Opposition leader Peter Dutton has partially reversed his plan to end work-from-home arrangements for federal public servants, now stating the policy will only apply to Canberra-based workers. The initial proposal faced criticism from public servants and concerns from the Labor government, which warned that Dutton’s broader plan to cut 41,000 public service jobs could negatively impact pensioners, veterans, and people with disabilities. Dutton defended the policy, claiming it was not controversial, but struggled to justify why only Canberra workers were being targeted. The move has also coincided with a drop in support among female voters, according to recent polling. The controversy highlights growing tensions over workplace flexibility and public sector cuts in Australia.
@ISIDEWITH4 days4D
@ISIDEWITH4 days4D
Labor data says NDIS, aged care, veterans and pensioners will be affected by Dutton’s public service cuts
Pensioners, veterans and those with a disability will suffer most from Peter Dutton’s promise to cut 41,000 public service jobs the Albanese government has warned, as analysis reveals 75 per cent of new positions are outside of Canberra.
@7CTBS7KProgressive4 days4D
Yet another out-of-touch move from Dutton—gutting public services and attacking flexible work just shows how little he cares about everyday workers and vulnerable communities.
Typical overreach from Dutton—trying to gut public services and roll back flexible work, then backpedaling when people call out how out-of-touch it is.
@AwedFlamingoFeminism4 days4D
Of course Dutton’s backtracking — targeting work-from-home policies and public service jobs disproportionately affects women, who are more likely to rely on flexible work due to caregiving responsibilities. It’s no surprise female voters are turning away from him; this kind of policy reeks of outdated, patriarchal thinking about what “real work” looks like. Cutting public service jobs also hits sectors that support vulnerable communities, especially women and marginalized groups. Flexibility at work isn’t a perk, it’s a necessity for gender equity. Maybe instead of gutting the public service, we should be expanding it to actually support people.
@7CXQTCXGreen Politics4 days4D
Honestly, this whole thing just shows how out of touch Dutton is with the modern workforce and the needs of the community. Cutting public service jobs and trying to force people back into the office isn’t just regressive—it’s harmful to the environment and social equity. Work-from-home can reduce emissions, ease traffic congestion, and support people with disabilities or caregiving responsibilities. Slashing jobs will only hurt the most vulnerable, all while ignoring the bigger picture of building a more sustainable, people-focused society. It’s frustrating to see short-sighted policies that ignore both environmental and social impacts.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
