Parliament delivers massive blow to Victoria's plan to make working from home twice a week a right
Victoria's controversial proposal to make working from home twice a week a right for workers has been sent to a parliamentary committee for a review, in a move that businesses said is a "victory for common sense."
Victorian Premier Ben Carroll failed on Thursday to garner enough support for the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026, which was introduced by his predecessor Jacinta Allan.
The bill attempted to introduce a world-first legislation aimed at making working from home twice a week a right for employees whose jobs can be reasonably done from home.
The House, however, agreed to send the bill to a Select Committee for inquiry, consideration, and report by 20 October.
"Further consideration of this Bill has been deferred until the Select Committee reports back to the Council," the state government's website read.
The review was initiated by Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP Jeff Bourman, who said that there were a "lot of questions that need to be asked."
"I think there's a lot of questions that need to be asked before we can, really, with all good conscience, pass this through," Bourman said as quoted by the Australian Financial Review.
'Victory for common sense'
The move to further review the legislation was welcomed by business groups, who have long opposed the proposal.
The Australian Industry Group said in a statement that the review is a "victory for common sense."
"Employers have said for many months that this legislation should be scrapped. We remain strongly of that view and encourage the Government to accept that this legislation should be dead and buried," said Tim Piper, Victorian head of the Ai Group and chair of the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations (VCEA).
"Businesses have told us this legislation is anti-business. It's the policy of division and created for a different era. It creates winners and losers for the employees and discourages business from investing."
VCEA members have previously criticised the bill for raising serious concerns on productivity, workplace flexibility, investment attractiveness, compliance costs, and potential increase of workplace disputes.
The government attempted to address business concerns by adding measures that ensure it will only apply to Victoria-based staff, limit reasonable employer-paid costs to essential equipment and ensure that employers won't be responsible for paying home internet or other basic utilities.
The bill also ensures that it will not create any additional rights to vary an employment agreement's days and times, and states that employers can issue a temporary pause or revoke WFH in cases where the arrangement is not reasonable.
The start date for the right was also pushed back to 1 July 2027 for big business, and 1 January 2028 for employers with fewer than 15 staff.
Businesses, however, continued to reject the proposal.
"We acknowledge the Premier's willingness to consult with business groups. However, despite Premier Ben Carroll offering a significant range of amendments, those amendments do not fix a fundamentally flawed law that will risk Victoria's economy and send jobs interstate," said the Business Council of Australia ahead of Parliament's vote.
"The Bill should be abandoned, and no amendment can fix its fundamental problems."
Tight deadline for Carroll
Premier Carroll has slammed the opposition for voting to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee, and further accused the Liberals of "teaming up" with One Nation to vote down the laws, according to the AFR's report.
"This [bill] has been in the parliament for three months. They have been dead quiet, except to say we support it. Then look at what they've done," Carroll said as quoted by the AFR.
Second reading of the bill has been deferred until the final committee report is presented to the House, with Carroll now facing a tight deadline if he wants to push the bill before the state's November elections.
The premier will need to recall Parliament if he wants to pass the WFH laws, but the AFR reported that he refused to say whether he would do so.
