Employers, lawyers and analysts weigh in as Victoria's landmark work-from-home legislation heads for last-minute changes
Victoria's push to become the first Australian jurisdiction with a legislated right to work from home is facing its first real test, days after a change of premier – and new polling of HRD's own audience suggests the reforms were already dividing HR leaders before the rewrite began.
A LinkedIn poll run by HRD Australia asking "should WFH rights be legislated, or left to employers?" closed with 148 votes:
- 58% said leave it to employers
- 22% backed legislating the right
- 18% said it depends on the role
- 1% were undecided
That decisive lean towards employer discretion sits squarely behind the reaction now playing out in Spring Street.
Newly installed Premier Ben Carroll confirmed on Thursday that "sensible changes" to the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 will be considered, following meetings with business leaders who had opposed the reforms championed by his predecessor, Jacinta Allan.
Potential amendments reportedly include scrapping a "stacking" clause that lets employees with existing flexible arrangements claim additional WFH days, and removing employer obligations to cover remote-work equipment costs and injury liabilities.
The bill, introduced to the Victorian Parliament on 16 June 2026, would amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) to give eligible employees a statutory right to work from home for up to two days a week, with disputes running through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) and, if unresolved, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). It is due to commence on 1 September 2026, with a delayed start of 1 July 2027 for workplaces with fewer than 15 employees.
HRD Australia spoke to an employment lawyer, an HR industry analyst and a people and culture leader to unpack what the changes – and the possibility of further amendment – mean for employers and workers.
Employers see room to prepare, not panic
Tinashe Makamure, special counsel in Barry Nilsson's Insurance & Health practice, said the initial reaction from small and medium clients had been largely negative, but argued the legislation is more workable than the headlines suggest.
"In as much as it is a right, it's not an unfettered right," Makamure said. "There are mechanisms put in there to enable businesses to push back if it's not going to work for their business." He noted the law requires eligible employees to give written notice, with employers given 21 days to respond and grounds to refuse based on the inherent requirements of a role, business impact, and factors such as culture, supervision and client-facing needs.
Makamure said many clients are already auditing their workforces and formalising role requirements ahead of September, but flagged a less-discussed risk for employers: a possible rise in litigation and insurance claims. As HRD's earlier coverage of the legal risks in the bill has reported, underwriters are already weighing new employment-related policies to cover disputes arising from WFH refusals.
Analysts warn of a compliance and culture trade-off
Neal Woolrich, director analyst in the Gartner HR practice, was more sceptical of the case for legislating flexibility at all. "It imposes a requirement on employers in Victoria which goes above and beyond anything else in Australia or around the rest of the world," Woolrich said, arguing the law "swings the balance in favour of the individual needs" over team and customer needs.
He said the compliance burden would likely hit smaller businesses hardest, compounding existing pressure from declining employee engagement and rising burnout.
Woolrich's position echoes the majority view in HRD's own reader poll, where 58% of respondents said WFH rights should be left to employers rather than set in law. He was clear, however, that the legislation is unlikely to damage workplace culture itself.
"What matters is a collaborative team culture," he said. "I don't expect this legislation will have a major impact on the ability of teams to collaborate, but it's just more of that complexity and the compliance challenge that will be a frustration for employers."
His advice to HR leaders, as detailed in HRD's report on the bill's rocky path through parliament, is to get deliberate about how culture and productivity are built into work processes now that location can no longer be relied on as a lever.
Employee advocates say don't wind back progress
Not everyone welcomes the prospect of a softer bill. Anna Volkova, head of people & culture at HiBob, said Premier Carroll's signal that he will amend the laws "is a concerning step backwards for the workforce" that "risks trading progress for a short-term truce with business groups."
She argued that scaling back provisions such as cost- and injury-liability sharing "sends a message that flexibility is negotiable, when both the evidence and the workforce say otherwise," and warned that office-centric expectations "disproportionately hold back women and carers, whose careers too often stall in cultures that reward physical presence over performance."
What happens next
As HRD Australia noted when the bill was first introduced, Victoria's model was designed to sidestep Commonwealth industrial relations law by sitting inside the state's equal opportunity framework.
Whatever amendments emerge, that basic architecture – and the 1 September start date – currently remain in place. With debate on the bill required to conclude in the Victorian Parliament by Thursday, HR leaders in Victoria have only weeks to prepare for a right that may look different by the time it takes effect.
