank the member for the question. It is interesting that Liberals at the federal level are now copying members opposite, when they were in government, with the use of this word “choice”. As a clear example of this, just a few weeks ago I went to a childcare centre in North Perth. A young lady who had worked there for some time was being advised by the new management that she had the choice between signing an Australian workplace agreement and losing her job. That was the choice put to this young lady who, with her partner, had just decided to make an offer to purchase a home. Mr A.D. McRae: The members opposite still like having a fear factor in every contract of employment. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
Mr A.D. McRae: The members opposite still like having a fear factor in every contract of employment. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I accept that interjection. The issue for me is that a choice gives the impression that a person can actually choose something he or she would like to do or would benefit from. The word “choice” for me does not mean that a person will be used or abused. However, that is how the Liberals use it federally, following the habit developed by the members opposite when they were in government. The word “choice” as used by the federal minister, Hon Kevin Andrews, in Australian workplace agreements, refers to the choice between signing an AWA and simply not having a job. However, it goes further than that, because there is already an industrial relations decision that indicates that, when it comes to the no-disadvantage test, use of the term “choice” is simply not allowed. Yet the Employment Advocate and the federal minister, to whom I have written and spoken personally on this matter, have failed to uphold the laws of this nation. It seems utterly scandalous that a paid official who holds a statutory position and the minister, who uses the word “choice” so loosely, have failed in their duty to uphold the laws of this nation.
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.