The Victorian government is set to introduce legislation that would enshrine the right for employees to work from home at least two days a week. Premier Jacinta Allan announced this initiative as part of a broader plan aimed at providing legal protections for remote work, a move that has garnered both support and criticism across the political and business landscapes.
Tanya Plibersek, a senior member of the federal government, confirmed that her party would not intervene in Victoria’s legislative efforts. Speaking on Channel 7’s Sunrise program, Plibersek emphasized her support for flexible work arrangements, stating, “We know that Australians value it, and when Peter Dutton tried to get rid of it in the last election, there was quite a backlash.” This sentiment reflects the significance of remote work in recent electoral debates, particularly during the last federal election where the Coalition’s opposition to such arrangements is believed to have contributed to their electoral defeat.
Allan outlined that the proposed changes would be integrated into the existing Equal Opportunity Act. She stressed that the intention is not to conflict with federal laws but to enhance protections at the state level. “What we’re choosing to do here in Victoria is build on that floor to protect working from home as a right,” she noted.
While the initiative is aimed at benefiting workers, it has raised concerns among business leaders. Scott Veenker, chief executive of the Committee for Melbourne, criticized the proposal as unnecessary. He argued that existing working-from-home policies, determined by employers, have been effective and questioned the need for additional legal protections. “The reality is, working from home is something that businesses and employees have embraced,” Veenker stated. He expressed skepticism about state intervention, asserting that workplace relations should remain under federal jurisdiction.
The push for legislative change is not without its complexities. Giuseppe Carabetta, an associate professor of workplace and business law at the University of Technology Sydney, warned that any new state laws might face constitutional challenges. He explained, “Employers would likely argue the new laws were invalid because they were inconsistent with the federal Fair Work Act.” Carabetta acknowledged that while the proposal could improve workplace conditions, particularly for women and caregivers, it might be driven by political motivations in light of recent electoral shifts.
Allan defended the plan, asserting that remote work arrangements not only enhance employee satisfaction but also boost productivity. She cited data indicating that employees working from home can increase their hours by up to 20 percent. “When we have the opportunity to protect something that works for workers and is good for business, then of course I’m going to take that opportunity,” she said.
The Victorian opposition has distanced itself from the federal Coalition by supporting the concept of flexible working arrangements. Opposition leader Brad Battin acknowledged the importance of hybrid working but expressed the need for clarity on the specifics of the proposed legislation. “At the moment, not even the premier can come out and explain to anyone what the legislative rights are,” he remarked.
As the Victorian government moves forward with its plan, the debate surrounding remote work continues to evolve. The outcome of this legislative initiative could set a significant precedent for labor relations in Australia, influencing how work-from-home policies are structured and implemented across the country.
