Employer groups are demanding the Allan Government withdraw its work-from-home bill, even as new figures show wide support for flexible arrangements among Victorian workers
Victoria is on track to become the first Australian jurisdiction with a legislated right to work from home, but the bill designed to guarantee it has triggered a sharp standoff between the state government and the business community less than three weeks after it was tabled.
The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 was introduced to the Victorian Parliament on 16 June 2026 and had its second reading tabled the following day.
If passed in its current form, it will amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) to give eligible employees a statutory entitlement to work from home for up to two days a week, with a pro-rata equivalent for part-time and regular casual staff. The right is scheduled to take effect from 1 September 2026, with a delayed start of 1 July 2027 for employers with fewer than 15 staff.
Unlike the existing right to request flexible working arrangements under the federal Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Victorian model shifts the burden onto employers.
Rather than employees asking and businesses assessing "reasonable business grounds" for refusal, businesses will need to affirmatively demonstrate that a work-from-home notice is not reasonable, with disputes running through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) for conciliation and, if unresolved, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
As HRD's coverage of the bill's introduction to parliament notes, routing disputes through the anti-discrimination framework rather than the Fair Work Commission is a deliberate move by the state government, which cannot amend Commonwealth industrial law but can legislate within its own equal opportunity jurisdiction.
Employers call the reform unnecessary
The government has pointed to workforce and cost data to justify the bill, citing estimated savings to workers of more than $5,000 a year, largely from reduced commuting, and average time savings of more than three hours a week. It has also linked the shift to a 4.4 per cent rise in workforce participation compared with pre-pandemic levels.
Business groups reject the premise. Employer reaction gathered by HRD in the days after the bill's introduction was blunt. Tim Piper, Victorian head of the Australian Industry Group, called the legislation "unnecessary, burdensome" and said it would "create significant uncertainty for both employers and employees," adding that a large European company had already indicated the reform would influence its investment decisions in Australia.
Andrew McKellar, chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the government was "recklessly endangering the economy," warning the bill could be the "final straw" for businesses already contending with high interest rates and rising costs.
The Victorian Congress of Employer Associations (VCEA), a coalition that includes the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Property Council, issued a joint statement calling on the government to withdraw the bill outright.
The VCEA cited its own survey data showing roughly three-quarters of Victorian businesses already offer flexible work arrangements, arguing "the system is currently working" and that the legislation "creates a problem that does not exist."
Not every employer voice has been oppositional. Deborah Coram, founder and chief executive of compliance management platform Safetrac, which operates as a fully remote organisation, said the debate raises a legitimate boundary question rather than a settled one.
"The issue is not whether working from home can work. It clearly can," Coram said. "The issue is whether employers, who remain accountable for managing workplace risks, should retain enough discretion to design work in a way that is safe, effective and suited to their workforce."
She pointed to psychosocial risk management as a particular pressure point, noting that consultation, management visibility and work design all become harder to evidence once a workforce is highly distributed.
Legal and disputes risk in focus
Employment lawyers have separately flagged the compliance exposure the bill could create. Legal analysis published by HRD earlier this year quoted Tinashe Makamure, special counsel in Barry Nilsson's Insurance & Health practice, warning of "a significant increase in workplace-based claims" that would weigh on the Fair Work Commission, VCAT and state and federal courts already operating beyond capacity.
Makamure also warned that directing underperforming staff back to the office – a common performance-management tool – "could be challenged as discrimination" under the new framework.
What HR leaders are doing now
Ahead of the September 2026 start date, HR leaders are being urged to prepare rather than wait for the bill's final form. Interviews with senior people leaders reveal broad agreement that codifying work from home changes the nature of the decision-making required of employers.
Alex Cass, human capital client leader at Aon, said the change "shifts work from home from something employees ask for to something that requires clearer and fairer decision-making," while warning that smaller employers face a harder task translating the principle into practice without adding compliance burden.
Jason Bowers, head of people partnering at ForHealth Group, said the shift is likely to have flow-on effects even for organisations with largely frontline workforces, given the flexibility already extended to corporate teams.
The pattern echoes warnings issued when the framework was first foreshadowed. With 1 September 2026 and 1 July 2027 timeline now written into the bill, employers have several months' notice even as the legislative detail continued to shift.
With the bill now before parliament and business groups pushing for its withdrawal, the coming months will determine whether Victoria's model becomes, as some lawyers predict, a template other states test, or a flashpoint that reshapes how the state's employers and unions approach the next election cycle.
