Anthony Albanese’s government hires 28 public servants a day as taxpayer-funded workforce closes in on a record 200,000 employees
The Australian federal public service is on track to reach a record 200,000 employees, with the Albanese government adding roughly 28 staff a day since taking office in May 2022. Analysis of 103 federal agencies found 92 had increased headcount, marking a 23 per cent expansion in three and a half years. The growth follows Labor's early decision to scrap a Coalition-era staffing cap, which critics say had pushed departments towards greater use of external consultants and contractors instead.
The public service grew from 159,179 employees in June 2022 to 195,847 by December 2025, an increase of about 36,700 staff. The biggest gains came at the National Disability Insurance Agency, which more than doubled its workforce by adding 5,986 staff, followed by Defence (up 3,823), Home Affairs (up 2,753) and the climate and energy department (up 2,420), while Services Australia, now the largest agency with 34,026 staff, grew by 1,730. Finance Minister Katy Gallagher has defended the expansion as "roughly the right size" and argues it has cut reliance on consultants, noting public servants still represent a slightly smaller share of the population (0.7 per cent) than under the Howard government in 2007 (0.75 per cent).
- Australian public service nearing 200,000 staff under Labor
- Workforce grew 23% since 2022 after cap scrapped
- NDIS, Defence and Home Affairs saw the largest increases
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that rebuilding the public service was a necessary correction after years of an arbitrary staffing cap that hollowed out core capability and pushed billions of dollars towards external consultants and contractors, often at greater cost and with less accountability. They point to the growth being concentrated in service-delivery and frontline agencies, such as the NDIA, Defence and Services Australia, as evidence that new staff are meeting rising demand for disability support, national security and welfare services rather than swelling bureaucratic overhead. On this view, in-housing skilled expertise improves long-term value for taxpayers, and the current headcount, as a share of the population, remains below levels seen under the Howard government, suggesting the expansion is proportionate rather than excessive.
The case against
Critics argue that adding 28 public servants a day represents an unsustainable and poorly scrutinised expansion of taxpayer-funded government, entrenching higher structural costs in wages and pensions long after the immediate policy drivers behind the growth have passed. They contend that scrapping the staffing cap removed a valuable discipline that forced departments to justify new spending, and that a 23 per cent increase in headcount within three and a half years warrants closer evidence that this growth is genuinely efficient rather than simply larger. On this view, comparisons to 2007 staffing ratios understate the concern, since a modern, digitised public service delivering services online should plausibly require fewer, not proportionally similar, numbers of staff, and rapid growth of this scale deserves independent scrutiny rather than a minister's assurance that it is roughly the right size.