Dutton's WFH backdown highlights the Coalition's policy flaws

Peter Dutton's reversal of the Coalition's policy of ending working from home shows not just poor policy preparation, but also little thought about presentation, no thought about explaining and complete political ineptitude in reinforcing the Coalition's image as an anti-public service party.

It also shows that the Opposition Leader, whose brand is supposed to be providing strong leadership in contrast to "weak" Albanese, buckled at the first flying paper clip from the public service unions.

It will also send the private sector, from small business to big corporations, into a panic as Dutton's U turn will mean pressure from unions and staff groups to reverse their recent efforts to get staff back into the office.

What is lacking with the Dutton Coalition policy, if it can even be called that, is it came across as a single, one-issue, thought bubble aimed more at showing how resolute and tough a Dutton government would be on the "wasteful", overpaid public service "fat cats".

In other words, it was done for the worst of reasons - politics - to appeal to the Coalition's base, core supporters who think that public servants don't have "real jobs".

Well, go to a country that does not have a high-quality public service like Australia's and see what it is like when you do not have professionally trained people doing those "real jobs" like advising ministers, implementing policy and dealing with often unhappy "customers".

Of course, work from home is a real policy issue that needs to be considered. It was always an issue strictly, perhaps even over-controlled, before the pandemic, but then escalated out of necessity aided by improved technology that has made it more practical.

The Coalition should have developed a thought-out policy concerning working from home covering issues like principles, applicability, supervision, continuity, interactivity, and that most important "P" word, productivity.

Yes, working from home has benefits for employees - less commuting, more flexibility, fewer interruptions when doing some concentrated work, less confined office space (staff office cubicles have halved over a decade), and less gossip or putting up with people you cannot stand. Employees might be happier too.

Certainly, there can be benefits to employers too, such as allowing those really major pieces of work, policy papers or new legislation to be be done more quickly. It might mean fewer "sickies" or less office space thus saving rent, and it might overall improve productivity.

Contrary to claims that working from home improves productivity, overseas and Australian studies do not all agree and other adverse impacts have been found. They suggest that productivity is reduced, collegiality and teamwork declines - one of the great features of working in groups - feedback deteriorates, and those working from home lose empathy with other office-based staff and vice versa.

According to one Australian study, "WFH also had negative consequences for employees' well-being with employees more likely to experience negative emotions, loneliness, depression and anxiety". Evidence also suggests that working from home has increased conflict between supervisors and staff.

The working from home issue is more complex than a simple on or off. What the Coalition's original announcement showed was a lack of understanding of how the public service operates, and how they could have achieved a similar result of reducing working from home to more manageable levels, but retaining its potential benefits, with a little more thought.

Clear principles should have been announced as to when working from home should apply, acknowledging there is some work that requires unbroken concentration and working from home is the best way to achieve this, and some staff are best able to function effectively under such conditions.

Further, working from home requires trust between immediate supervisors and staff. Only on-the-ground managers can make that assessment, so within some guidelines let the managers manage. If managers think it is not working and end working from home, ensure their decisions are supported and it does not become another industrial relations blackhole.

So, for the Dutton opposition where is there a clear outline of principles for a modern-day public sector workforce? Where is there an appreciation of what works in practice? Where is there their preparation of policy for government and where is their political wherewithal? And given the backdown, where is the strong leadership?