https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8909494/opinion-its-only-peter-dutton-who-has-a-problem-with-aps-working-from-home

QUOTE BEGINS

There's been a bit of talk this week about flexible work and working from home.

Is it good? Is it bad? Does it work?

The research says that flexible work improves workforce participation, and that people are just as productive, if not more so when working from home. Hybrid working arrangements, which is what overwhelmingly applies in the APS, are positive and productive.

The reality is that flexible work and working from home is important to lots of workers - especially women. Which is why there have never been more women working full-time in the APS, instead of part-time, than right now.

Earlier this week the Coalition, copying Donald Trump's homework once again, announced they would be ordering all public servants back to the office five days a week if they win the next election.

This announcement really is a solution in search of a problem.

Because the real story is that flexible working arrangements and working from home are working well for both workers and public services.

In fact, there are clear and enforceable enterprise agreement provisions that establish both the right to request flexibility and the factors the supervisor will take into account when considering the request.

There is not a problem that needs fixing.

The CPSU's 12th What Women Want survey, which we have released just this week, paints a very clear picture about how important flexible work is for women in modern Australia.

96.7 per cent of women said that flexible work arrangements are important or very important to them and the following stats will clarify why.

68.2 per cent of respondents had caring responsibilities for either dependent children, older parents, partners, adult children or other relatives and friends

And 36.2 per cent of respondents had dual caring responsibilities. That is, they were the primary carer for dependent children and had caring responsibilities for others. And of those with dual caring responsibilities, seven in 10 also worked fulltime.

These figures make it abundantly clear that women are balancing a lot, and that the ability to be flexible about when and where they are working is helping them to keep their heads above water.

This is probably a good time to mention that the monetary value of unpaid care work in Australia has been estimated to be $650.1 billion, the equivalent to 50.6 per cent of GDP.

So, you'd think governments would be bending over backwards to support people to balance work and care. But Peter Dutton took things in the opposite direction and told women that if his return to the office mandate was a problem, maybe they should consider job sharing instead.

The reality is that flexible work is helping women increase their working hours, with benefits for both them and their families, as well as increased productivity.

Indeed, since the introduction of greater workplace flexibility, the proportion of women electing full-time work over part-time has increased. In 2020, 72.2 per cent of women working in the APS were working full-time. And as of June 2024, that had jumped to 79.9 per cent - the highest percentage on record.

It is, of course, not just women who benefit from increased flexibility and working from home. Flexibility has opened the doors of employment to people who have otherwise been shut out, including people with disability and people from regional and rural Australia.

But it must be said that the biggest winner in all of this is the APS. Thanks to flexible work arrangements, the public service is now tapping into talent from right across Australia.

In the past, rigid expectations about where work can be done would have locked many out of pursuing public sector employment.

Fundamentally, it is important for the public service to be representative of the people it serves.

A broader and more diverse public service with connections to communities right across the country is a good thing.

It means our public sector can tap into the talents of all Australians, it makes the public sector more resilient and more representative.

And that's important.

It's important that we have people with lived experience of disability working in the NDIA so that families accessing the NDIS can be better supported.

It's important that we have culturally and linguistically diverse Australians in agencies and departments that contribute to policy development and increase the accessibility of our public services for all Australians.

It's important that we have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people working in agencies like National Indigenous Australians Agency, informing policy development and the services that impacts them.

It's important that we have people from regional and rural Australia working on the ground in regional and rural Australia, supporting the communities they live in.

Representation matters - and you don't achieve it by shrinking the public service or locking diverse talent out of a career in the APS.

Australians don't want to see the Coalition import yet another anti-public service, anti-diversity agenda from the United States. They want a strong, capable public sector- one that's ready to serve the community when it matters most.

Whether it's supporting veterans, safeguarding our biosecurity, regulating aged care, delivering the NDIS, or responding to disasters like Tropical Cyclone Alfred - with agencies like Services Australia, the National Emergency Management Agency, the ABC, and the Bureau of Meteorology working together to protect and support Australians-a well-resourced public service is essential.

Progress has been made in rebuilding public sector capacity and there is still more to do. But the Coalition's plan to cut one in five jobs and strip workplace rights won't fix anything. It will only weaken the services Australians rely on.

The real question isn't whether flexible work is working - we know it is. The question is why the Coalition is so determined to tear the public service down.

• Melissa Donnelly is the national secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump #misogyny

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8898435/teals-and-independents-would-hold-the-power-in-a-hung-parliament

QUOTE BEGINS

Any teal or independent standing for the House of Representatives at the election would be well advised to keep schtum about their cards in the upcoming poker game.

All will depend on the numbers and negotiations with the major parties and each other following the election. Indeed, any one of them who cannot resist the temptation "to come clean with the electorate" on their intentions may be dealing themselves out of any bargaining process.

The most recent polls confirm that the most likely result will be a hung Parliament, with the independents determining which party will sit on the Treasury benches. The Coalition could win more seats than Labor, or than Labor combined with the Greens. But the crossbenches could well contain up to 16 or more teals and independents, suggesting that the Coalition will fall short of the numbers to govern in its own right. It needs to be so close to that number (effectively 76) that the Coalition can lure independents not aligned with the teal agenda.

The allegiance of the Greens (however many there are) to Labor, can be taken for granted. Labor figures that it is because they have nowhere else to go, and thus that it can abuse Greens without limit. I often wonder whether that is wise policy.

The Coalition would expect the support of Bob Katter. They could get up to four more, unless there is a grand reconciliation with the teals. I doubt that this will happen, but I also doubt that the Teals will ever give anything more than passive support to Labor. Perhaps they will guarantee supply. But also insist they are not pre-committed to a legislative program beyond an item-by-item basis. And even then, only after some Labor support on its own agenda.

None of the other independents should be taken for granted. Nor should it be assumed that the teal independents will vote as a bloc, though it would be to their negotiating advantage if they had a core of common views or demands.

Coalition supporters will say to returning teal members, and Zali Steggall and Helen Haines, that they sit in seats that have been traditionally on the Coalition side. It is almost impossible to imagine that Labor could win any of them. Coalition supporters would probably point to 2010, when Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott - both former Nationals from traditional National seats - decided to support Julia Gillard rather than Tony Abbott, as evidence that voters wreak vengeance about showing up in the enemy's ranks.

The teals might admit that Labor has done the teals no favours during the last term of government.

Anthony Albanese and Katy Gallagher were foolish to cut the staffing entitlements of teals at the beginning of the term. It seemed a deliberate insult, and, in retrospect, caused much more offence than the government needed. Albanese's sense of tactics or strategy (which included his extraordinary strategy of "preserving the two-party system" also saw the teals virtually excluded from National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill negotiations, in the process deliberately breaking Labor's own promises, and ignoring teal commitments. The gratuitous discourtesies will, I expect, be one day returned with interest, and just when Labor needs their support.

Albanese also disappointed teals over carbon targets, and, towards the end of the term over national environmental protections. He also disappointed most of the independents over his campaigning regarding the Voice to Parliament referendum, but, just as seriously, over his prolonged sulk after its defeat. That has seen Indigenous policy at a standstill - perhaps going backwards during his term.

Broken promises on gambling - effectively the surrender, again, of protection of the weak against those who ruthlessly exploit them, have undermined Labor's moral authority to govern. That's a matter which no doubt enrages anew Andrew Wilkie in particular, because he was betrayed, more than a decade ago, by Julia Gillard on the same issue.

Casual abandonment of promises and principle, and Labor's return to a culture of open and partisan rorting over electoral funding, has frustrated any casual bond with the teals, even though Labor is not in any competition for teal seats.

Perhaps the strongest single campaigning point for the Teals and sympathetic independents would stress the advantage to the public of a group with real balance of power and ideas for exercising it. A hung Parliament is not an impotent parliament but one that can be creative and progressive in ways that a clear outcome can prevent. Labor and the Coalition have become so corrupted and complacent from bare majority government that they ignore the experience and the wisdom of those who are revolting against the tyranny of the two-party state. It can be pitched differently to different classes and age groups of voters, each time appealing to a restorative idea. The primary agenda in question is the reform of governance, and the restoration of convention and process.

The Morrison era saw a serious erosion in the calibre of government. Corruption became more evident. Financial management controls, whether by ministers or public servants, seemed to become voluntary. Money was pushed into the private sector without proper process, tenders or value-for-money controls. In significant respects it might be said that Donald Trump is following a path of governing by whim set by Morrison.

As robodebt illustrated, governments imposed cruel and unconscionable rules that were in breach of the law. Members of the public became uneasy about blatant illegalities and defiance of due process. The unease increased with evidence of government indifference to exposure, and reports from the Auditor-General. The contempt for audit reports from the prime minister, and senior ministers including Dutton, was matched by the contempt still in evidence from many in the public service.

In opposition, Labor and other groups including the teals were shocked by the misbehaviour and promised better. Governance did not get reformed because Labor's zeal for returning the system to regularity wilted as soon as it got power. There have been no systemic changes to the public service.

The Public Service Commission is openly campaigning against FOI, notionally the policy of the government. It has failed to follow a recommendation by the robodebt commission about issuing instructions trying to restore the proper documentation of government decisions. There's no virtue in that if senior public servants produce documents that could be accessible to FOI, it says. Inside government FOI and open government have no champion.

A focus on the unfinished agenda has another commonsense point. Wanting a higher quality of accountability and honesty in government is hardly radical. It is conservative: seeking a restoration of standards, openness and probity that had, in theory always existed. It is a supreme irony that modern conservatives have broken and disrespected once universal rules, and destroyed many of the institutions of civil society. Successive inquiries have exposed the dishonesty of senior bankers. Others the fundamentally venal morality of the consulting industry and major retailers. There has been a marked deterioration of ethical standards in institutions of government, of private institutions, and among civil institutions, including charities, religious bodies and some of the institutions of the law. The collapse of ethical standards and of public expectations of good citizenship has eroded trust. Undoing this is a major task, essential for a better society. It is not beyond the wit of good men and women to change. It is a noble task to which independents could recommit themselves.

Judging by these standards many might think that the teals (and hapless voters) owe the Labor government nothing. It is from Labor and the Liberals that we deserve apologies. Albanese has not delivered better government. He has broken significant promises. Independents have the capacity, if they control the balance of power, to insist on improved performance as a condition of their support.

Of course, they could also force the alternative parties of government to change their attitude, their approach, and their spirit of cooperation. They could make it from either party a condition of political support. Most teals come broadly from Liberal Party philosophical ideas, particularly about free enterprise, even if, traditionally, they have been more liberal and moderate than the increasingly conservative Dutton party. Increasingly, however, they can argue themselves to be more virtuous than either Labor or the Liberals.

That the teals come from a philosophical stream different from Labor might seem to account for Albanese's strong antipathy to them. Curiously, however, Albanese repeatedly shows that he sees his main enemy as the Greens. A man who once said his mission was to defeat Tories devotes far more time to attacking the Greens, the party most philosophically close to Labor. It's the party whose preferences he needs to get re-elected. Fifty per cent of Labor's old following now votes Green. Labor has lost most of that through pragmatism-swallowing principles. Green preferences may generally go to Labor, a reason many Labor supporters point to as a reason not to be too concerned. But by no means does a smaller Greens turnout cause an increase in the combined share of the vote. Albanese's war against both the Greens and the teals creates the risk of getting squeezed between them.

Teals might well think they are more comfortable with a Labor regime, at least until the goals of a reform agenda are achieved. The Coalition is, if anything, more flatly opposed to action on climate change or environmental change than it was in Morrison's time. There are no obvious grounds for expecting better governance behaviour from Peter Dutton and his team. Dutton was himself one who, as a minister, had a very expansive view of his right to control public expenditure in his portfolio, even when it was being spent in a consciously partisan way. He has never apologised or committed himself to a higher standard than shown by Scott Morrison. If he becomes prime minister, he will most probably resume an autocratic and authoritarian style of governance. With an added aversion to anything that can be labelled "woke". And assisted by mostly the same senior public servants as Morrison used to have. None seem to have much examined their management philosophies or working contempt for those on welfare. All of the improprieties and poor public service leadership issues could be repeated tomorrow.

A change for the better depends on an independent boot placed on the neck of the next party in power.

• Jack Waterford is a former editor of The Canberra Times.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights ...1/2

Well well well... who could have known that Liebs are scumbuckets? Totes amazeballs. 🙄🤦‍♀️

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8897571/nacc-clears-zoe-daniel-of-corruption-claims-mp-blasts-liberals

QUOTE BEGINS

The National Anti-Corruption Commission has issued a rare statement advising that a referral involving teal MP Zoe Daniel did not raise any issue of corruption.

"The essential issue raised by the referral was a suggestion that Commonwealth resources under Ms Daniel's control (ie, a parliamentary staffer) may have been misused by or on behalf of a parliamentarian, to lobby on behalf of a donor," the NACC said in a statement on Thursday.

The NACC said it had assessed the referral "to determine whether it raises a corruption issue that the commission can investigate", and had concluded that no such issue arose.

Ms Daniel, the independent member for Goldstein who won her seat in 2022, welcomed the finding and urged the commission to "call out" the misuse of its function for political purposes.

"Vexatious or politically motivated referrals undermine the NACC and waste its time and resources," she said.

"I hope the people of Goldstein see this episode for what it was - a deliberate dirty tactic by a Liberal Party operative to tarnish my reputation to prevent me winning my seat."

In October, a former Liberal MP made a referral to the NACC over allegations that a staffer believed to be working for Ms Daniel had lobbied the Australian Financial Review to withdraw billionaire Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes a Court from its annual AFR Power List.

The former MP is understood to be Jason Falinski, who lost his seat of Mackellar to independent MP Sophie Scamps at the 2022 election and is now the NSW Liberal Party president.

Political editor Phil Coorey had reported that independent Wentworth MP Allegra Spender walked into the newspaper's Canberra press gallery bureau to request that Mr Holmes a Court be scrubbed from the list and that a staffer from Ms Daniel's office "had already rung with the same request".

The NACC found the person was not a staffer, but a consultant acting on behalf of a third party, which The Canberra Times has confirmed to be Climate 200.

The individual had ceased being employed by Ms Daniel as a parliamentary staffer and now worked as a consultant, with both the MP and the political donations aggregator as clients.

The alleged approach to the AFR "was not made with Ms Daniel's knowledge or authority", the NACC said.

Ms Daniel had engaged her former staffer to provide part-time consulting services through her private not-for-profit company, meaning there was no use of Commonwealth resources.

The independent MP said in a statement on Thursday that she had run for office in 2022 "because I believe that the people of Goldstein and Australia deserve a better type of politics built on honesty, respect, integrity and trust."

"A robust and effective National Anti-Corruption Commission is an essential pillar in rebuilding that trust in government," she said.

"I will continue to practise a different kind of politics, and to fight, work and act on behalf of the people of Goldstein and Australia for the values we all deserve; accountability, transparency and honesty."

The MP faces a challenge from former Liberal member for Goldstein Tim Wilson, who is campaigning to win back the seat at the federal election due by May.

The NACC noted that the consultant "disputes the accuracy of the AFR report of the substance of their representations", but said it was "unnecessary for present purposes to resolve that dispute as the outcome is the same".

It is understood the consultant phoned one of Mr Coorey's colleagues at the AFR to convey on behalf of Climate 200 that Mr Holmes a Court did not think he should be on the Power List.

The NACC said the commission was aware of media reporting of the referral in October and was "making this public statement because the referral is in the public domain, being satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so."

"Ms Daniel has fully co-operated with the commission," the statement said.

"The matter is now closed and the commission will not be making further comment on it."

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/02/06/climate-200-teal-independents-funding-political-donations/

QUOTE BEGINS

As usual, we don’t know where much of the money in politics is coming from. The newly released 2023-24 donor returns form a wildly incomplete picture, with “dark money” making up 45% of what parties received.

According to the Centre for Public Integrity, $74.5 million was declared by parties without a source, $35.2 million of it by the Coalition (little wonder the opposition opposes reforms to lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000). And don’t get me started on right-wing Advance Australia, which declared sources for just 7% of the $15 million it received — including $500,000 from the Cormack Foundation, a Liberal Party fundraising group. Nothing suss!

However, one group of donors has received outsized media attention. As the Mudrake media has eagerly reported, two of the three top donors gave to fundraising outfit Climate 200, with investors Rob Keldoulis and Marcus Catsaras* each tipping in $1 million to its $6 million total — small in the scheme of things, but conveniently aligned with Coalition claims that Climate 200 constitutes “big money”.

I’m about to add to that attention, with a caveat that we should be more concerned by the money we can’t see. But it’s worth considering Climate 200’s backers, thousands of whom opt to be named on its site. Who are they? What do they want? And with debate once again swirling over Labor’s electoral reforms, how much is too much for one individual to give?

Climate 200 certainly has a reputation for attracting wealth. Keldoulis, a trading firm founder from Sydney’s east, has d0nated more than $1 million for three years running (as he told Nine in November 2022: “I’m hooked”). Catsaras, a young energy-market trader who gave similarly for the past two years, hasn’t spoken to the media about his d0nations, but this week posted a video explaining the urgency of supporting climate-driven candidates.

Previous major backers of Climate 200 include Atlassian’s Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar (among other tech founders), the Milgroms and the Fairfaxes, with convenor Simon Holmes à Court contributing relatively smaller amounts.

Climate 200 has been at pains to clarify its donors aren’t just the mega-rich. Analysis given to Nine in 2022 suggested 85% of Climate 200’s 11,200 donors gave $500 or less; similar figures were circulated in November 2024, suggesting an average d0nation size of $95. The AFR last week pointed to Sydney Film Festival founding director David Donaldson, who marked his 94th birthday with a donor drive, matching smaller d0nations to the tune of $94,000.

Several other d0nation-matchers are listed on Climate 200’s website, including health start-up founder Jenna Tregarthen and her husband Stuart, whose previous startup was acquired by Walmart. The Australian entrepreneurs are partaking in their second fundraising drive, while moving home from the US with their two small children — prompted in large part by TuckFrump’s reelection.

Tregarthen tells me she didn’t use to be politically active beyond trying to vote for values-aligned candidates. But the 39-year-old Bright Therapeutics founder was “inspired” by the community independents: “Predominantly accomplished, professional women making a sacrifice at the peak of their careers in the interest of public service.” d0nating is the “easy” part, she adds, seven different times, often gushing about her pride at being involved.

Tregarthen and her husband gave $28,000 to Climate 200 in 2022, matching d0nations up to $40,000 in a campaign run with a friend. This election they are pledging $60,000, with a (reportedly quite successful) focus on the need to ward off TuckFrumpism, which she felt powerless to stop in Merka.

“Now I know how quickly things can change,” she laments, adding she no longer takes basic human rights for granted. “I have much more of a sense of urgency and of wanting to protect the Australia that I know and I love, because it could all go away so quickly.”

Tregarthen sees d0nating to independents as “an investment in democracy”, saying it’s crucial that communities select their challengers. She doesn’t have contact with candidates, saying her only expectation of those who receive her funds is that they uphold Climate 200’s values of “climate, integrity, and gender equity”, while being free to set their policies. (She won’t stop d0nating over individual differences on other issues, she says, something Sussan group owner Naomi Milgrom has reportedly threatened).

Tregarthen doesn’t rule out chipping into individual campaigns. But she views “Climate” — as she casually refers to the funding aggregator — as a useful vehicle to “strategically and efficiently deploy the funds”, focusing on the “bigger picture”.

“I don’t necessarily have time to think about how and when to d0nate to who in the most effective way,” she explains. “I’m a full-time mum running a company and I just don’t have time to stay as on top of things … I value the fact that Climate 200 is working full-time to be informed and to be responsive in a way the candidates need it to be.”

I put to Tregarthen that Labor’s electoral reforms have seen little public pushback (though plenty from experts) because “getting money out of politics” sounds vaguely positive. She agrees there needs to be some limit on contributions (her d0nations fall well under Labor’s proposed cap), but she takes issue with how the reforms undermine Climate 200’s aggregation model, preventing “syndicates of individuals coming together” to support a common goal, meanwhile ensuring the majors remain flush.

“I see Climate 200 [as] democracy working,” she says. “It’s giving the everyday person a vehicle to contribute, as opposed to, you know, large institutions that have political interests being the ones that are d0nating.” That said, Tregarthen understands the qualms about money in politics — she used to share them, as her 2022 drive expressly noted.

“My instinctive reaction to d0nating was like, ‘Oh no, not money in politics’,” she recalls. “But when I looked more closely, it made so much sense to deploy money in this way. When you think about climate, you can contribute and d0nate to any number of individual not-for-profits, organisations advancing different things. We need system-level change, which starts with policy.” She references doing an impact analysis, finding that her dollars could have the greatest reach by getting climate-friendly candidates into office.

Tregarthen obviously can’t speak for all Climate 200 donors — after all, there are more than 10,000 of them. But she insists she doesn’t seek any personal benefit “other than helping my children to have a brighter future, and even just retaining the freedoms that they have in this incredible country — that’s my vested interest”.

We will have to Tregarthen’s word for that. But at least we know where her money is coming from, unlike the cheeky $74.5 million in dark money that went to the majors, whose source and interests cannot be traced.

*Greek media also picked this up in 2024, though for slightly different reasons.

QUOTE ENDS

#crikey #AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies