The Victorian Allan Government has decided that working from home (WFH) should no longer sit in the realm of an employers’ workplace policy. Instead, it is an employees’ human right.
From 1 September 2026, Victorian employees whose roles can reasonably be performed remotely are to gain a statutory entitlement to work from home at least two days per week, with legislation expected to be introduced in July 2026.
On its face, “two days” does not sound too extreme. Since COVID lockdowns, most employers who can offer hybrid work already do. The significance of this reform is not the number of days. It is the enforcement architecture. The Victorian Government proposes to enshrine the entitlement in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), the state’s core anti-discrimination framework. If an employer refused an employee WFH “request”, disputes would be funnelled through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) and, if not resolved there, VCAT. By using this legislative architecture, the Government is declaring that WFH is a human right and this potentially will lead to other consequences. Instead of employers setting their own standards for what works for their businesses, this encourages a litigious environment where disagreements are escalated, and employers are forced to defend operational decisions in legal proceedings.
The Government’s pitch for this is “fairness”, backed by polling and sentiment. It points to survey results and the obvious upsides of working from home: less commuting, more time, higher participation and better balance. It’s not hard to see why that sells electorally, especially for a Government struggling in the polls with an election months away. But public sentiment is not a management framework. A survey does not supervise a graduate, secure client data, train a new hire, address underperformance, keep a call centre staffed or run an effective site meeting.
Even inside one organisation, “reasonably performed remotely” changes depending on the task, the team, the systems, the client, the seniority and the learning curve. A role might be remote on paper, until you factor in onboarding, confidentiality, real-time collaboration, or the simple reality that some problems are solved faster when people are physically in the same room.
That is why, until now, the best version of flexibility has usually been the simple one: discretion, consultation, trial periods and sensible adjustments. The moment you legislate a number, you replace pragmatism with a benchmark people will argue about. Two days stops being a starting point and becomes a line in the sand.
The most predictable unintended consequence is that a right sold as flexibility will produce more rules than the genuine flexible arrangements it replaces. Once inconsistency becomes legal risk, many employers will respond by standardising. Managers who previously handled requests with common sense will be told to follow a formal framework. Exceptions become precedents. “Yes, because it works for your team” becomes “No, because it would be inconsistent across comparable roles.” A workplace that once allowed three days here and one day there may end up with a hardened policy of exactly two, precisely because the law has made “two” the safest number.
And it’s hard to see what problem this legislation solves that workplaces aren’t already solving. Hybrid work expanded because businesses and employees found models that worked, not because Parliament forced a minimum. When conditions change, good flexibility changes with them. A legislated entitlement can’t pivot; it litigates.
This is where the language and purpose of this legislation gets slippery. Australia normally looks to instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Labor governments to the institutions like the International Labour Organization, when we talk about rights and minimum standards. Yet it is difficult to locate the convention, declaration or treaty where either body concludes that opening a laptop at the kitchen table on a Tuesday is a universal human right – that employers must provide. Human rights frameworks are about dignity, safety, equality and freedom from discrimination, not a management manual for hybrid rostering. Declaring WFH a “right” means the same legislative framework built to stop discrimination, racism, sexism, harassment, is now being asked to referee where and when you open your laptop.
Minimum wages and safety laws set floors because they protect people from harm and exploitation. Work location is different. It is part of how an organisation structures operations, maintains service standards, develops talent and manages risk. Legislating a fixed minimum, and placing it inside discrimination legislation, blurs the line between protecting workers and micro-managing business. It devalues genuine human rights to seek to promote WFH in this way.
The other questions that arise is that if WFH is genuinely a human right – why is it limited to two days a week. It would be absurd to impose a time limitation on other human rights. This goes to demonstrate this is nothing more than a vote buying exercise. The Victorian Government knows WFH is popular – even amongst employees who can’t work from home (as it often means there is less congestion on the roads and public transport when they travel to work). The Government are trying to create a wedge issue for the Victorian Opposition to encourage them to oppose this electorally popular legislation.
Other issues that arise include the impact this may have longer term. Will young people choose careers and industries that enable WFH. Do we risk failing to attract young people to crucial jobs that can’t be performed effectively at home – police, nurses, childcare, teaching, construction workers, trades – to name a few.
Also, if a job can be performed completely from home – does it need to be performed in Victoria or Australia at all? Will more and more employers decide to have work performed in other jurisdictions where the wage and compliance costs are a fraction of our Australian levels and standards?
Finally, this is not an argument against hybrid work. WFH can be smart and commercially sensible – we do it successfully at our own firm. The issue is turning it into a one-size entitlement across an economy that is anything but uniform.
These laws are being put in because they sound nice for employees but not because they are necessarily better for them. This is politics at play: the devaluation of human rights and a more legalised, less flexible workplace will be the cost for everyone all because it’s an election year.
