17 March 2025

Coalition softens position over public servants working from home

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
64
man at laptop

Work-from-home rights are part of the current Australian Public Service enterprise agreement. Photo: File.

Flexible working arrangements in the Australian Public Service might continue as they are even under a Coalition government, despite Opposition pledges to force workers into the office five days a week.

The Coalition appears to have softened its position on public servants working from home, following a reported backlash inside Liberal Party ranks over the push to have them return to the office.

Currently, 61 per cent of APS employees work away from the office at least part of each week, with many working remotely full time.

The number is higher than it was at the height of COVID-19 when 55 per cent were working from home at least part time, and 22 per cent prior to the pandemic.

Earlier this month, shadow finance minister Jane Hume announced a Coalition policy that public servants return to the office to work full time, saying the APS needed to become more efficient.

A Peter Dutton-led government, she said, would take away public servants’ “blank cheque” to work from home.

“Using existing frameworks, it will be an expectation of a Dutton Liberal government that all members of the APS work from the office five days a week,” she said.

“Exceptions can and will be made, of course, but they will be made where they work for everyone rather than be enforced on teams by an individual.

“This is common sense policy that will instil a culture that focuses on the dignity of serving the public, a service that relies on the public to fund it, and a service that respects that funding by ensuring they are as productive as possible.”

The Opposition Leader backed his shadow minister when he was subsequently asked about the policy.

“There will be a commonsense approach as there always has been, but I am not going to tolerate a position where taxpayers are working harder than ever to pay their own bills and they’re seeing public servants in Canberra refuse to go to work,” Mr Dutton said.

However, following media reports last week of a revolt inside the Coalition over the policy, the Opposition Leader softened his stance, suggesting he wouldn’t be forcing the whole APS to work from the office all the time.

“I think they should return to work back to pre-COVID levels, which was about just over 20 per cent of people who work from home,” he said.

“I want Australians, particularly those who are working hard at the moment, to know that their tax dollars are being spent efficiently, which is why I don’t believe that in Canberra, 61 per cent of the public servants who are working in Canberra should be working from home.”

Region understands a backlash inside the Coalition has seen the policy watered down.

The push to force workers into the office full time, it was suggested to the leader, could be seen as anti-women and also a threat to those working flexibly in the private sector.

READ ALSO There is no turning the clock back on home-based work

Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher responded to Mr Dutton’s latest remarks, saying he remained a threat to the public service.

“No wonder Peter Dutton’s own colleagues are asking what he stands for, especially after he keeps hanging them out to dry to save his own reputation,” she said.

“We know what he stands for – 36,000 APS job cuts and a wind back of flexible work arrangements, there is no doubting that.

“It’s clear that Peter Dutton simply doesn’t get how flexible work benefits families, particularly women.

“We know what works because women’s workforce participation is at record highs and their wages are up.

“Policy ideas copied from the US won’t work for Australian families.”

The Trump Administration in the US has cancelled remote working arrangements for the public sector and is slashing jobs and spending across agencies.

The Coalition has also promised to cut 36,000 APS jobs if elected.

Work-from-home rights were negotiated between the Federal Government as the Community and Public Sector Union in the last round of enterprise bargaining.

“These arrangements work well; and research has shown that working from home increases productivity,” CPSU national secretary Melissa Donnelly said.

“It also supports people to work more hours, earn more money, and balance things like caring responsibilities for little kids and ageing parents.”

Join the conversation

64
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
The Workplace Coach12:06 pm 18 Mar 25

And this right here is the problem with all of the old school leaders who equate ‘working from home’ with ‘hardly working’…

“I want Australians, particularly those who are working hard at the moment, to know that their tax dollars are being spent efficiently, which is why I don’t believe that in Canberra, 61 per cent of the public servants who are working in Canberra should be working from home.”

“Working from home increases productivity” is as laughable as “renewables will reduce power prices”. Despite years of evidence to the contrary, people keep peddling these claims. Maybe they reckon if you say it often enough it will come true.

You surely see the irony in your comment.

Please do show said ‘evidence to the contrary’ Penfold. You keep harking on about it every time this issue comes up, but have to this point completely failed to provide any evidence to support your supposition….

Seems you are drinking your own dish water, just wanting to take pot shots and hoping your dribbling somehow comes true.

JS9 – what do you need evidence for – the huge increases in power prices due to increased renewables ? Or that WFH is less productive ? Surely the former is a no trainer, here’s what university researchers found about the latter:

https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/working-from-home-hurt-productivity-but-poor-managers-partly-to-blame-20230615-p5dgyx

David Quagmire11:20 am 17 Mar 25

You’ve cherry-picked a single study, and done poorly. It’s not peer reviewed, not about the public sector, and from early self-reporting of a small sample of employees.

You’ve also conveniently omitted key findings from that very study. Maybe read more than one single headline. Seems like a “no trainer” as you say.

“But amid significant debate over the effects of remote working on workplace culture and productivity, researchers also found that many outcomes improved the longer the study went on, and a large proportion of the negative effects observed could be attributed to poor management.”

You don’t even read the “proof” you post Penfold. You wouldn’t know evidence if stood in front of you with a flashing neon sign saying “evidence”.

BTW. The Gencost report proves that renewables with firming technology are cheapest form of energy. You can keep banging with your culture wars anti-renewables nonsense but the people who sign the cheques ie. the energy generators and retailers have largely backed renewables. These are for profit companies…they’re making these decisions based on real data not memes.

David – the results were quite clear about the overall WFH impact. As for “peer reviewed”, well there were several universities involved, how much peer reviewing do you want ?

Seano – the CSIRO have been telling us for years that more renewables means lower power prices. And yet prices keep rising and rising, particularly since 2022. Keep drinking the kool aid if you wish but the lived reality is very different.

Yeah champ, you not understanding the energy market doesn’t mean that renewables are the issue with rising power prices.

Read the gencost report which you clearly also haven’t read and let me know if you’ve got any genuine criticism, good luck.

Btw and I get that culture wars is the depth of understanding I’m dealing with here but renewables are cheapest and quickest form of new energy (this is not up for debate, it’s a fact proven by the data), without the investment we’ve already had in renewables our power prices would be even higher. Stymying investment in renewables whether you like them or not will only drive prices up.

Well clearly you’re pretty convinced of your views Seano and i hate to break it to you but forecasts aren’t facts. The Americans and Europeans are all realising how they’ve been conned by the renewable dream, some here are still too blinkered.

“Seano – the CSIRO have been telling us for years that more renewables means lower power prices.”

Penfold,
the CSIRO haven’t said this at all. You are just making stuff up about a topic you know little about.

What they have done is compared various technologies and the generation costs of providing power from those sources.

These show that renewables provide the cheapest option for our electricity generation going forward.

The problem that you have is the lowest cost option for a future electricity grid doesn’t mean “lower prices”, it’s comparing the costs against alternatives, which all may involve higher prices from today.

And that’s even before you get started on the impacts on electricity prices from government policy, which the CSIRO has no control over.

“Well clearly you’re pretty convinced of your views Seano and i hate to break it to you but forecasts aren’t facts” tedious. They’re not forecasts they’re facts based on data.

“The Americans and Europeans are all realising how they’ve been conned by the renewable dream, some here are still too blinkered.”, you’ll just repeat any drivel you read on Telegram (or wherever you get your right wing culture wars group think) without processing it at all and wonder why sensible people reject it.

I can keep pointing it out to you but the Australian Energy Generators and Retailers, for profit companies who are not making decisions for any other reason than shareholder value are signing off on investing in more renewables not less.

That’s not because they’re “woke” or subsidised or it’s because they can build Gigawatts of energy generation and storage quickly and relatively cheaply. Quick to market, low maintenance, dispatchable and distributed energy. You can’t beat progress.

At some point you need to stop relying on culture wars memes and deal the real world of facts and figures.

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/GenCost

All the data is transparently available.

Chewy – so you agree the government lied to us when claiming that their renewable dream would lower power prices.

Seano – the Gencost report has been well and truly discredited as a political stunt. Assuming a nuclear power plant would only run for 30 years at 50% capacity rendered the report a joke.

“Seano – the Gencost report has been well and truly discredited as a political stunt.”

No it hasn’t.

“Assuming a nuclear power plant would only run for 30 years at 50% capacity rendered the report a joke.”

You (or which ever right wing culture wars dope you’re getting this nonsense from) making stuff up and/or misrepresenting the analysis can be dismissed.

What can’t be dismissed is that Dutton’s “plan” requires Australia with no nuclear energy industry to build nuclear power plants faster than any country in history.

And that’s not the only magical “thinking: in Dutton’s plan. It also relies on SMRs…the problem with that there only two commercialised SMRs in the world, Russia and China and they are massively government subsidised. The problem with commercialising SMRs is they don’t cost much less to build than full sized reactors and they don’t generate anywhere near enough electricity to justify the cost.

Your meme level understanding of the energy market isn’t going to win this debate I’m afraid. Time to deal in reality.

I wonder Seano whether you ever reflect upon how Australia, which 25 years ago has amongst the lowest power prices in the world now has amongst the highest. We had a strong competitive advantage in energy costs. And what’s changed – well the introduction of expensive renewables. These are all simple facts. Many people like you have been hoodwinked, wonder if the lights will ever come on, pardon the pun !

Well, people like you voting for John Howard to give our resources away virtually royalty free haven’t helped Penfold.

You can make stuff all you like mate, it’s drivel. The facts are in the Gencost report which you have failed to challenge because it’s hard to refute data with memes.

Renewables are the cheapest form of new energy, the only thing keeping a lid on our power prices because of our aging coal fleet are renewables, Dutton’s nuclear fantasy has already been rejected by the Energy Generators and Retailers, ie. the people who sign the cheques. These are all facts here in the real world.

If you want to learn about our energy market I challenge you to read the Gencost report, hopefully you’ll then stop posting nonsense.

Well Seano I’ve already highlighted two of the assumptions gencost got completely wrong, perhaps you missed that. Regardless I’ve generally found that people who think they win arguments by telling others how unintelligent they are haven’t got much substance to their argument. C’est la vie.

“Well Seano I’ve already highlighted two of the assumptions gencost got completely wrong,”…no you haven’t….you’ve made up nonsense and expected sensible people to accept it as fact.

As for your anti-renewables arguments, they’re dumb because they’re not based on facts and data. That’s no reflection me champ, I’m afraid that’s not how it works.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy, you can find the analysis with the detailed data in the Gencost report you haven’t read.

Penfold,
So you agree that you don’t understand the issue and now have to resort to whataboutisms.

You haven’t highlighted any problems with the Gencost research or its credibility and its clear you haven’t been following or reading the reports.

Parroting talking points you’ve read elsewhere doesnt equate to findings of problems with the research.

But taking the “issues” youve raised on, perhaps you should avail yourself of the last draft report out for comment over the last few months?

Both the “concerns” you raised were addressed even though the research shows them to be red herrings and not in line with standard assessment processes.

And guess what? Nuclear still far more expensive.

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/December/GenCost-2024-25-Draft-Report-released-for-consultation

You see how even attempting to bias the assessments in favour of nuclear still doesn’t put the technology in a cost competitive position?

Because it is so much more expensive than the alternatives.

Try as you might, your “points” on the issue dont withstand the most cursory of review.

Seano if you troubled yourself to investigate you’d discover the two assumptions i quoted are discussed on page 2 of the executive summary of the gencost report. Perhaps you should read it !

You don’t quote the report at all, that’s a lie, but I dismissed your misrepresentation of the report, champ. Nice try though.

Chewy – those assumptions weren’t “concerns”, they were howlers which tripled the costs for nuclear. But don’t take my word for it – ask the French, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans and Egyptians who among others are currently building 59 nuclear plants around the world. You’re welcome 😊

Seano – since you’re struggling to see the howler assumptions quoted in the report I’ll be kind enough to give you a hint. They contain two numbers – one is 30, the other is 50. Let us know when you’ve worked it out. The CSIRO even concede the 50 number could be wrong by a large factor. Go on try it, you might learn something.

“Chewy – those assumptions weren’t “concerns”, they were howlers which tripled the costs for nuclear.”

“that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence” Christopher Hitchens

You’re welcome.

Penfold,
Repeating your ignorance doesn’t make it more correct, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

Once again, even though it is outside of the normal assessment practices, the CSIRO has included assessments of those issues and found they don’t change the results.

What you actually want is to bias assessments in favour of nuclear, using assumptions that don’t match real world industry experience.

But it still doesnt change the results so uneconomic is Nuclear power for Australia.

Also funny that you bring up other countries, which is where the exact data showing nuclear to be far more expensive comes from.

And if you’d actually even bothered looking at the progress of planning, design and construction of new nuclear plants overseas, you would see repeated examples of cancellations, delays, cost blow-outs and failures.

You too are welcome.

Welcome to actually read and perhaps comprehend the evidence rather than making things up on an topic you clearly know little about.

So lazy Seano. It’s all right before your eyes. Yawn.

“Seano – since you’re struggling to see the howler assumptions quoted in the report I’ll be kind enough to give you a hint. They contain two numbers – one is 30, the other is 50. Let us know when you’ve worked it out. The CSIRO even concede the 50 number could be wrong by a large factor. Go on try it, you might learn something.”

Meaningless drivel.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. The data is in the report.

If you had a legitimate criticism you’d point to it directly but you can’t so you don’t, instead you try to distract with this silly game. Tediously unimpressive.

Thanks for playing.

“So lazy Seano. It’s all right before your eyes. Yawn.”

lol Lazy says the dude who won’t back up his claims because he can’t.

Penfold, If you can’t point to the specific issue in the Gencost report with a reference, clearly explain why it’s wrong and back that up with some sort of evidence you lose because that’s how debates work with adults.

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.