What HR leaders have to say about Victoria’s new WFH laws

Victoria’s move to legislate a minimum two days’ work from home (where possible) is set to reshape how employers think about flexibility, policy and employee expectations.

While the changes are still being digested, HR leaders are already weighing up what the reforms mean in practice – especially in sectors where hybrid work is well‑established, and in organisations juggling very different types of roles.

Two senior people leaders – Jason Bowers, head of people partnering at ForHealth Group, and Alex Cass, human capital client leader at Aon, believe the laws bring both welcome clarity and real implementation challenges, particularly for small and mid‑sized employers.

From “perk” to entitlement

Cass said the legislation formalises a shift that has been under way since the pandemic.

“Hybrid work is no longer a perk. It is part of how many roles now operate. Many employees see it as supporting participation and balance,” she said.

The changes move work from home from a discretionary benefit into something more akin to a right that must be considered and managed systematically.

“This shifts work from home from something employees ask for to something that requires clearer and fairer decision‑making,” Cass explained.

“For employees, it provides certainty where flexibility is already working. For employers, particularly larger ones, it reinforces the need for clear role definitions, expectations, and outcomes.”

That clarity can be positive for HR leaders who have spent the past few years arbitrating individual WFH requests on the fly. But it also raises the bar on governance.

“Organisations operating in Australia will also need to ensure they understand and meet local legislative requirements,” Cass noted.

“For smaller businesses, the challenge will be applying the principle in a practical way without adding unnecessary complexity or compliance burden.”

Bowers agrees that codification is likely to change employee behaviour – and potentially dispute trends – as WFH becomes more formally enshrined.

“As soon as you make something an entitlement, employees will have more opportunity to pursue it,” he said. “We’ll be watching how Fair Work and the Victorian regulators approach dispute resolution. Ideally, you don’t see a wave of cases; common sense and good consultation should prevent that.”

Bowers noted that the federal right to disconnect laws were expected by many to see a flood of litigation, but in the end, this was not the case.

Limited direct impact for frontline-heavy employers – but wider ripple effects

ForHealth Group, which operates around 110 medical practices and employs roughly 3,500 people across Australia, is typical of many healthcare and frontline organisations: a large proportion of its workforce simply cannot work from home.

However, the company’s corporate and state‑based teams already work flexibly with no strict mandate.

For organisations like ForHealth, the laws may not force wholesale change – but HR leaders are watching for indirect impacts: on patient and customer flows in mixed‑use hubs, on local businesses that depend on office worker foot traffic, and on how expectations of hybrid work spread across different sectors and role types.

“I think it will have a flow‑on effect for other businesses,” said Bowers. “A lot of our centres are large facilities in community‑based hubs, and the surrounding businesses rely on office workers coming in. There’s a broader economic and community lens to consider, not just what happens within one organisation’s four walls.”

“The real issue is not flexibility itself”

Both leaders stress that flexibility is here to stay – the real challenge is making sure it’s applied in a way that is fair, transparent and operationally sound.

“Not every role can be done remotely, and a one size fits all approach will not work. Employees will be looking for fair and transparent decisions,” Cass said.

“Employers, particularly small businesses, will need room to define what is reasonable in practice, so performance, customer needs, and team cohesion are not compromised.”

Bowers said that among his peer network, there is broad support for hybrid work – but also a strong belief that business context needs to remain central.

“Most organisations now offer a hybrid model, and candidates expect that question to be answered early in the hiring process,” he said.

“The sentiment I’m hearing is that hybrid should be adopted where it makes sense, but businesses also need the ability to design models that reflect their industry and operating needs.”

The small business dimension

Cass pointed out that larger organisations are typically better equipped to absorb and operationalise new WFH obligations.

Smaller businesses, on the other hand, rely on more “informal arrangements which can increase the risk of inconsistency, non‑compliance, or employee grievances linked to work from home decisions.”

That informality has often been a strength – allowing pragmatic, case‑by‑case flexibility. The new framework may require SMEs to document decision‑making more explicitly, without losing that agility.

“The policy highlights that flexibility can look different depending on scale, even when the intent is the same,” Cass added.

For HR leaders advising smaller employers, this will likely mean simple, principle‑based policies that set out how WFH requests are assessed, basic documentation of decisions to demonstrate consistency, and training line managers to have constructive, evidence‑based conversations about what is and isn’t possible.

What HR leaders should be doing now

With details still being worked through, both experts see this as a preparation phase for people and culture teams:

1. Map your roles: Identify which roles can reasonably work from home two days a week, which cannot, and the objective reasons why.
2. Tighten policies and processes: Ensure your flexible work and WFH policies are up to date, clearly worded, and aligned with the forthcoming Victorian framework.
3. Support your managers: Equip leaders with talking points and guidance to handle WFH conversations consistently and confidently.
4. Engage early with employees: Set expectations about how the organisation will approach the new laws, emphasising both the benefits and the practical constraints.
5. Monitor the regulatory landscape: Watch for guidance, case examples and dispute trends – and be ready to adjust your approach as best practice evolves.

For Bowers, the hope is that, as with right to disconnect, fears of a contentious, litigation‑heavy environment won’t be realised if employers and employees approach the change in good faith.

“It’s still fairly new, so we’ve just got to wait and see how it all unfolds,” he said. “Ideally, there isn’t a lot of arbitration and common sense prevails. If organisations are transparent about their decisions and engage their people early, there’s a good chance this can settle into a workable, balanced model for most.”