As work patterns continue to evolve, working from home has become one of the growing trends. The Victorian government recently announced a plan to introduce legislation granting employees the right to work from home at least two days per week. As long as a position is suitable for remote work, employees in both the public and private sectors would be legally entitled to request such an arrangement. The proposal has sparked widespread attention, drawing both support and concern.
Mixed Reactions
Under the Labor government’s proposal, employees would have the legal right to work from home two days a week. If passed by parliament, Victoria would become the first state in Australia to legislate such a right. The policy aims to help employees better balance work and personal life, ease traffic congestion, and encourage more people to participate in the workforce. The legislation is expected to be introduced in 2026. Once enacted, it would grant workers a statutory right to work from home under reasonable conditions, helping households regain balance and reduce costs.
Unions have largely welcomed the proposal, calling it good news for women and families, many of whom struggle to balance jobs with childcare responsibilities. Reduced commuting also frees up time for personal matters. Remote work has already been recognized as a legitimate form of flexible work in Australia, and legislating this right would shift it from being seen as an employer’s “favor” to a guaranteed entitlement—particularly important for disadvantaged workers.
However, business groups have voiced concerns, calling the plan “excessive interference” in company operations. Many small businesses lack the resources to support remote work, particularly in sectors such as retail, hospitality, manufacturing, and customer service, where jobs must be performed on-site. A “one-size-fits-all” approach, they argue, could create difficulties in staffing and service delivery, while also imposing extra compliance costs.
Because private businesses fall under the federal Fair Work Act, it remains unclear how the Victorian government would implement such a law. Officials have said the proposal will undergo public consultation with employees, employers, and unions to ensure the reforms are practical. The bill is expected to be tabled in parliament next year. Balancing employee rights with business sustainability will require careful and flexible policy design.
The Pros and Cons of Remote Work
Work-from-home arrangements initially emerged as a temporary solution during the COVID-19 pandemic but have since drawn global attention. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), more than one-third of employees regularly work from home, with the figure rising to 60% among managers and professionals. ABS data also shows 43% of remote workers put in overtime, compared with only 25% of those who work solely on-site.
The Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) has found that flexible work not only saves money but can also increase national workforce participation. Their report shows remote workers typically spend nearly 20% more time on work compared with office-based staff. Post-pandemic, companies offering flexible arrangements have seen employee participation rise by over 4%, particularly among carers, people with disabilities, and single parents. This has strengthened arguments that remote work should be a right, not just a request.
Still, working from home comes with challenges. Many employees struggle with time management, especially younger workers who lose opportunities to learn from experienced colleagues. Remote work only functions well when it benefits both employer and employee, requiring consent and oversight. Much like online learning, it demands self-discipline and is not suited to everyone.
Social interaction is another concern. Humans are social beings, and in-person engagement fosters creativity and mental wellbeing. Virtual communication—via email, chat apps, or social media—cannot replace face-to-face interaction, which is often vital for collaboration and a sense of workplace achievement.
Why “One-Size-Fits-All” Won’t Work
During the 2007–2009 global financial crisis, Australia avoided recession, becoming the envy of the world. But today, the country faces stagnating productivity despite record-high working hours. Aside from a brief “bubble” of productivity growth during pandemic lockdowns, Australia’s economic growth is at its weakest since the early 1990s, trailing many comparable nations.
Over the past 20 years, productivity growth has dropped from an average of 1.8% to just 0.8%. A CEDA study estimates that working from home saves employees about AUD $5,300 annually, but its effects on productivity remain unclear. The impact varies across industries, companies, roles, and individuals. Successful remote work depends on planning, communication, discipline, and a suitable environment. Without these, it may reduce rather than improve productivity.
In customer-facing sectors, such as government services, remote work can make it harder for citizens to reach staff, leaving them frustrated by endless transfers and delays. This highlights the risks of enforcing blanket rules. Some roles also involve security-sensitive data or specialized equipment that cannot be accessed remotely.
Overregulation could harm both businesses and employees. For private companies, mandatory work-from-home policies may undermine managerial autonomy, reduce motivation, and hinder long-term development. While banning remote work outright would also harm workers, legislating it as a universal right risks penalizing small businesses that lack resources.
Remote work should therefore be based on mutual agreement. Employers must invest in systems to ensure productivity, while employees must exercise discipline and responsibility. Striking the right balance—between flexibility, productivity, and personal choice—requires nuance. A one-size-fits-all law is unlikely to succeed.
Parallels with Contracting Services
Under Australian labor law, employees (workers) and contractors are treated differently. Employees work under employer direction regarding hours, location, and collaboration, with employers responsible for outcomes and pay. Contractors, on the other hand, retain autonomy over how services are delivered, selling results rather than time.
From this perspective, working from home blurs the line: employees enjoy the rights of labor law but operate with the autonomy of contractors. This creates tensions, as employers may struggle to monitor performance while still being held accountable.
The Victorian government’s proposal assumes employees can self-manage effectively at home while also requiring employers to guarantee outcomes—a potential contradiction. How lawmakers address this tension will be crucial to the policy’s future.