Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has launched a scathing rebuke of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to eliminate tens of thousands of federal public service roles – but exclusively from Canberra – calling the move “outrageous” and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the federal government operates.
The controversy erupted after Dutton confirmed on Thursday morning that the Coalition’s policy to reduce the public service by 41,000 roles by 2030 would apply only to Canberra-based staff, as part of what he has dubbed a “government efficiency” plan. He made the remarks during a press conference in Tasmania, brushing off growing scrutiny about his nuclear policy and shifting positions on migration and tax.
“We’ve been clear … we’re not reducing the public service – only in Canberra. We’ve been very clear about that from day one,” Dutton told reporters.
Prime Minister Condemns Proposal
Speaking from Perth, Albanese condemned the opposition leader’s remarks, suggesting they revealed Dutton’s lack of preparedness to lead the country.
“ASIO, the Australian Signals Directorate, all of our security and intelligence agencies – where does Peter Dutton think they are based? They are based in Canberra, in our national capital,” Albanese said. “The Department of Defence. Do they think that the CDF [Chief of the Defence Force] and the senior defence leadership in this country aren’t based at Russell [Defence’s headquarters] in Canberra? Where does he think they are?”
READ MORE: Activate Climate’s ‘Silent Majority’ to Supercharge Action, Experts Say
Albanese said the plan threatened essential functions of government, including national security, foreign affairs, and critical social services. He described the proposal as not just impractical but ideologically driven.
Policy Details and Fallout
According to figures from the Australian Public Service Commission, Canberra employs close to 70,000 federal public servants. Under Labor’s most recent federal budget, that figure was expected to rise to 213,439 across the entire federal workforce by 2025–26. Dutton’s plan to shed 41,000 positions – nearly two-thirds of Canberra’s total – would represent one of the most significant public sector reductions in modern Australian history.
The Coalition insists the jobs would be lost through attrition rather than direct terminations and has ruled out cuts to frontline services and national security roles. However, no clear mechanism has been presented to ensure such functions remain untouched, prompting deep concern across the public sector and political spectrum.
ACT independent senator David Pocock described the policy as “Canberra-bashing,” accusing the Coalition of “an ideological attack on public servants who can’t even speak up in their own defence.”
“The numbers don’t even stack up,” Pocock said. “You can’t cut 41,000 public servants from Canberra without touching defence, intelligence and frontline services, and still run the country effectively – it simply isn’t possible.”
The Impact on Government Agencies
More than 40,000 Canberra-based jobs are concentrated within just 10 key federal agencies. These include the Department of Defence (more than 9,000 employees), the Department of Home Affairs (5,500), Services Australia (4,500), and thousands more in health, industry, foreign affairs, climate change, and prime ministerial departments.
Canberra-based Labor MP Andrew Leigh slammed the plan as “insane,” arguing that even shuttering 12 of the largest federal departments wouldn’t achieve the proposed cuts. “Dutton makes Doge look restrained,” he quipped, referring to the US’s controversial Musk-led “Department of Government Efficiency.”
Leigh provided a hypothetical list of affected departments – Agriculture, Attorney-General’s, Defence, Education, Finance, Health, Home Affairs, PM&C, Treasury, Veterans’ Affairs and others – and suggested that closing their Canberra head offices still wouldn’t produce the scale of reductions proposed.
Dutton Defends Cuts, Deflects Criticism
Dutton, facing a barrage of questions at his Tasmania press conference, remained firm on the cuts. He dismissed criticisms as a “scare campaign” from Labor and argued that the public service had grown bloated under Albanese’s government.
When asked how the proposal would affect Tasmania’s public service footprint, Dutton reiterated that “none” of the cuts would occur outside the capital.
Earlier this week, the government had warned that entire agencies could face closure under the Coalition’s plan, a claim Dutton called misleading.
The Coalition’s broader public service reform strategy includes a renewed focus on outsourcing and reducing what Dutton terms “bloated bureaucracies.” He maintains that the cuts are essential to streamlining government and reducing spending.
Nuclear Policy Overshadowed
The controversy over public service cuts overshadowed Dutton’s broader campaign, which continues to grapple with questions over nuclear power policy.
The Coalition has proposed building seven nuclear reactors across Australia but has yet to campaign at or near any of the proposed sites. During Thursday’s press conference, Dutton acknowledged the plan might be unpopular but insisted it was in “the best interest of the country.”
“We made a tough decision, not for political vote-winning exercises, but for what is in the best interest of our country in relation to nuclear power,” he said.
He criticised Prime Minister Albanese for declining to debate him on the issue and accused Labor of hypocrisy for supporting nuclear technology for submarines but rejecting its civilian energy use.
Broader Political Implications
Dutton’s pledge to slash Canberra’s public service has drawn concern from local leaders and could have significant political implications in the ACT – traditionally a Labor stronghold – and beyond.
The proposal touches a nerve in a city where the federal government is the largest employer, and where thousands of public servants support critical services for all Australians.
Moreover, the debate reveals a deeper ideological divide between the Coalition and Labor over the role and size of government, especially in the delivery of national services.
While Dutton pitches the cuts as part of a broader efficiency drive, critics argue they would hollow out the federal government’s ability to function, threaten Australia’s security and social stability, and damage Canberra’s economy – all while stoking anti-bureaucratic sentiment for short-term political gain.
Looking Ahead
As the federal election campaign heats up, Dutton’s public service cuts and nuclear strategy will remain key battlegrounds. Whether voters embrace the Coalition’s pitch for leaner government and new energy sources or recoil from the potential disruption to federal functions and local communities remains to be seen.
For now, Albanese’s counter-attack is clear: Peter Dutton’s Canberra-only cuts are not just bad policy, they’re a sign that the opposition leader is “not ready for government.”
