Peter Dutton coy on what public servant jobs he will slash if he wins election
In a rare press conference at Parliament House on Thursday, the opposition leader provided little information on his plans to get the 'economy back on track' through slashing government jobs and other 'wasteful spending'.
'We'll make announcements in relation to our policies in due course, but I do note that with the 36,000 additional, that brings the public service up to over 200,000,' he said.
'I'm happy to make the announcement at the time, but I've been clear we're not having 36,000 additional public servants in Canberra.'
Dutton claimed the growth under the Albanese government was to 'please the unions' not 'provide a more efficient delivery of service'.
The public service minister, Katy Gallagher, described Dutton's plans as 'reckless and arrogant' and a 'return to worse services, expensive consultants, and the era of robodebt'.
Since the Coalition's 2022-23 budget, the average staffing level for the public service has risen by 35,592 roles, most notably in the frontline services, such as the National Disability Insurance Agency, Services Australia as well as the defence and health departments.
The Australian Public Service Commission's latest State of the Service report showed the number of public servants had risen to more than 185,000 as of June 2024, an 8.9% increase on the previous year.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
In a speech to the Liberal-aligned Menzies Research Centre in January, Dutton foreshadowed the axing of diversity and inclusion positions, along with 'change managers' and 'internal communication specialists'.
'Such positions, as I say, do nothing to improve the lives of everyday Australians,' Dutton claimed.
'They're certainly not frontline service delivery roles that can make a difference to people's lives.'
A number of Dutton's frontbench have responded differently when asked which jobs would be slashed.
Shadow ministers Jane Hume and David Coleman did not address questions this week about whether they would oversee cuts in their own future portfolio departments, if elected.
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, has previously suggested all 36,000 jobs should be slashed but has softened his language since.
'It's time for us to get out of your life, not put more public servants into it,' he said in Canberra in early February.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
A Coalition reshuffle in January saw the promotion of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to a new Elon Musk-inspired shadow ministry role centring on government efficiency.
Price told The Australian the Coalition 'won't be cutting' the public service workforce, if elected, but would 'halt' its growth.
A few days later, the Country Liberal senator told 2GB diversity and inclusion roles would be on the chopping block.
The Community and Public Sector Union deputy secretary, Rebecca Fawcett, accused the opposition of being deliberately coy to avoid losing support.
'Peter Dutton is not being honest with Australians about what public services he'll cut because he wants you to believe it won't be the ones you use or rely on,' she said.
'Peter Dutton and the Liberals don't want a strong public service that works for mums and dads, veterans, students and pensioners – they want to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of big consulting firms while leaving everyday Australians to fend for themselves.
'The only people that win from Peter Dutton's plan to slash public services are consultants from places like PwC and KPMG.'
Dutton did not rule out a return to limiting spending on consultants, but said 'if there is wasteful spending taking place, then it should be cut'.
An Albanese government audit in 2023 found the former Morrison government had spent $20.8bn outsourcing more than a third of public service operations.
Nearly 54,000 full-time staff were employed as consultants or service providers for the federal government during the 2021-22 financial year – the equivalent of 37% of the 144,300-employee public service, it found.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Former Trump national security advisor warns Australia on China
Donald Trump 's former national security adviser has warned Australia needs to clarify its position on China, which had grown ambiguous under Anthony Albanese. John Bolton this week said the Albanese government was 'less vocal about what the problem is' in comparison to its predecessors. 'It is a little hard to get used to,' Bolton said in an interview. Just a few weeks ago, while Albanese was on Chinese soil, the Pentagon demanded to know if Australia would support the US if China attacked Taiwan. Bolton warned that the US could treat its quieter allies with suspicion as tensions in the Pacific persist. The Trump administration is already reconsidering the AUKUS deal, which would provide Australia with nuclear submarines. The ex-national security advisor, who was fired in a tweet by Trump during his first term in 2019 after repeated clashes, said that 'back in the Cold War days, Labour governments in Great Britain were just as anti-communist' as the right wing. 'When you see a leftist government that's not willing to talk as openly about what the real threat is, it does make some people nervous,' Bolton told The Sydney Morning Herald. 'Why the hell are we worried about talking about what the threat is? The struggle is on, and we ought to be candid about it,' he said. Tensions between China and the West have significantly grown since the communist superpower began ramping up efforts to grow influence over the Indo-Pacific in the 2010s. Chinese President Xi Jinping claimed in a recent speech that: 'No one can stop China's 'reunification' with Taiwan'. The continued pressure from Washington for Australia to make its stance on China public comes in spite of the US growing guarded over its own position. While former president Joe Biden repeatedly said the US would defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion, the Trump administration's style has been described as 'purposeful strategic ambiguity' to keep both friends and foes guessing. So why should Australia, which sits much closer to the disputed region, be the first to stick its neck out? Naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, believes it boils down to AUKUS. In 2023, Australia announced it would buy three American-made nuclear submarines. Those subs are set to be delivered in the early 2030s. From there, the US and UK will share knowledge with Australia to help it be able to build its own nuclear submarines, SSN AUKUS subs. That submarine construction yard will be built in Adelaide's Osborne Naval Shipyard, which South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas toured alongside US congressmen on Wednesday. Mr Clark explained the US wanted clarification on whether the submarines it sells to Australia would be used to back America, should it find itself in conflict with China. He said Australia had been 'reticent' to explicitly say they would be used against China, which had raised some questions in Washington about why the government was not more straightforward about the reason for purchasing the submarines. Australia is spending billions to procure the submarines, but there is not a guarantee they will arrive. The AUKUS deal contains a clause that the US can only supply Australia excess submarines not needed by its own navy. Australia has so far paid the US two installments of $800 million twice this year, in February and July. By the end of 2025, Australia will have paid USD$2 billion to help expand America's nuclear submarine production, which is already worryingly behind schedule. All up, Australia plans to spend $368 billion over 30 years on the AUKUS submarine pact. The pact is currently being reviewed by US defence under Secretary Elbridge Colby, a vocal AUKUS skeptic. While it's widely believed AUKUS will remain intact when the review concludes in the coming months, it has only served to further strain relations between the US and Australia following Trump's trade tariff spree. Bolton conceded it was detrimental for America to expect Australia to publicly call out China while it remained tight-lipped. However, he supported Washington's calls for Australia to lift its defence budget to three per cent of GDP. Labor's existing policies promise just 2.33 per cent of GDP by 2033. 'Everybody is going to have to go up, I just think that's inevitable. It's not because of Trump's pressure, it's because of what's going on in the real world,' Bolton said. In response to the US' earlier demands for an official stance on Taiwan, Albanese said he would not bow to pressure to make 'private' discussions public. 'The sole power to commit Australia to war, or to allow our territory to be used for conflict, is the elected government of the day,' he told the ABC. 'That is our position. Sovereignty will always be prioritized and that will continue to be our position.' Albanese has still not had a sit-down meeting with President Trump since his January inauguration. The pair were due to meet in June but the Trump left Canada's G7 summit early citing urgent developments in the Middle East, preceding the bombing of Iran.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Hawke PM by David Day review – a portrait of a vicious drunk and womaniser who mostly mended his wicked ways
The second instalment of David Day's biography of Bob Hawke, which chronicles the public and private lives of Labor's longest-serving prime minister, is as masterful, gritty and in many ways as disturbing as the first. The first, Young Hawke: The Making of a Larrikin, traced his life from birth through his unconventional upbringing, student days in Australia and Oxford, and his rise as a unionist amid eventual national expectation he'd one day become prime minister. A portrait emerged of an unlikeable and perhaps pathological narcissist, a vicious drunk who apparently loved many women, including his long-suffering wife Hazel, while he was borderline predatory with others. The parallel story traced his rise as a worker's hero and a friend to bosses, a peacemaker and king of consensus who made remarkable gains for ordinary Australians. For a long time Hawke carried with him through public life a broad assumption he'd become PM. For Hawke, personally, it was fated. But he and his most assiduous supporters knew that even as Australia's most celebrated 'larrikin' (a catch-all, that, for blackout pisshead, lousy dad, worse husband and occasional sleaze) he would have to mend his wicked ways. At least for public consumption. Hawke was self-aware enough to understand this as he entered parliament and immediately set about building his profile as a team-playing caucus member – all the while enjoying stratospheric political popularity and stalking Labor leader, Bill Hayden. The Hawke marriage was pretty much over, except in name, when he entered parliament in 1980. He was still drinking heavily and found his lower-profile life on the backbench challenging. But to the amazement of many peers, he quit the booze and began to lead a more discreet personal life in his quest for prime ministership – a job he retained for a Labor record of almost nine years. Quitting drink was not easy for one whose public wheels had been oiled by grog for more than three decades. But it was as critical to his ascent as a strategy to publicly air some of the worst aspects of his past through Blanche d'Alpuget's 1982 biography, Robert J Hawke. Both decisions helped him become electorally presentable. (D'Alpuget, of course, became Hawke's second wife after his political departure when Paul Keating rose, just as inevitably, and knocked him off as PM in December 1991.) This public inoculation was a high-risk strategy that seems to have worked. As Day writes: 'The fact that the biography was written by an excellent writer who also happened to be his lover, and that it was vetted by him and Hazel, would have given him some confidence about its likely reception. Moreover, as a narcissist, he expected to be forgiven and embraced whatever he did.'' Those who've worked anywhere near politics understand its terrible toll on families; the effect on Hawke's was devastating. There is a poignancy to how Day writes about the familial collateral on Hazel and their three children, Sue, Rosslyn and Stephen. When Hawke was mustering support against Hayden he needed Victorian power broker Bill Landeryou's backing. His daughter Rosslyn, then 21, had been working for Landeryou – a favour from the power broker 'in the hope of distancing her from the Sydney drug culture'' she'd become immersed in. When Rosslyn alleged to her father that Landeryou had raped her, Day recounts how Hawke urged her not to go to the police so as to avoid controversy while he sought the Labor leadership. 'In convincing his daughter not to complain to the police, Hawke would have doubtless consoled himself that he was also protecting her, since any prosecution would have seen her … heroin use become the stuff of lurid headlines at a time when rapists were rarely convicted,' Day writes. The Hawke marriage continued as a partnership throughout his prime ministership during which he oversaw (with Keating's critical support as treasurer and as his sharpest parliamentary advocate) unprecedented social and economic reforms, not least the prices and incomes accord, the introduction of universal healthcare, compulsory superannuation and floating of the Australian dollar. Lagging badly in the polls in late 1990 and his government adrift with Keating now on the backbench after his failed first leadership challenge, Liberal leader John Hewson released his Fightback manifesto with its centrepiece goods and services tax. Whereas Keating would have demolished Fightback, publicly and in parliament, a 'transfixed'' Hawke was a 'rabbit in the headlights'. This was, Day concludes, Hawke's undoing. Those of us who grew up watching Hawke ascend, who voted for him in 1983 and benefited from his progressive new Australia won't regret it when they read this book. But they will understand a lot more about the man's fabric. Hawke PM: The Making of a Legend by David Day is out now (HarperCollins Australia, $49.99)
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Is Australia supplying weapons to bomb Gaza? Here's what we know about fighter jet parts in the F-35 program
The Australian government has announced it will recognise the state of Palestine, but many politicians and human rights groups are demanding tougher action to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Greens have urged the Albanese government to stop supplying F-35 parts to a global supply chain that can be accessed by Israel, in addition to direct sanctions on senior members of the Netanyahu government. But the federal government denies it is sending weapons to Israel and has criticised 'misinformation' about the F-35s. So what do we know about Australia's role in the supply chain? The Israel Defense Forces has confirmed F-35 planes are used to 'strike terror targets and assist ground forces in very close proximity strikes'. In February last year, a Dutch appeals court found it was likely that F-35s were being used in attacks on Gaza, and a 'clear risk' that parts exported from the Netherlands were 'used in serious violations of international humanitarian law'. Sign up: AU Breaking News email In September, Danish media reported Israel had confirmed an F-35 was used in a missile strike in southern Gaza that killed 90 people and injured hundreds more. Lawyers representing the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq have previously told a UK court the F-35s have played a critical role in Gaza and linked them to airstrikes that have killed more than 400 people, including 183 children and 94 women. The Israeli government was contacted for comment. More than 75 Australian companies have contributed to the global supply chain for the F-35 program, according to the defence department. More than 700 of the fighter jet's 'critical pieces' are manufactured in Victoria alone, according to the state government. One company, RUAG Australia, is the only global supplier of the F-35's 'uplock actuator system', which allows the jet to quickly open its bay doors and fire missiles while maintaining stealth. Australia also hosts a regional distribution hub for F-35 parts. In April, the defence department said Australian companies have been paid around $5bn for their contributions to the F-35 supply chain so far. This is a relatively small proportion of the overall program. Last year, the US government accountability office said the F-35s would cost 'more than $2tn over several decades'. The global supply chain is coordinated by the F-35's primary manufacturer Lockheed Martin in the US. The fighter jet is used by the US and 19 allies, including the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan and South Korea. Manufacturers are not contracted to supply parts to one specific nation, such as Israel. Instead, they supply enough parts for large batches of F-35s that are purchased from Lockheed Martin. In July, the Declassified website published a story alleging dual civilian and military use aircraft parts had been sent from Sydney to Tel Aviv. The story cited shipping records that allegedly listed Lockheed Martin as the source of the parts and described them as being for the 'JSF', or the F-35 joint strike fighter. An Australian government spokesperson said it 'does not have a direct bilateral arrangement with the government of Israel in relation to the F-35 program'. 'Australia has not supplied weapons or ammunition to Israel since the Israel-Gaza conflict began and not for at least the past five years,' the spokesperson said. Lockheed Martin was contacted for comment on whether F-35 parts were sent from Australia to Israel directly. Parts can only be sourced from nations allied with the US due to national security fears. In 2022, deliveries were briefly suspended when Chinese parts were discovered in an F-35. 'Replacing such suppliers would not be straightforward, as Lockheed would have a limited list of countries from which to source components,' said Kelsey Gallagher, a senior researcher with the Canada-based research institute Ploughshares, who specialises in the F-35 supply chain. 'A country like Australia refusing to transfer F-35 components could have a sizeable impact on the program, given how many individual aircraft they are contracted to supply at once,' Gallagher said. It depends on the parts. Several Australian companies are the sole global supplier for some F-35 parts. If these parts were withheld, there could be a significant short-term impact on repairs and sales. Last year, Lockheed Martin told a US court that one relatively small supplier not providing titanium products, as contracted to do so, would 'cause unavoidable and substantial delays in Lockheed Martin's delivery of F-35 aircraft to the United States, threatening national security and Lockheed Martin's reputation and goodwill'. Josh Paul, a former US state department official who resigned over US arms shipments to Israel, says the impact would be greatest if nations acted together in protest against the killing in Gaza. 'The nature of the [F-35] consortium is that all of the countries would feel the crunch and therefore feel compelled to accept that agreement,' Paul told the ABC. Gallagher said most of the contracts between Lockheed Martin and small companies, including subcontractors in Australia, were not public and it was difficult to make claims with certainty. But he referred to a 2025 Lockheed Martin corporate document that told suppliers their 'timely performance is a critical element' of their contracts. 'Logically, a subawardee failing to supply parts following a contract signing could only be seen as a breach of that contract, whatever the reason,' Gallagher said. In 2023, Lockheed Martin sued US-based subcontractor Howmet for failing to deliver F-35 components after a contract dispute. The matter was settled out of court and Howmet continues to supply parts. Gallagher said Lockheed Martin faces financial penalties from the US department of defence for failing to deliver jets on time. 'It could then follow that Lockheed would pass those penalties onto subcontractors that have some part in the delays,' Gallagher said. So far, no country has withdrawn from the F-35 supply chain. But several companies have taken action to reduce or cut the supply of new military equipment to Israel. Germany has stopped exporting material that could be used by Israel during its military operations in Gaza. Germany is the second largest arms supplier to Israel after the US. Australia's defence minister, Richard Marles, says Australia cannot announce similar action to Germany as it does not directly supply arms to Israel. Regarding the F-35 parts, he said on Sunday: 'That is a multilateral arrangement with supply chains that are organised by Lockheed Martin in the United States and have multiple suppliers in respect of all of those supply chains.' The German company Rheinmetall produces fuselages for the global F-35 supply chain. These contributions have not been stopped. In September, the UK suspended most relevant arms export licences for use in Israel. Some nations think so, but this is difficult to independently substantiate. When the UK suspended arms export licenses, it gave a carve-out to the F-35 program, saying international peace and security required that it was not disrupted. The UK is the second largest supplier of parts after the US. The UK government told a court that suspending exports to the F-35 program would have impacted the battle to prevent Russia from occupying Ukraine, as the F-35 was a central pillar of Nato. The Australian government is required to make similar judgments before awarding export licences for parts used in the F-35. It must consider 12 criteria, including the balance between human rights concerns and national security and foreign policy considerations. Under the arms trade treaty, which Australia is a party to, providing weapons to a group involved in armed conflict can lead to criminal liability if the equipment is used to commit war crimes. In January last year, the international court of justice ruled the claim of genocide in Gaza was 'plausible'. The Greens senator David Shoebridge says component parts are considered weapons and Australia is therefore breaching international law. But Donald Rothwell, an international law expert at the Australian National University, says he would 'not be as decisive' as Shoebridge in his interpretation of international law. Rothwell said being definitive was difficult as 'there can be so many component parts of weapons'. 'Some component parts may have been exported to Israel for civilian use but then utilised for weapons,' Rothwell says. 'I would take the view, though, that Australian exports that are component weapon parts, and which are exported to the IDF, are contributing to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.' Paul told the ABC last week that Australia's supply of components and parts to the F-35 fighter jets, which have been used by Israel, constitutes 'directly the facilitation of war crimes'. During a recent court hearing, the UK government acknowledged its supply of F-35 components for potential use in Israel was in breach of its own arms export control laws. Around 15% of the F-35's parts, including ejection seats, are made in the UK. The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, says Australia's role in the supply chain 'raises grave concerns that Australian parts and components are involved in the atrocities we have seen unfold in Gaza'. Amnesty International Australia's Mohamed Duar has said 'the lack of transparency surrounding Australia's defence exports has made it extremely difficult to determine the extent of our involvement in the commission of genocide and war crimes'. Human Rights Watch was among 232 civil society organisations who urged nations involved in the F-35 supply chain to 'immediately halt all arms transfers to Israel'. Marles says Australia does not supply weapons to Israel and has complained about 'misinformation' regarding exports, arguing it has 'raised tensions in this country, which is deeply destabilising for Australia's social cohesion'. Marles says Australia has contributed to the F-35 program for decades as part of a multi-lateral agreement with Lockheed Martin in the US, rather than Israel directly. The foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, has also described Australia's contributions to the supply chain as 'non-lethal in nature'.
