MELBOURNE, Australia — On Monday, Australia’s opposition party decided to retract certain pledges made during their campaign, which initially aimed at restricting work-from-home policies for public servants and significantly reducing federal public sector employment by more than 20%.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton announced that the conservative Liberal Party had decided to abandon its initial proposition requiring public servants to work from their offices five days a week, with exceptions only under extraordinary circumstances.
“We acknowledge an error in our policy direction,” Dutton confessed during an interview on Nine Network television. “It’s essential to recognize the importance of ensuring taxpayers’ money, which funds public servant wages, is utilized efficiently,” he explained.
Additionally, the opposition chose to retract a previous commitment to cut 41,000 jobs from the Australian Public Service’s 185,000 positions through forced redundancy payments. Instead, Dutton suggested that any job reductions would be achieved via natural attrition and an employment freeze.
Dutton’s policy adjustments mark significant shifts since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the upcoming election on May 3.
Prime Minister Albanese remained skeptical regarding Dutton’s newfound endorsement of flexible work arrangements for public servants, cautioning voters against assuming that Dutton’s previous programs had indeed been abandoned.
Albanese highlighted his concerns to the press, remarking, “He’s now pretending that the original program won’t proceed.”
Members of the governing center-left Labor Party have criticized their conservative opponents, comparing their approach to that of U.S. President Donald Trump and his billionaire adviser Elon Musk. Musk has spearheaded efforts known as the Department of Government Efficiency, aimed at downsizing and reforming the U.S. government structure.
“This is DOGE-y Dutton taking directions directly from the U.S. playbook,” stated Treasurer Jim Chalmers last week.
The government has argued that the opposition’s initial policy to curtail workplace flexibility would disproportionately impact women, who often bear greater childcare responsibilities, leading to potential inequality in the workforce.