At the Victorian Labor Party’s state conference (August 2025), Premier Jacinta Allan announced a world-first policy that would legally enshrine the right for eligible public and private sector employees in Victoria to work from home at least two days per week, provided their roles can be reasonably performed remotely.
Allan framed the legislation as a victory for families, carers, and productivity. She argued it would save workers about $110 per week, reduce commute time, help women and caregivers remain in the workforce, and even boost participation by roughly 4.4% since the pandemic. According to government data, WFH employees put in up to 20% more hours than their in-office counterparts.
⚠️ Business Pushback: Overreach and Economic Risk
However, business groups—including the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Australian Industry Group—have raised serious concerns. Chamber CEO Paul Guerra warned the legislation could drive firms interstate, suspend flexible employer–employee agreements, hinder productivity, and amplify workplace inequality since only a small share of jobs are remote-capable.
Similar views were echoed by CEOs from New South Wales and South Australia. They argued that mandatory WFH rules would disrupt business models and create a competitive disadvantage for Victoria, potentially benefiting rival states willing to maintain less regulation The Australian.
Legal experts also flagged potential constitutional issues: industrial relations in Australia fall under federal jurisdiction, and state laws conflicting with federal enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) could be overturned by courts.
🧭 Is Government Mandate the Right Tool?
Proponents see legislation as necessary to protect gains made during the pandemic—especially for groups vulnerable to losing access to flexible work. Allan declared: “If working from home works, it should be your right—not a privilege to request”.
Opponents argue this interferes with employer autonomy. For them, employers must retain control over scheduling, collaboration, and workplace culture. Barnaby Joyce, a federal Nationals MP, criticized the proposal as “silly,” warning that government mandates intrude into territory best left agreed upon by employers and their staff News.com.au.
Federal workplace minister Tanya Plibersek reassured that while the federal government supports flexible arrangements done sensibly, she will not override Victoria’s plans—saying WFH policy is ultimately a state matter.
📉 Real‑World Risks: Productivity, Inequality & Legal Uncertainty
1. Productivity and Culture
Business representatives warn that mandated WFH may reduce informal collaboration, erode team dynamics, and damage training support—especially in smaller firms and service industries. They also raise mental health concerns due to isolation in remote work models.
2. Unequal Impact
Since only roles suited to remote work would qualify, the policy could exacerbate workforce inequalities—benefiting professionals while frontline and service workers (e.g. hospitality, healthcare) are left behind.
3. Constitutional Conflicts
Labor law experts, like Dr. Giuseppe Carabetta from UTS, highlight the potential clash with the Fair Work Act. Under Section 109 of the Constitution, federal laws override conflicting state laws. Victorian WFH provisions may not survive legal scrutiny if they conflict with existing EBAs.
🏛️ Are There Signs of Compromise?
Allan insists consultations via the Department of Premier and Cabinet will focus on drafting laws that are legally sound, covering definitions such as “reasonable” remote work and business size applicability. But she emphasized that these consultations would not determine whether the law proceeds—only how it should work if enacted.
Meanwhile, Victorian Liberal leader Brad Battin signaled conditional openness, supporting hybrid flexibility but emphasizing productivity, choice, and employer negotiation.
🎯 Broader Context: Too Much Government, Too Little Flexibility?
The proposal arrives amid broader national discord over remote work. Efforts by federal opposition leader Peter Dutton to limit WFH during the last election were widely disliked, contributing to his party’s defeat. Labor argues that entrenched flexibility must be protected, but the reality is that employer–employee agreements have already evolved to reflect modern needs News.com.au.
In effect, Victoria’s legislation preempts what many say should remain voluntary negotiations—not government diktats.
📊 Why Employer–Employee Negotiation Works Better
A. Flexibility in Context
Many companies already offer hybrid models suited to their industry, size, and workforce. These arrangements are regularly updated and tailored to each workplace. A one-size-fits-all rule may limit businesses’ operational agility.
B. Adaptive Efficiency
Businesses understand workplace dynamics best. Mandated policies reduce the ability to respond to changing needs—such as periods of high collaboration or client-facing demands.
C. Best Practices Evolve Naturally
Most firms now adopt flexible frameworks based on remote-capable roles, performance outcomes, and staff well-being. These models evolve with business cycles—not static rules.
⚖️ Where Victoria Missed the Mark
- Premature politicization: The announcement was widely seen as a vote‑catching move ahead of the 2026 election rather than a considered workplace reform The Guardian.
- Legal ambiguity: Drafts rely on consultation to patch potential federal conflicts—creating risk they may be overturned in court.
- Overlooking complexity: Many roles that can work remotely still require reaction to procedural developments (e.g. frontline services, training, meetings), making rigid rights hard to calibrate.
- Ignoring dissent within employer voices: Business NSW and SA Chamber echoed concerns; yet Allan pushed forward, signaling intent to legislate regardless of opposition.
🧭 What Should Be the Middle Ground?
- Encourage model agreements: Industry-wide guidelines co-developed by employers and unions could outline flexible frameworks without legal rigidity.
- Support expanded rights softly: Boosting worker negotiation power via mechanisms like the right to request remote arrangements—without legal mandates—can encourage flexibility while protecting autonomy.
- Enhance dispute resolution: Empower Fair Work Commission processes to handle unjust denials of reasonable WFH requests.
- Prioritize review and evaluation: Any implemented scheme should undergo rigorous impact assessment—including legal, economic, and workplace performance metrics.
✅ Key Takeaway
The Victorian government’s proposed legislation enshrining a legal right to work from home for eligible employees marks a dramatic shift in workplace regulation—and one many say goes too far. While its intent to promote flexibility and participation is laudable, critics argue the policy:
- risks economic competitiveness,
- may face constitutional invalidity,
- disrupts the evolving employer–employee consensus,
- and fails to account for workplace diversity.
Ultimately, policy resistance arises when government oversteps into negotiated space. Workplace flexibility works best when shaped by employers and employees based on trust, communication, and mutual goals. Legislated entitlements may solve one challenge—but risk undermining flexibility for many others.
Disclosure:
The information above is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, trading advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All investments carry risk, including the possible loss of principal. Always conduct your own research or consult a licensed financial professional before making any investment decision.