The Victorian parliament is expected to pass Australian-first laws this week that would guarantee workers the right to work from home two days a week. The bill, first announced in 2025 by then premier Jacinta Allan, has undergone several amendments following consultations with business leaders.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The legislation establishes a statutory right for eligible employees to work from home for up to two days weekly, provided it is “reasonably” feasible, under the Equal Opportunity Act. This right applies to all Victorian employees, including part-timers and casuals on a pro-rata basis, and to all businesses regardless of size.
Under the bill, employees must submit a written “work from home notice” to their employer. Employers can only refuse or modify these arrangements based on specific criteria outlined in the bill, a significant shift from the current position under the commonwealth government’s Fair Work Act 2009, which allows certain employees to request flexible arrangements under specific circumstances, including if they are living with a disability, are a carer, or are pregnant.
The bill also creates a pathway to resolve disputes between employees and employers, initially via the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. If conciliation fails, the matter can proceed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which can mandate the employer to allow home-based work.
Amendments and Delays
Initially, Allan proposed the bill take effect on 1 September, with a delayed start for small businesses on 1 July 2027. However, Carroll announced in July that the commencement date would be delayed to 1 July 2027. On Wednesday, additional amendments were announced, including a further delay for small businesses to 1 January 2028.
Under the changes, employers can now provide notice to revoke the right to work from home for an employee if “circumstances change and they’re no longer eligible, or it’s no longer reasonable for them to keep working from home.” The bill’s scope has also been tweaked – instead of employers having to prove that working from home would have a “significant adverse impact” on efficiency and productivity, they now only have to demonstrate a “material impact.”
Employers will also only have to cover essential equipment costs for the employee to be able to do their role, such as hardware and software and secure IT access, and the bill specifically excludes internet expenses.
Business and Legal Reactions
In a social media post on Monday, Carroll said the “sensible” amendments “make them practical and affordable for businesses, while preserving the right for workers.” However, business groups have reacted with fury. On Tuesday, a joint statement was released by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and others, which said the amendments “do not fix a fundamentally flawed law that will risk Victoria’s economy and send jobs interstate.”
“The bill should be abandoned, and no amendment can fix its fundamental problems,” the groups said. Since the bill was first announced, these groups have consistently expressed their readiness to launch a legal challenge if they were to pass parliament. They reaffirmed their stance on Tuesday.
The Property Council of Victoria on Tuesday announced it had obtained legal advice from constitutional law specialists, Nick Wood SC and Leigh Howard, which found the bill was inconsistent with the federal Fair Work Act and would be rendered invalid under section 109 of the constitution. This section states that when a state law is inconsistent with a federal law, it becomes invalid.
“In our view the WFH bill is inconsistent with the Fair Work Act, and will therefore be inoperative if it is enacted,” the lawyers advised the Property Council. “There would be no question of whether or not part of the WFH bill is able to be preserved; the entire scheme that is established by the WFH bill would be inoperative.”
The council did not release the full advice, saying it was commercial in confidence. But executive director Cath Evans said: “On the basis of the legal advice we have received, the Victorian public is being sold a very costly lemon.” When asked about potential legal action, Carroll said that it was a “matter for business groups.”
