7 August 2024

Barr inflexible on Minns' 'bold' back to office move

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
35
Public service building

The ACT Government building in the CBD. Working arrangements aren’t about to change. Photos: Michelle Kroll.

The Property Council has called it a bold move but Chief Minister Andrew Barr has given his NSW counterpart’s back to the office edict short shrift.

NSW Premier Chris Minns has told public servants that they should work “principally” from their on-site workplace, moving away from working-from-home arrangements.

In a memo circulated to departments on Monday, affected employees were mandated to work primarily in an approved office, workplace or related work site.

Individual agencies have been left to develop and implement their own policies, and flexible working arrangements will remain in place, particularly for people with carer responsibilities, but the move has many wondering if this is the beginning of the end of the work-from-home practices left over from the pandemic.

READ ALSO Shorten claims victory over huge Medicare and Centrelink backlog

The Property Council and business lobbies have been calling for an end to working from home as office vacancy rates climb and CBD businesses suffer from the falloff in foot traffic.

Property Council ACT acting executive director Katie Stevenson said the ACT should follow Mr Minns’ lead.

“This is a bold move by the NSW Premier and we’re calling on the ACT to follow suit,” she said.

“Just last week, the Property Council flagged concerns about growth in Canberra’s office vacancy rates to 9.5 per cent, well above the historical average of 7.6 per cent.

“We need Canberra’s CBD to be vibrant and attractive every day of the week, and the government has a clear leadership role to play in getting public servants back behind their desks.”

However, Mr Barr said the public sector’s role was to deliver services to the public, not to fill offices.

Man speaking to group

Chief Minister Andrew Barr: the public sector’s role was to deliver services to the public, not to fill offices. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Mr Barr said that if the property sector was worried about vacancy rates, landlords should consider lowering their rents.

He said the ACT would stick with its current arrangements for office staff.

“We’re very comfortable with the balance of where our staff are located across the city, and that includes CBD town centres and group centres,” he said.

“And we’re expanding our flexible workplace opportunities so that people can work in an ACT Government building nearer to where they live.

“We also have flexibility around the balance of in-office and work-from-home arrangements.”

However, Mr Barr said the government was supportive of bringing more residents into the CBD and town centres so that there would be a better mix of activities.

“So it’s not just nine to five, but there are people, events and activities occurring outside of core business hours,” he said.

However, a change in Australian Public Service policy would have the greatest impact on Canberra, although that seems unlikely.

Federal Public Service Minister Senator Katy Gallagher declined to comment, but the Australian Public Service Commission noted that flexible working arrangements for Commonwealth employees were provided for under the Fair Work Act 2009 as opposed to State and Territory legislation and employment instruments.

“A common flexible working arrangements clause is contained in APS enterprise agreements negotiated in APS service-wide bargaining,” a spokesperson said.

“The APSC will continue to monitor how the clause is operating.”

READ ALSO The Capital Water Cooler: Comings, goings, and consultations

The public sector union said flexible work rights were in APS employees’ enterprise agreements that were negotiated by the CPSU.

CPSU National Secretary Melissa Donnelly said the CPSU negotiated industry-leading rights for APS workers to access flexible work arrangements, including working from home, in all APS enterprise agreements in the last round of bargaining.

These included new provisions for no caps on the number of days an employee can work from home, a bias towards approval of applications, and decisions subject to independent oversight and review rights.

“These new provisions set the APS up as a model employer in providing flexibility for employees to achieve better work/life balance and will help attract and retain staff,” Ms Donnelly said

“Since negotiating the new agreement provisions, CPSU representatives have successfully supported members across the APS to access their rights, including support in making individual applications and review of management decisions.”

The NSW move has also brought a cheeky response from the Victorian Government.

“Any public servants from New South Wales who like flexibility in their workplace should consider moving to Victoria,” a statement from Premier Jacinta Allan’s office said.

Join the conversation

35
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

APS can continue whatever practices they want, but the ACT govt has a responsibility to ACT businesses and its city centre/town centres! Some ACTPS employees spend only 1 day per week in the office, it’s terrible. Get back to the office and help kickstart our city’s economic recovery!

All the same whingers and moaners telling us they shouldn’t have to return to the office will do the same when town centres are ghost towns and their crotch fruit can’t get part-time jobs in shops while studying for their climate change degrees…

crotch fruit, hahahaha flapdoodle i almost spat out my drink, thats damn funny.

Anyone with any senior management experience in the APS knows that the place is full of passengers and non-performers. The ACT public sector is second rate in comparison.

One can only imagine what a normal workday at home is for some public servants. Between shopping, dropping off kids and household chores there will no doubt be a demanding Zoom meeting squeezed in. Add to that dealing with some emails – such key strategic work. It helps give the impression that there is activity. Real work such as policy development and communicating with the Executive sphere of government falls to senior officers, mainly at the work horse EL1 or 2 levels and the SES. Working from home is like flextime. It is widely rorted and popular. It needs to be cut right back.

Policy development work starts at APS6 level in the vast majority of departments.
The majority of work in the PS is actually in the delivery of policies, which is done at the lower levels.
If you think WFH is a rort you don’t actually understand what’s happening.
Most people I know work better at home – Zoom meetings have to be planned and justified – so unlike in office meetings they actually have a point and aren’t a opportunity for senior managers to indulge in self aggrandisement. If you think the only work that’s important is policy work – you are probably one of those managers.
They aren’t sitting less than an arms length away from their desk neighbour, in a “hotdesking” situation, so you have to spend 15 – 20 minutes everyday finding a desk and setting up equipment, then spend way too much time finding colleagues- who are forced to change desks everyday too.

The Property Council has a conflict of interest. It has no place in this debate.

HiddenDragon8:02 pm 07 Aug 24

All three governments mentioned in this article are deeply in debt and running budgets which are unsustainable – none of them can afford to offer pace-setting conditions of employment to public sector workers unless those conditions demonstrably pay for themselves in improved productivity and efficiency.

The recent visit of the Victorian Treasurer to New York to plead his state’s case with the credit ratings agencies illustrates just how bad things are – on a per capita basis, ACT government debt is comparable to Victoria’s, and NSW is not far behind.

Unlike the public comments from the NSW Premier, the circular from his department makes no mention of productivity, but does at least, in the second section, look to longer term considerations of effectiveness and efficiency by pointing out the costs of a floating, atomised workforce –

https://arp.nsw.gov.au/c2024-03-nsw-government-sector-workplace-presence

The latter seems to be of no particular concern to the ACT government which, as always, is defiantly proud of its managerial cluelessness and the resultant costs to taxpayers, and clearly far more concerned about pandering to the significant voting bloc formed by the ACT public sector workforce and those close to them.

Are you aware that WFH significantly reduces the long term costs of an organisation. If 60% is the Maximum number of employees you have in the office at any one time – you need 40% less desk space, with all the associated set up and maintenance costs.
There are several private sector companies who are moving towards permanent hybrid WFH arrangements- for that reason.
So if it’s the costs that concern you surely you’d be pushing for more of it.

Barr is run by the ACT gov, they control him, he can not bite the hand that feeds him.
If only rate payers really knew the lack of productivity that leaks out of this office, staff that have not returned to the office since Covid, staff that don’t even live in Australia!
This has to be the easiest place to work in all of Australia if not the world!

Want to provide evidence for your ‘productivity leak’ story Dave?

Or just ramble and rant instead under your preferred approach?

Amanda Kiley12:49 pm 10 Aug 24

It’s purely because they are the only ones who vote for his government. He can’t afford to get on their bad side.

To be clear, this is as much about cutting headcount by stealth as it is about pleasing the Property Council.

Incidental Tourist3:18 pm 07 Aug 24

In an economic ecosystem office plankton feeds CBD businesses and apparently nobody wants to be treated as a fodder. WFH issue aside, Minns deserves some credit as a responsible politician because he is listening to businesses even if he knew there would be push back. Barr never listens, unless business name starts with big G. So be careful what you wish for..

If businesses need to be propped up by governments, then surely they are doing something pretty wrong.

Businesses are just one stakeholder after all.

Yet as Barr rightly points out if they really wanted businesses back into the city these people have the power to by lowering rent in the city…. Funny how its ok to take the profits but then these people try to manipulate the governm,ent so they have no losses.

If you ever want proof that, at a high level, the Libs & Nats and Labour are all the same – then that NSW directive shows it. There is little genuine rationale behind it, unless one still believes in the strongly disproven nonsense that WFH creates presenteeism issues. Take that away, and all that is left is big business, desperate to keep us stuck in an age that has passed by – and on that side, all the major parties are all the same.

Times are changing, and the NSW Public Service, if this is implemented to the approach foreshadowed will lose significant talent as a result, let alone ignoring the significant cost savings associated with being able to consolidate office space… a laptop sure is cheaper to provide to every worker (that WFH can make sense for) than a 5 day a week desk spot (which once you get beyond 3 days a week mandated in the office, is ultimately largely what will be needed) in an office.

And so say all of us, this being the extremely large public service employed Canberrans with a very strong whif of self interest involved. Most who need service from our public servants will have heard the line that “that can’t be done today as they are wfh” or knows that you need to time when important documents required from the government are requested as they are subject to the same problems. I hear the line “it suits me to wfh” so many times with little understanding of the implications for others.

It’s 2024 higgo, not 1984! There’s a thing called ‘the Internet’ and some people can do their jobs way more efficiently wfh. The world has moved on, shame you haven’t 🙁

@higgo
I know several public servant friends who have a partial wfh arrangement because it suits their type of work – from both the individual and agency perspective. They find their productivity is much higher at home – contrary to the myth of skiving off because the boss isn’t around.

Not sure what depts you are dealing with but my friends tell me that those who have client facing roles are not able to use wfh in their dept. Why would access to documents be an issue? One of the prime enablers of wfh, is online network access?

I’m also intrigued JustSaying as to what part of government exactly said issues are meant to be happening as suggested by Higgo. Those that are front line people are working from offices/shopfronts/hospitals/schools etc etc, because the nature of their work.

While I’m sure there is some stuff kept as ‘hard copy’ still in Government that needs to be regularly accessed, there isn’t that much. And I suspect those areas that do such stuff primarily are also the areas that are already primarily working from the office location.

What services are these exactly Higgo?

I know plenty of people that need public services regularly (both privately and in their job) and I can’t think of one that has complained about people saying they’ve been told ‘that can’t be done today because they are wfh’. Of course many have trouble getting things done timely etc – but I’ve never heard that line rolled out. Surely if there is stuff in offices/hard copy etc that is not available digitally, or actions that for whatever reason must be undertaken in the office, then invariably those places would have rosters to ensure there are always staff in the office to provide those services.

@JS9
Could be a touch of the green-eyed monster at play, JS9.

I remember way back in the day when the APS first introduced flexitime, it was a portent of the total collapse of public administration as we know it – when the truth is, it was so successful, that it’s very common across all work places these days.

I wish for nothing but unhappiness towards the Property Council.

Good response Andrew Barr.

Agreed and well done Minister Barr. He understands putting the publics needs over the corporate profits of the Property Council and its members.

Agreed, for all the crap he has done, this is an appropriate respone. If they genuinely cared about the vibrancy of the city, they’d help those small businesses out by lowering their rents a little. But thats not what they want, its their greed that needs more money.

Min Barr – for once we agree on something

“Barr inflexible”? It’s Minn’s that’s demonstrating inflexibility. You need a new headliner writer.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.