The Australian Public Service flexible work conversation that ran loud through 2023 and 2024 has settled into a more consistent practice across departments by May 2026. The policy framework is more stable, the bargaining-round outcomes have been embedded, and the day-to-day operating reality is recognisable across the workforce.

The settled position in May 2026 looks like this:

Hybrid arrangements with a mix of office and remote work are the standard pattern for most APS roles where the work allows it. The proportions vary by department but the most common pattern is two to three days in the office, with some flexibility around which days and around occasional remote weeks for specific work tasks.

Fully remote arrangements remain available for individual employees by agreement, particularly where the role is geographically separated from the office location or where personal circumstances support it. The fully remote employee is no longer an exception but is also not the default.

Office-based work is the requirement for some roles — particularly those involving handling of secure material, face-to-face service delivery, or operational supervision — and the policy clarity around which roles fall into this category is firmer than it was 18 months ago.

What has moved in the last year:

The “in-person minimum” debate has cooled. The policy positions that emerged from the 2024 enterprise bargaining rounds have settled into operating practice. The recurring conflict between executive expectations and employee expectations on attendance days has reduced as the practice has normalised.

The leadership and team culture work has matured. The departments that invested in deliberate culture work — team rituals, in-person off-sites, structured collaboration days — through 2024 are reporting better engagement scores than the departments that defaulted to “come back to the office” without the supporting work. The lesson has been absorbed and the practice is increasingly consistent.

The performance management posture has firmed up. The early-pandemic period of unstructured remote performance was replaced through 2023 and 2024 by clearer expectations on outcomes, deliverables, and visible work. The performance management framework in 2026 is more outcomes-oriented than it was in 2019, which is a positive change for many roles.

What remains a watching point:

The regional and rural workforce. The flexible work arrangements have supported APS hiring in regional and rural areas to a degree that was not possible pre-pandemic. The retention of regional staff and the development pathway for regional employees into Canberra-based executive roles remains a workforce planning challenge.

The graduate and early-career experience. The early-career APS officer benefits from the in-person mentoring, the office observation, and the team integration that fully remote arrangements do not support well. The departments running structured early-career programmes with a stronger in-person component are reporting better development outcomes.

The diversity and equity dimension. Flexible work has been net positive for the participation of employees with caring responsibilities, disabilities, and other circumstances that make rigid office attendance difficult. The 2026 read is that the policy framework is supporting better participation than the 2019 baseline.

The accommodation footprint question. Several departments are working through the property-side implications of the flexible work pattern. The activity-based working office designs that came in through the 2020-2023 redesign cycle are being further refined as the actual occupancy patterns become clear.

For APS leaders in May 2026, the practical read is that the flexible work policy is mature, the practice is consistent enough across the service, and the management discipline around outcomes, in-person culture, and early-career development is the differentiating work. The departments that have invested in this work are the ones with strong engagement and retention scores. The departments that have left it as a policy document are working harder for the same outcomes.

The conversation has moved from “what is the policy” to “how do we run it well.” That is the right place for the conversation to be.