Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has taken a brave and radical step by doing so. Their goal is to remove 41,000 public servants from the Australian Public Service (APS) in a time when this contentious political issue. Albanese contends that Peter Dutton’s suggested cut would go straight to frontline workers. That raises big red flags over the plan’s achievability. Dutton claims that no jobs would be lost outside of Canberra, despite significant opposition and skepticism regarding the implications of his policy.
The proposal is made at a time where the Coalition’s capacity to not only deliver but do so without threatening core services is under record scrutiny. Dutton contends that we should be able to save around $7 billion over five years without cutting any of these critical positions. In large part, experts and political opponents have attacked the radical feasibility of his strategy.
The Coalition’s Proposal
Peter Dutton recently dropped a bold plan—to abolish the sizes of Canberra’s public service by a third. He argues that this plan will not have a negative effect on workers who commute outside of the capital. He emphasizes that only one in three public servants is stationed in Canberra, suggesting that the bulk of the job cuts will not reach frontline services.
“Not all 41,000 in ACT … I think one third in ACT,” stated Jacob Vadakkedathu, a Liberal Senate candidate for the ACT, highlighting a disconnect within the Coalition regarding the geographic distribution of public servants. This feeling mirrors concerns expressed by many that frontline roles are endangered under Dutton’s proposal.
One of the best responses to Dutton’s misleading claims is to point out this jarring reality. More than 60 percent of the APS teachers and staff who departed last year were in frontline positions. This begs the question of what exactly the Coalition counts as essential or frontline work. Their policy statements fail to define what this especially important word means.
Concerns from Political Opponents
Albanese has vocally opposed the Coalition’s plans, asserting that cutting 41,000 public servants is “impossible” without impacting critical areas such as defence and intelligence. Amending accusations He believes that Dutton’s choice of language and playbook is an indicator of someone who isn’t prepared for government.
They are located in Canberra, in our national capital, Albanese agreed and he stressed how important all of these jobs are to keeping the nation’s operations going. He further criticized Dutton’s strategy, stating, “Peter Dutton is showing that they are just not ready for government.”
David Pocock, the most high profile critic of the deal, previously cast serious scepticism on the Coalition’s flagged numbers. He cautioned that all of those cuts would at some point directly affect national security and frontline services. Pocock described Dutton’s rhetoric as “Canberra-bashing and [an] ideological attack on public servants who can’t even speak up in their own defence.”
The Road Ahead
Dutton makes the case that by not filling some of the existing vacancies you can get at some targeted positions. He feels that this tactic will help reduce the blow to core services. He has stated, “We’ve done work with the PBO in relation to that,” referring to calculations conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
Coalition agriculture spokesperson David Littleproud welcomed the security of jobs related to our frontline and national security. He assured that these positions would not be cut. He made it clear that these positions will remain on the budget and not be cut out. He did not clarify at all how these important roles would be maintained amid larger cuts.
As debates rage, the fate of Australia’s public service hangs in the balance. The Coalition’s proposal faces an uphill battle. Sadly, though, opposition is becoming deafening not just from the public, but from the county’s own elected officials and business leaders.
