Victorians working in large companies will have the legal right to work from home two days per week from 1 September and those in small businesses from 1 July 2027, the state has confirmed, as it pushes ahead with the changes over business groups’ objections.
WFH will be available to any worker who can work from home – something that 36 per cent of workers, including 60 per cent of professionals, already do – with the new policy expected to save families an average $5,308 per year.
New legislation, to be introduced in July, will enshrine the WFH rights in the state’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EOA) in a pivot from existing case-by-case negotiations.
Small businesses will not be exempt from the Victorian changes, although workplaces with fewer than 15 employees will have until mid-next year “to get their HR policies and procedures in order.”
“Every day, unions hear from workers denied reasonable work-from-home requests,” the state government said in confirming changes that will normalise WFH after years of debate.
One previous analysis, by Velocity Legal, noted that “a direction to work in the office is likely to be lawful if the employment contract says the work location is the employer’s office, or the contract gives the employer a right to direct the employee where to work.”
“Work from home works for families, because it saves time and money and it gets more parents working,” Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said in announcing the changes, which she said would “make life easier, safer, and more affordable.”
But is WFH a human right?
WFH has traditionally been negotiated alongside other worker entitlements, but Victoria’s decision to enshrine the new rights in the EOA effectively positions it as a human rights issue, despite a long-held understanding that it is not.
Disputes will be heard not by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) – which handles employer conflict and supports WFH through negotiation – but by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) and Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Recent FWC decisions have shown WFH arrangements are still contentious, with some decisions favouring WFH requests and others ruling they are grounds for dismissal even as the Fair Work Ombudsman outlines a complex range of issues around flexible work.
Analyses have shown WFH favours high income earners, has a gender-linked effect on mental health, is empowering for women founders and, as one analysis put it, works best “where the employment relationship and underlying work design support autonomy, clarity and trust.”
“Roles and position descriptions should be structured around clearly defined outcomes,” the Dentons experts advise, “without defaulting to physical presence as a key metric.”
Business groups are united against WFH
The policy comes despite pushback from businesses and business groups that have opposed the Victorian changes since they were announced last year.
“Concerns include (but are not limited to) the cost to the private and public sector, offshoring of jobs, loss of investment, required funding of the regulators and impending pay rise requests from frontline workers,” the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said.
“A one-size-fits-all mandate will drive investment and jobs away from the state at a time they’re needed most,” Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black warned last year, arguing that “there’s no evidence that existing laws aren’t working.”
“Achieving the right level of flexibility is done at the workplace level, in discussions between employers and employees, and there are already existing federal laws that provide rights for workers to request the flexibility they need,” he added.
Property Council of Australia executive director Cath Evans warned that “operational and legal responsibilities of businesses across Victoria” needed to be clarified and called for “balance – not blanket legislation.”
Allan’s decision not to exempt Victoria’s small businesses is another sticking point, given that last year she publicly said she would consider such an exemption.
Small businesses are “not opposed to flexible work arrangements” and already “genuinely consider reasonable requests for flexible work, including WFH,” Council of Small Business Organisations Australia CEO Skye Cappuccio said, warning the new policy “creates further uncertainty for small business owners.”
“A one-size-fits-all model simply does not reflect how small businesses operate,” she added, noting that “many small businesses rely on in-person collaboration, supervision, mentoring and on-the-job training to build skills and maintain productivity.”
Even the Productivity Commission has weighed in, with one analysis finding hybrid work “beneficial” as chair Danielle Wood argued “while debate on working from home continues, evidence suggests that Australia may have already arrived at a sensible middle ground.”
“Given the benefits these working models have unlocked,” she added, “I get nervous about developments that make it harder or more complex for business to maintain the sensible middle ground that so many have landed on.”
