Public Service Flexibility Fight Exposes Cost of Rigid Rules

Alisha Warner worked full-time hours across four days for nine months before taking leave for her second baby. When she asked to return under the same arrangement, the Department of Home Affairs said no. Until June, she held a counterterrorism senior executive role. Now she’s out of the job, having taken voluntary redundancy, and she’s telling her story to Four Corners.

Warner’s case is one of several emerging from a wider investigation. Four Corners reported that 24 women in the public sector said they’d faced pregnancy discrimination at work. They were among more than 100 women who said they’d experienced workplace discrimination after becoming pregnant or having children. Their accounts include demotion, denied flexible work, refused promotions, no comfortable place to breastfeed, and, in some cases, redundancy or dismissal after falling pregnant or taking parental leave. Australia’s public sector is meant to set a national standard for promoting gender equality.

The Department’s Case

Home Affairs didn’t dispute turning down Warner’s request. It says the role changed. A department spokesman told Four Corners that the “scope, complexity and sensitivity of the responsibilities assigned to the relevant role under consideration evolved post the Bondi terrorist attack, and now require sustained senior executive level oversight, leadership and decision-making.” The department, he said, “was not in a position to approve compressed hours.”

Warner’s managers argued the counterterrorism position needed coverage five days a week. She tells it differently. Under her earlier arrangement, she said, she remained 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.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws show that managers sought advice from Human Resources. The advice said the department had “reasonable business grounds” to reject the request, while acknowledging it was “arguable” that Warner’s four-day arrangement “remains in place.” An official then asked for a response to Warner and confirmed that “the intention is not to support the request.” The department offered a short transition period, then required her to work five days a week.

The Budget Question

The spokesman denied a culture of rejecting flexible work because of cost, though he acknowledged cost played a part. “Any expenditure of resources, including the engagement of staff, must be considered within the department’s budget and in accordance with its obligations under the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act,” he said.

That’s the ordinary discipline of public money. Agencies answer to taxpayers and must weigh each hire and arrangement against their budgets. But the numbers cut both ways. Kylie Rendina, a former assistant commissioner of the Australian Border Force who now works as a public-sector consultant, said some managers view flexibility as too costly, yet losing a staff member can cost an agency more. Replacing an experienced employee, she said, 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,” she said.

It’s a point private employers would recognise. Competitive firms keep skilled people by adapting to workers’ needs. Rendina urged 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,” she said. “That’s just not reality anymore.”

Government Response

Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth said the public service, including the federal government, aims to be a “model employer.” She told Four Corners: “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. 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.”

A statutory right sits on the books. Practice is another matter. Warner 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 take the claim to the Federal Court. “I strongly believe in my case, but I also know how much lawyers cost,” she said.

She also refused to sign a confidentiality agreement as part of her exit. “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. As she left, she was blunt: “It’s not a real choice when you don’t feel like you have any other choices,” and the thought of giving up a secure senior executive role she’d worked hard to win “filled me with absolute dread.”

“The biggest disappointment for me is the message that [my story] sends to all the other women coming up through the ranks in the public service, who are already thinking, ‘I have to hold myself back if I want to have kids,’” Warner said.

Why This Matters:

This story turns on a tension every large institution faces: legitimate operational needs versus keeping skilled staff. Home Affairs says a counterterrorism role grew heavier after the Bondi attack. Warner says her working arrangement functioned for nine months. A statutory right to request flexibility exists, but enforcing it cost more than she was willing to risk, and mediation went nowhere. For taxpayers, the sharper question is financial. If replacing an experienced officer costs 50 to 200 per cent of salary, as Rendina says, rigid refusals aren’t automatically the fiscally prudent choice. A sensible public sector would weigh those figures openly, rather than leave staff to fight alone through costly legal channels.