Coalition’s public service return to office edict faces hurdles

The proposed mandate could not occur until at least 2027 and then faces legal challenges.

Opposition finance spokeswoman Jane Hume. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Peter Dutton’s vow to force federal public servants back to the office five days a week has hit immediate hurdles, with the edict unable to be enforced until at least 2027 and any mandate almost certain to be challenged under federal workplace and discrimination laws.

In a further setback, opposition finance spokeswoman Jane Hume admitted she “misspoke” after claiming on Tuesday that “every” overseas academic study had found that productivity fell when people worked from home.

She made the admission after The Australian put to her office that her claim was contradicted by studies finding employees working remotely resulted in productivity gains and happier workers.

After announcing the proposed return-to-office edict if the Coalition wins the election, Senator Hume acknowledged on Tuesday a Dutton government would not seek to override existing enterprise agreements that lock in the working from home provisions for public sector workers until 2027.

The Community and Public Sector Union would oppose any return-to-work edict that a Coalition government would seek to insert into a new agreement from 2027 and then could use Labor’s bargaining provisions to force the issue to be arbitrated by the Fair Work Commission.

Andrew Stewart, professor of work and regulation at the Queensland University of Technology, said the proposed edict faced several impediments including that employees under the Fair Work Act had the right to request to work from home if they were a parent, had caring responsibilities, had a disability or were 55 or older.

Workers are legally entitled to have the request reasonably considered and seek arbitration by the commission if the request is rejected.

“It’s also quite clear that if you tried to impose a blanket policy of no work from home then that would be certainly possible to attack as being unlawful under discrimination laws because, on the face of it, it would clearly be discriminatory against those with family and caring responsibilities and, of course, against women,” Professor Stewart said.

Senator Hume told Melbourne radio on Tuesday that “every report, every academic study that’s coming from overseas in particular, show us that productivity is declining because people are working from home”.

Launching the proposal on Monday night, Senator Hume cited a report from Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research that consolidated research on working from home and its impact on productivity. It cited one paper which found that after work-from-home arrangements were put in place, productivity fell by about 20 per cent. But the Stanford paper also cited three other studies that suggested working from home one or two days a week “improves productivity and leads to happier employees”.

“This pattern supports the view that, in many jobs, some tasks are well suited for remote work. The productivity gains associated with hybrid working arrangements in these studies could reflect greater effort levels by happier employees, quieter work environments at home, and the time savings that employees put back into their jobs,” it said.

A spokesperson for Senator Hume said late on Tuesday: “The Senator misspoke and was talking in general terms. This is a commonsense policy that reflects the arrangements for everyone else outside of the Australian Public Service.”

As Anthony Albanese accused the Coalition of aping Donald Trump’s policies, ACTU president Michele O’Neil said the work from home provisions were locked into the Commonwealth public sector agreement which did not expire until 2027.

“It’s not lawful to tear up that agreement to order everyone back to the office,” she said.

“Peter Dutton should go back to his office and come up with some real policies that support workers and stop following Trump’s public sector bashing.”

Professor Stewart said most private sector organisations had landed at a hybrid arrangement where employees worked in the office, for example, three days a week, and at home two days a week.

“If the notion that there’s something inherently more efficient and productive about working at a workplace, working from the office, is right, then the overwhelming majority of larger Australian employers are massively missing a trick,” he said.