Public Service Mums Say Flexibility Is Out of Reach

Alisha Warner worked full-time hours over four days for nine months before taking leave for her second baby. She was a counterterrorism senior executive in the Department of Home Affairs. Then she asked to return on the same arrangement. The answer was no.

Warner's story is one of many. Four Corners reported that 24 women in the public sector said they'd faced pregnancy discrimination at work. They described being demoted, denied flexible work, refused promotions or a comfortable place to breastfeed, and sometimes made redundant or let go after falling pregnant or taking parental leave. More than 100 women told the program they'd experienced workplace discrimination after becoming pregnant or having children. The public sector is meant to set the national standard for promoting gender equality.

"Senior executives cannot work flexibly"

"When I mentioned that I was looking to come back on the same arrangement ... I was surprised to be met with an immediate response that senior executives cannot work flexibly," Warner told Four Corners. "I was really shocked and a bit concerned immediately about what that was going to mean."

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws show Warner's managers sought Human Resources advice about her request to return on compressed hours. The advice said the department had "reasonable business grounds" to reject it, while acknowledging it was "arguable" that Warner's four-day arrangement "remains in place." An email requesting a response to Warner read: "Confirming the intention is not to support the request, so I'd be grateful for a response on that basis."

The department offered a short transition period, then required her to work five days a week. Warner couldn't make that work. "Going back full-time [over five days] is not always an option. In my case, I can't get another day of child care for my children," she said. "I was very strongly given a message that flexible work was not going to be supported anywhere."

A Home Affairs spokesman said the role's responsibilities "evolved post the Bondi terrorist attack, and now require sustained senior executive level oversight, leadership and decision-making." He said the department "was not in a position to approve compressed hours."

Warner disputes that reasoning. Under her previous arrangement, she'd been available on her day off for anything critical. "There [were] lots of assertions made about how busy the role was, but to be honest, not a lot of real tangible evidence or information about why it couldn't be performed under the same arrangement," she said.

Redundancy, Silence and the Cost of Fighting Back

Warner eventually took voluntary redundancy and refused to sign a confidentiality agreement. She says others can't so easily refuse. "A lot of people are forced into signing non-disclosure agreements, and that has led to a complete dark hole of people feeling like they're alone in what has happened to them," she said.

She didn't want to leave. "It's not a real choice when you don't feel like you have any other choices," she said. The thought of leaving "a full-time, secure, senior executive role that I worked so incredibly hard to get filled me with absolute dread."

She took action against the department in the Fair Work Commission, alleging a breach of flexible-work provisions. Mediation ended without agreement. She chose not to pursue the Federal Court. "I strongly believe in my case, but I also know how much lawyers cost," she said.

The Cost Argument

Kylie Rendina, a former assistant commissioner of the Australian Border Force and now a public-sector consultant, said some managers see flexible arrangements as too costly. Losing a staff member who needs flexibility can cost an agency more, she said. Replacing an experienced employee could cost 50 to 200 per cent of an annual salary.

"Sometimes, the people who are making the decisions at all levels don't really have a good understanding of the costs of losing a resource and retaining a resource," Rendina said. She called on agencies to change their attitudes. "We didn't need the flexibility that we want today, probably largely based on one parent being at home a lot of the time. That's just not reality anymore."

A Home Affairs spokesman denied any culture of rejecting flexible work because of cost, while acknowledging cost was a factor. Any expenditure of resources, including staffing, he said, "must be considered within the department's budget and in accordance with its obligations under the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act."

Government Response

Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth said the public service, including the federal government, aimed to be a "model employer." "We've got to make sure that we're not suggesting just because you're taking flexible work, that somehow you're less productive or not contributing," she told Four Corners. "That's a bit of an outdated stereotype. We've got to make sure that everyone is promoting those conversations, but there is a right for flexible work."

Why This Matters: If the institution meant to set the national benchmark for gender equality is pushing mothers out, the signal travels well beyond Canberra. Warner says her case tells other women rising through the ranks that they "have to hold myself back if I want to have kids." Rights on paper mean little when enforcing them depends on a worker's ability to pay lawyers, and non-disclosure agreements keep individual cases isolated and invisible. Rendina's figures suggest the budget case for flexibility may be stronger than managers assume. The minister says there's a right to flexible work. Testimony from more than 100 women raises the question of whether that right is honoured where it's supposed to matter most.