Until relatively recently, flexible working arrangements were actively encouraged. However, a shift in government expectations across the public sector seems to have heavily influenced PNHQ to forgo an arrangement that the Covid era demonstrated to be effective.

Operating outside the traditional workplace proved, and continues to prove, immaterial to the delivery of strong results and, for many employees, flexibility has become an accepted part of contemporary working life.

The impact of the policy change to upend these arrangements is being keenly felt by many Police employees, and it’s difficult to believe the dictate is about anything other than trust – or lack thereof.

The association is questioning the grounds for refusal of hundreds of WFH requests, which seems to be just another area in which consultation has taken a hit.

As the current parliamentary term reaches its final weeks, I can’t avoid mention of the speed at which some legislation has been rammed through under urgency without the usual select committee consultation periods.

Governments of all persuasions use urgency, but effective and good lawmaking – like good policy-making generally – also requires scrutiny. As the coalition Government approached the final stages of its term, the increasing use of urgency raised questions about whether balance could possibly be maintained.

Select committees provide an important opportunity for public input, expert advice and detailed examination of legislation. While urgency may be appropriate when genuine time pressures exist, acceleration without consultation risks unintended consequences. In a democracy, surely the quality of legislation matters more than the speed with which it is passed.

From a member representative point of view, possibly the most egregious example of this practice was the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025. Select committee scrutiny was bypassed, and the legislation was passed under urgency, extinguishing 33 active pay equity claims and substantially changing the test for future claims.

The association submitted on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, and our submission, along with just over 98% of the 7618 submissions made, opposed the bill. It is now law, yet there is no sign of a policy to guide the very people – you, our members – who Parliament says are now responsible for implementing it.