Wednesday, 13 August 2025

Working from home

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (16:16): It is great to rise and contribute to the grievance debate. I grieve for a future that is ever led by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Brighton. We have seen in recent days an extraordinary attack on the rights of working people in Victoria and in this nation with the commentary on people’s right to work from home. I will go through a litany of that in the next little while to take you through. But in the words of the member for Brighton himself:

This government is expert in paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to back office bureaucrats who aren’t delivering any services for Victorians …

And he said that thousands of back office staff had a ‘sweetheart deal’. That is how the member for Brighton describes the public service here in opposing the right to work from home.

This is a significant frontier in supporting Victorian families into the future. We have seen this announcement made by the Premier, which is a landmark announcement coming forward. What is really curious in this is they have more positions on this policy than a kaleidoscope. There are so many different frames that we see. We see a very close colleague, a federal member in the Canberra Parliament and a very close regional ally of the member for Brighton, Tim Wilson – you might have heard of him. Tim Wilson describes working from home as ‘apartheid’. Oh my goodness, to describe the rights of people to work from home and have balance in their life in such a way – what an extraordinary comment. That was like, in cricketing terms, a bit of a half-volley – you know, just to send that back. I thought the member for Berwick and Leader of the Opposition would put that over the fence. If anyone heard the media interview with Tom Elliott, it should have been a bit of a through to the keeper. The member for Hawthorn has had a few goes on there. He was not as friendly to the member for Hawthorn with the back end of some of their programming. But it is a bit of a free go to get your confidence up as a new opposition leader: ‘What is the weather today?’, ‘How bad is Labor?’ and those kinds of questions. You would think this one you could put over the fence. You would think this one he could put into the crowd – see ball, hit ball. No. He could not form a position on working from home.

This opens up a significant frontier in the destabilisation of policy on that side and how disorganised the opposition is, because the member for Brighton is firmly opposed to the rights of Victorians to work from home. The Leader of the Opposition does not have a policy that is not defined by what he reads at 5 am or 6 am in the clips of the Herald Sun. Do not take my word for it. I will go to the puff piece that was in the Herald Sun in June 2025. I do not know if you have come across this, but it is a bit of a goodie. This one’s title is ‘Those who still see Matthew Guy as a viable replacement look to Jeff Kennett’s record as losing two elections before finally winning government’. Ironically, history repeats itself. It is August now, and the spring blooms are coming. It is the penultimate year before we hit an election campaign, and you just see the momentum of the member for Bulleen start to roll. We feel that now – we feel the energy and the purpose. You saw just a bit more noise in question time. It is always a bit of a signal that we are coming into the season here. Well, what do those opposite describe the member for Berwick, the Leader of the Opposition as? The article says:

Battin’s –

as they call him, or the member for Berwick’s –

leadership has failed to excite colleagues and members in his first six months …

They say in this article:

In recent weeks mutterings about Battin’s leadership have evolved into open conversations among colleagues.

It is extraordinary when you see this; this was meant to be the saviour of unity coming through. There was the former Leader of the Opposition the member for Hawthorn when the member for Malvern was polling well at that time – there are too many eerie similarities here – and he was doing all right, up in that sort of territory, and then in came the member for Bulleen, and then it all sort of cascaded off a bit. Maybe it was a bit because of the former member for Kew and what he was up to.

But you see now a diminishing and an undermining and the backgrounding of colleagues once again, and it means that they are not fit for government. One only has to look at the massive internal nuclear hit on the member for Nepean. It was an extraordinary piece – an extraordinary piece – that was utterly personal, utterly despicable. And you read that and you go, ‘Gee whiz, if anyone had that feeling about me in the Labor Party, goodness me, I’d just walk off and that would be it.’ But that absolute brutality shows that they are divided and cannot govern themselves.

When you count it up, there used to be more Davids than women on the front bench. Do you remember that era? Now there are more Liberals in court than not in court. It is absolutely extraordinary. I used to be on the administrative committee of the ALP, and it used to get a bit wheeling and it would be a few hours. Touch wood, I never saw an opportunity to go down to the court circuit and then make a lodgement. That is what we are dealing with here. This is the level of behaviour of those that want to govern Victorians. When you are more interested in smashing each other than actually governing and doing the work in policy –

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Mordialloc.

Tim RICHARDSON: Sorry, Speaker. There we go. Yes. A good reminder there – smashing those opposite. You see that and you go, ‘What is this really about?’ It is about power for power’s sake. When you look at some of the reports around working from home and the productivity gains, you think of those economic wizards over there who always talk themselves up. Remember that old chestnut, ‘Oh, we can manage major projects; we do so well.’ They had nine major projects in the Napthine–Baillieu years. Do you know how many we have had on this side? 392 major projects, government projects. For those opposite one of those major projects, I have it on good authority, was putting the stickers down at Southern Cross station. Remember that? There was a procurement requirement that the stickers came from Officeworks, supporting local jobs and local workers. And then you had the stickers put down. Poor tourists used to walk out of Southern Cross destined for Melbourne Airport, and they would just head to the V/Line. They would end up out in Warrnambool. They would end up in Bairnsdale going, ‘Hang on, I thought I was going to airport rail. These stickers said “There’s airport rail coming”; what is going on?’ That is the economic wizards over there.

Roma Britnell interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: Well, if you just read the productivity report – and the member for South-West Coast comes in off the short run here – the productivity report right here says that work from home is productive for the Victorian and the Australian economies. And my learned friends, those opposite, if they bothered to read this, would see that this is just absolute gold rather than apartheid, as the member for Goldstein says – or the member for Brighton demanding they come back. Peter Dutton, the former Leader of the Opposition, was not one for rolling back, but remember that press conference? ‘Oh, we got it wrong. We listen.’

Roma Britnell interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: The member for South-West Coast says, ‘Talk about something.’ They are opposed to work from home. This is a significant government policy. Those opposite are opposed to work from home, and those in the South-West Coast electorate are going to be punished because of the policies of the member for South-West Coast. This is why. An expert, a professor at the University of New South Wales, Professor Ahuja of the business school, said – this was the headline here:

I don’t know if it’s intentionally anti-women to ask people to come back to [office] work full time, but it’s important to consider that in the decision-making because if you don’t, it ends up being anti-women …

this policy. She also said:

Although 36 per cent of Australians regularly work from home, research shows women are disproportionately affected by directives to return to the office …

I am someone who does a bit of empirical research in the work that I do. I try to bring a bit of research. And I thought, ‘What could be a correlation to not understanding a policy is anti-women? Would it be representation and quotas in representation in the Parliament – if those opposite had a few more voices around the cabinet table?’ Remember their representation in the federal Parliament, the lack of female representation and the lack of frontbench representation here. And it just shows that when you do not have the representation in your party room, when you do not respect the views of women in Victoria, you come up with policies that are not sanctioned by shadow cabinet and have an absolute brain thought from the member for Brighton to ban work from home. That is right: Victorian workers will suffer under those opposite with a ban on working from home. They will oppose this policy. A close confidant and friend of the member for Brighton, the member for Goldstein, described this as apartheid. You could not describe in more inflammatory terms supporting workers and supporting women in the workforce.

A part-time framework for this is said to increase productivity and be good for the Victorian and the Australian economies. If you are only looking at the economics of how significant and important this is, this is the right policy to be talking about; this is the right thing to do. But I think those opposite are too divided, too disconnected from their constituency and the people that they hope or plead to serve and more interested in serving those that put them into their positions – their local membership or their administrative committees – to actually then front up to this policy, and we see that. Just reminding people: the member for Brighton is opposed to it, the member for Berwick does not know what day it is and the member in the federal Parliament describes it as apartheid. These are the kinds of conversations that Victorians will be having into the future about the approach to work from home. That is the contrast right there of those opposite.

Richard Riordan interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: The member for Polwarth intervenes. Do you remember the member for Polwarth had that beautiful interview on ABC where he said, ‘Oh, I support the current leader for currently for current now’? Remember that sort of word salad? This is the member for Polwarth who ran for Liberal leadership and then backed off because he knew the numbers were not quite there and then became the numbers man for the member for Berwick. I would be very sceptical about someone who counts to 10 on one hand – who knows where the member for Polwarth’s support will go? Remember, the member for Bulleen – it is the time right now when the member for Bulleen comes back into frame and comes back into focus. We are all interested and excited about this. The Shannon Deery article in the Herald Sun did not happen by accident. Shannon Deery is not sitting there going, ‘You know what I’m going to write about today: a Jeff Kennett return by three and make the analogy to Matthew Guy.’ No, that comes from backgrounding. That comes from multiple sources – you get on the phone, and there are half a dozen, maybe a dozen, that all have a bit of running commentary on the Liberal leadership.

I do feel for the Nationals, because they do carry the team a bit. They have had their leadership change; they are far more settled in that, even though the member for Gippsland South, remember, got admonished for wanting to run away from the coalition. The member for Gippsland South had intellectual property on this before it was cool in the federal Parliament. The member for Gippsland South was begging his colleagues to leave the coalition agreement in November 2022 and got admonished, got told, ‘That’s not the right thing to do.’ But they are tucked in with this group that is more interested in suing themselves into oblivion than actually governing this state.

We see some of the videos and presentations put forward – snappy grabs that people get on the social media over there – but they cannot answer this question: what makes those opposite fit to govern when they cannot govern themselves? What makes those opposite trustworthy to the Victorian people when they are more interested in taking each other to court? How many – are we up to three or four leaders now that are in the courts, in that sort of frame? Are we seriously saying that this is a viable mob, on that side, to govern Victorians?

When they come in with another harebrained idea around policy – and we see this around the opposition to work from home, when it stacks up, when it is important, when it is inclusive. Just think of this: for those people that travel in my electorate up the Nepean Highway and the Mordialloc Freeway each and every day, the Monday and Friday flanks are always quieter. Work from home benefits everyone: it takes more traffic off local roads, it gives people the balance in their life, it keeps people in the workforce longer, it supports their mental health and wellbeing and it retains workers for longer. It is always curious that the biggest voices opposed to work from home are conservative blokes, isn’t it? It goes back to that fundamental point that when those opposite have more blokes on that side and do not support proportionate representation of half of the population of Victoria and Australia – and that is a massive debate prism at the moment in their federal scene – then how can they relate to the policies that are anti-women, as described by experts in tertiary education? The next election will be a significant contrast. They want to rip away the rights of workers to that flexibility and the support to work from home, which disproportionately impacts women. More than one in three are working from home at the moment. Those that have been retained in the workforce have that flexibility and have the cost-of-living savings that that brings. We know that if you are working from home, everyone benefits from that reduced impact and the broader productivity benefits.

All of the evidence stacks up, but those opposite just do not get it. I just cannot for the life of me come to how they could come up with a policy position like that. I have hypothesised around their leadership. I have hypothesised that they have not done the work or have not done the reading. All I can think of now is that once again it is about leadership and it is about thought bubbles out of the shadow cabinet without any sort of conclusion. We know the member for Brighton is fiercely opposed. We know that those in the federal Parliament describe it as apartheid. We know that the member for Berwick would scrap work from home. He would cut absolutely huge amounts of jobs. He would drive our economy down. It would hit productivity into the future, and that is why those opposite are not fit to govern. When they are too busy suing each other, when they are too busy trying to destroy the career of the member for Nepean, when they are backgrounding on the member for Hawthorn, when they are taking out the member for Malvern, this crew will never be able to govern Victoria.