Victoria’s Work-From-Home Rights: What Employers Need to Know as Ben Carroll Takes the Reins

Victoria’s proposed work-from-home reforms have entered a period of political uncertainty following the appointment of Premier Ben Carroll.

The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 (Vic) (WFH Bill) was introduced on 16 June 2026 and would, if passed, create a statutory right for eligible Victorian employees to work from home for up to two days per week where it is reasonable to do so. However, despite an original proposed commencement date of 1 September 2026, the WFH Bill remains before Parliament, and its future is far from certain.

The change in leadership has introduced a further layer of uncertainty. Premier Carroll has indicated that he intends to consult with business groups and consider potential amendments before the WFH Bill proceeds through the Legislative Council. With only limited sitting days remaining before the proposed commencement date, and a state election due in November, employers should be cautious about assuming the reforms will take effect as drafted, or within the anticipated timeframe.

In this article, we look at key aspects of the current WFH Bill, its likely impact on employers, and the practical steps organisations should consider while the legislation remains before Parliament.

What is proposed?

Importantly, the WFH Bill does not create an unrestricted right to work from home. Rather, it creates a statutory framework through which eligible employees may work from home for up to two days per week where it is reasonable for them to do so.

If passed in its current form, the WFH Bill would represent a significant departure from the existing framework under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). At present, eligible employees may request flexible work arrangements, including working from home, and employers may refuse those requests on reasonable business grounds.

Under the Victorian proposal, eligible employees would instead provide a written work-from-home notice identifying when and where they propose to work from home. The employer would then be required to assess whether the arrangement is reasonable under the statutory framework and provide a written response. The practical significance of the WFH Bill lies not only in the right itself, but in the shift in responsibility from an employee seeking approval to an employer needing to justify a refusal.

Who is eligible?

The proposed right applies to full-time and part-time employees, as well as casual employees engaged on a regular and systematic basis, where it is reasonable for their work to be performed at home. Part-time and casual employees would receive an equivalent pro rata entitlement.

Certain categories of workers are excluded, including employees on probation, apprentices, trainees, interns, graduate program participants, work experience participants, irregular casual employees, and some gig economy workers.

Employers should also be aware that the interaction between the WFH Bill and existing flexible work provisions under the FW Act is not straightforward. Employees who are already entitled to request flexible working arrangements under the FW Act in certain circumstances may continue to use that federal framework rather than the Victorian notice process. Existing workplace flexibility and hybrid working policies may also continue to operate alongside the proposed scheme.

When are the proposed changes scheduled to commence?

Under the WFH Bill as currently drafted, the proposed commencement date is 1 September 2026 for most employers, with a delayed commencement date of 1 July 2027 for employers with fewer than 15 employees.

Whether those commencement dates remain achievable may depend on the progress of the WFH Bill through the Legislative Council and whether any amendments are ultimately introduced.

How would the notice and response process operate?

Under the WFH Bill, an employee seeking to exercise the right would provide a written work-from-home notice specifying the days, times and location from which they intend to work. Employers would then have 21 days to respond.

While much of the public discussion has focused on the headline entitlement of “two days per week”, the more significant change for many employers may be the decision-making framework that accompanies it.

The WFH Bill limits the matters that employers can take into account when assessing whether it is reasonable for an employee to work from home. Relevant considerations include whether the inherent requirements of the role can be performed remotely, whether physical attendance is required to access equipment or facilities, and whether the arrangement would have a significant adverse impact on matters such as productivity, customer service or confidentiality.

If an employer concludes that a proposed arrangement is not reasonable, it would need to provide written reasons explaining that decision. As a result, the quality of an employer’s role analysis, operational evidence and decision-making records may become increasingly important.

Dispute resolution

If enacted, disputes relating to the proposed right would be dealt with through the Victorian equal opportunity framework.

Complaints may initially be directed to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and, if unresolved, may proceed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT would have the power to make orders affecting the work-from-home arrangement in question.

For employers, the practical risk is not simply the prospect of an adverse decision. Decisions that are poorly documented, inconsistent, or unsupported by evidence are likely to be more difficult to defend if challenged.

What about work-from-home costs?

One of the most controversial aspects of the WFH Bill is the requirement for employers to cover reasonable costs necessary to facilitate an approved work-from-home arrangement. Employer groups have argued that the concept of “reasonable costs” creates uncertainty regarding the potential financial exposure for businesses.

Recent reporting suggests that the Government may remove aspects of the proposed obligation relating to remote work set-up expenses. However, no formal Government amendments have yet been recorded in Parliament. Until the legislation is finalised, employers should be cautious about assuming that either the current provisions or reported alternatives will ultimately become law.

What are the practical implications for employers?

The significance of the WFH Bill extends beyond the number of days employees may work remotely. For many employers, the more important question is how the proposed reforms may change the way work-from-home arrangements are assessed, approved and challenged.

• Reduced employer discretion. Many organisations have developed hybrid working models that reflect their operational requirements, workforce needs and client expectations. If enacted, the WFH Bill may limit the extent to which employers can rely solely on organisational policy settings, requiring individual arrangements to be assessed against statutory criteria.
  
  
• Additional complexity for national employers. A Victorian-specific work-from-home right may require national employers to manage different workplace arrangements across jurisdictions. This could create challenges in maintaining consistency, managing employee expectations and applying national workforce policies.
  
  
• Increased compliance and administrative burden. Employers may need to navigate multiple flexibility frameworks, including the FW Act, internal policies and the proposed Victorian scheme. This may require more detailed assessments, record-keeping and written decision-making processes.
  
  
• Greater scrutiny and dispute risk. The WFH Bill would create a formal pathway for disputes through the Victorian equal opportunity framework. As a result, employers may face increased scrutiny of work-from-home decisions, with greater emphasis placed on having clear, evidence-based reasons for any refusal.

Taken together, these reforms have the potential to shift work-from-home discussions from a matter of organisational preference to one of legal entitlement. For employers, the key challenge may be adapting existing workplace practices to a framework that places greater emphasis on individual assessment, justification and accountability.

Key takeaways: What should employers do now?

While the legislation’s final form remains uncertain, employers do not need to wait for the outcome before considering how the proposed reforms may affect their workforce and workplace practices.

In particular, employers may wish to:

• Review current hybrid and office attendance arrangements to identify where the proposed reforms may require more individualised decision-making or greater justification for attendance requirements;
• Consider which roles can genuinely be performed remotely and which roles require physical attendance due to operational, supervision, service delivery, collaboration, safety or confidentiality requirements;
• Assess whether existing policies and processes provide managers with a consistent and defensible framework for evaluating and documenting work-from-home decisions;
• Understand how the proposed Victorian scheme may interact with existing flexible work rights under the FW Act, workplace policies and contractual arrangements;
• Review occupational health and safety, privacy, confidentiality and technology requirements associated with home-based work; and
• Monitor the WFH Bill’s progress closely, including any amendments that may affect employer obligations, dispute resolution processes or cost implications.

While there is no need for employers to overhaul their existing hybrid work arrangements at this stage, now is an appropriate time to identify potential areas of risk and prepare for a range of legislative outcomes. Organisations that start considering these issues early will be better placed to respond quickly if the reforms proceed.

How we can help

The proposed reforms have the potential to introduce a fundamentally different framework for work-from-home decision-making in Victoria.

Our Workplace Relations team can assist employers to understand the WFH Bill’s practical implications, assess current hybrid working arrangements, navigate the interaction with the FW Act, review policies and procedures, and develop a defensible process for assessing and documenting work-from-home decisions.

For employers with significant Victorian workforces, national policy settings or operational requirements that depend on workplace attendance, now is an appropriate time to understand the potential impact of the proposed reforms and prepare for a range of possible outcomes.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

---

^{Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to you or your organisation.}