Page 1534 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is my hope that our experiences from the past few months can help change the culture. We have been forced to work in different ways, many of which have directly benefited families, allowing parents and children to spend more time together. Going forward, we need to leave old, preconceived ideas aside and allow working parents the flexibility that they need to be both excellent parents and excellent employees.
MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra) (4.14): I rise today to speak in support of Mr Gupta’s motion and specifically about the representations made to me and others regarding the commonwealth public service experience.
This obviously has not been an easy time for anybody, and I commend all workplaces for responding quickly and, by and large, flexibly to accommodate the new normal. However, I note that consistently in Canberra one of the slowest employers to move was one of the largest: the commonwealth government. I understand, of course, that all Australian public service staff are essential workers; there is no debate about that, and I am not seeking to debate it today. The confusion arising from this definition is that there is an assumption that everyone needs to be physically present, that “essential” somehow equates to “frontline”. That is not the case.
In the early days, there was confusion and there were differences regarding arrangements between departments and agencies but also within departments and agencies. I very much appreciate and understand that it was difficult, complex and fast moving, and that each workplace is different and has different responsibilities. I also appreciate and understand that there are some departments and agencies, and also simply areas within departments and agencies, which genuinely require employees to be physically present in the workplace, and that the heads of these departments and agencies need latitude, and have been given latitude by the commissioner, in deciding this.
Pleasingly, much of the initial confusion and concern was resolved and the angst alleviated, but not before many of us received representations from commonwealth employees. It took the Australian Public Service Commission a bit of time to release its first circular with advice. However, its release did seem to coincide with much of the consternation from employees being relieved; but not everywhere.
Many will remember that, in response to questions from the media, the Chief Minister said that people who still felt that they were not being afforded flexible working arrangements within the context of whether they really were required to attend or not were encouraged to contact his office. Many people took up that offer, phoning and emailing, many of them anonymous.
In my capacity as special secretary, I assisted with some of this correspondence. Consistently, what emerged was an inconsistent application of working arrangements, specifically within Services Australia, including within the national office in Canberra. It is obvious that Services Australia is a workplace of essential workers, and plenty of these are frontline workers. I absolutely acknowledge that; but that is certainly not the case for all workers, including plenty within the national office.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video