2020, the year of crisis in the modern era, brought with it trauma, isolation, grief, anger, and widespread panic, not to mention global toilet paper shortages.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
However, the one silver lining it gifted us was the enforced investment across both private and public sectors in systems that would allow the workforce to work from home where possible.
Since the lockdowns ended, with remote working systems and tech now already in place, the idea that things can - and perhaps even should - be done differently has become accepted.
Remote and hybrid work arrangements have continued benefit workers through more flexible work across many industries, with previously metro-centric roles being made available to regionally located candidates for the first time.
Furthermore, candidates with caring responsibilities, disabilities and other circumstances that have previously restricted their employment pursuits, have been able to access greater work opportunities, and we've seen an increase in fathers taking on caring responsibilities which has contributed to gender equality at work.
Interestingly, a survey of 6000 Australian public servants in June and July 2020 revealed that only 8.4 per cent of managers rated their teams as less productive than when they were working in the office. However, even more interesting was the reported sensitivity public service managers felt about agreeing to any working arrangements that "might feed community stereotypes about public servants having it easy", regardless of actual outcomes.
In this report, one manager noted that their department line was working from home was a privilege, and that it affects a worker's availability and connectedness to the workplace.
However, they claimed this "couldn't have been more wrong."
The reported negatives to working from home were largely due to an individual not wanting to do it but being forced to because of the lockdowns. Imagine if we had a workplace where those who wanted to escape the "annoying kids" and the "stinky dog" could do so by coming into work, and those who wanted to stay home also had that choice.
Wait, we don't have to imagine it, because for many of us this is now the case.
As of August 2024, approximately 36 per cent of employed Australians were regularly working from home (with the peak of 40 per cent hitting during the height of the pandemic in 2021).
Hybrid work models - where employees get the best of both annoying children and work commutes - have been particularly popular since the lockdowns ended.
In the public sector, 47 per cent of employees have reported working from home as a part of their regular working arrangement in 2024.
Additionally, the 2025 Report on Government Services has indicated that productivity across areas that don't require face-to-face interaction (d'oh) such as IT and administrative services have adapted well to remote work, either maintaining or even improving productivity.
With all this in mind, I am sure you can imagine my bafflement at Coalition announced intentions to scrap work-from-home arrangements for public sector workers if elected.
Well, that is, I was baffled before I remembered he was a Trump/Musk fanboy and seemed to copy their work with his creation of the government efficiency shadow ministry (despite there not being an actual government efficiency ministry to cast said shadow).
This proposal is part of Dutton's broader plan to increase efficiency by reducing the public service workforce by approximately 36,000 positions.
READ MORE:
That is, removing the 36,000 positions Labor created when they axed the 55,000 external consultants and contractors the Liberal government was reportedly paying $21 billion to do the same work.
Dutton seems to be employing the age-old Liberal policy of demonising the concept of "lazy workers", blaming the flexible working arrangements in place.
He believes that voters are easily cowed into believing public sector workers working from home are lazy and should be held to higher accountability for taxpayer money.
However, if productivity and efficiency haven't really been affected by flexible working arrangements as the data indicates, then this seems to be yet another bloody-minded policy aimed at presenting the image of fiscal responsibility, while actually causing great harm to the workers choosing to take up flexible arrangements and are thus currently enjoying greater work satisfaction from their home office.
Politicians so often seem to forget they are governing people with taxpayer funds, not the other way around. I think politicians should be held to a higher standard.
I don't think Australian voters are as blind to these tactics as Dutton does.
Are you?
- Zoë Wundenberg is a careers consultant and un/employment advocate at impressability.com.au, and a regular columnist for ACM. She is a volunteer with the Voices of Farrer.
