Thursday, 4 December 2025
Motions
Working from home
Motions
Working from home
That this house condemns the opposition leader for failing to:
(a) stop the Shadow Treasurer’s reckless campaign for mandatory five-day office return;
(b) condemn the Shadow Treasurer for spreading misinformation on working from home; and
(c) commit to Labor’s plan to legislate working from home as a right for Victorians.
It is quite clear to those that sit on this side of the house that working from home has absolutely transformed the way in which families are able to get more time for doing what matters – that is, spending time with their families, with their friends and with their children. Indeed what happened or what became the norm as a consequence of necessity during COVID has now become an essential part of life. As a former union organiser with the Finance Sector Union in particular, I was very committed during that time to implementing more family-friendly policies for members of that union, and that of course included the right to work from home when that was possible. Reflecting on that time, there are a lot of functions that were undertaken at the time that I was organising that could not be done at home. But now, through the many gifts of technology, it has been made much simpler and easier for more work, more white-collar work – recognising the realities here – to be undertaken in the home.
As a person who has spent many years actually working to support working people and working families, unlike some people here on the other side that like to cosplay being workers’ friends, people on this side of the house have longstanding and genuine commitments to improving the lot of working people. I could not even begin to count the number of years that the people on this side of the house have collectively worked to advance the interests of working people, to make life simpler, easier and better and to ensure that people are able to work with dignity across a whole range of occupations. But not only that, we have collectively for many, many years been focused on protecting the rights of working people against, for instance, the ideologues of the Business Council of Australia and the various employer groups, who the people on that side represent. Indeed for the current Leader of the Opposition, almost the entirety of her work experience has been with an organisation that over many, many years has sought to deunionise the workforce wherever possible and strip working people of their rights. Indeed that is why this motion is so important, because we know that working from home, as I said – something that gained a lot of traction through necessity during the time of COVID – has been embraced by working people and businesses alike.
But there is only one party in this chamber that is working to ensure that we protect the right to work at home, and that is the Labor Party, the Allan Labor government. We know that those on the other side will do what they have always done when it comes to the rights and the interests of working people. They will work to strip them away. They will implement the agenda of the employer groups, for which many of them have worked. They will work to implement the agenda of the right-wing think tank, which seems to be the other key employer of people from that side of the house, the ones with the supposed real-world work experience.
This motion is really important, though I do need to correct the record, because of course August was not that long ago, but as they say, a week can be a long time in politics. We know we have had three leaders of the Liberal opposition in the last 12 months, so that in fact when this motion was written back in August, we were condemning the Leader of the Opposition, who is no longer the opposition leader, to stop the Shadow Treasurer, who is no longer the Shadow Treasurer. Just to be clear and so that everyone understands: this motion, as I said, was written back in August, but really it is directed at the member for Kew, who now holds the positions of both Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Treasurer. Let us hope that she will do a little bit better than the Shadow Treasurer before her.
Brad Rowswell: My point of order, Speaker, is on relevance, and may I briefly explain why. The minister, who has failed to explain why the sitting of the house has actually been extended, is in fact admitting in her contribution that the motion which she has called upon for debate in fact is relevant not to the member for Kew but to the member for Berwick, the former Leader of the Opposition. On that basis, how can the minister raise this as a point of topic if she is in fact also admitting that the motion which she has raised is not relevant to the person currently holding the title?
The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: Nice try, member for Sandringham. You will have your opportunity to get up on your feet in this place and explain to the working people of Victoria whether or not you will stand with us in working to legislate the right to work from home. It is a simple question, and it does not matter which portfolio you hold as a shadow minister or shadow assistant minister – more made-up job titles on the other side. It does not matter which portfolio you hold. It is a simple proposition. Will you stand with the government in supporting working people? We know of course that working from home, as I have earlier said, is all about the time that is saved, and there is nothing more precious to working parents in particular than time, because everyone knows that time that is spent on a commute could be better spent at home with your family.
We also know that for women in particular, the opportunity to work from home enables them to balance a whole range of competing responsibilities. I know that some people like to pursue this kind of mythology that somehow working from home is not real work or that people that work from home are slacking off and are not focused on their job. As a person who has actually had substantial experience in a whole range of jobs, including managing large numbers of people, I would say this: it is the responsibility of all managers and leaders in the workplace to make sure that they have set out for their employees clear expectations about the work that is to be delivered – like, the deliverables. That is not only the best way to lead people in order to get the best from them, but it is also the way in which you assure accountability. And quite frankly there are so many jobs where in fact you need to be quite explicit about what it is that you are seeking in order to contribute to the goal or strategy of the organisation. Then you let employees get on with delivering that, and you will get the best from your employees.
I think it is probably fair to say that we all have a bit of a love-hate relationship with Teams or Zoom, but there is absolutely no doubt that the opportunity to have remote meetings has transformed the way in which we all do our work. This is the case for those of us in this place. I really enjoy the opportunity now to meet with so many of my stakeholders – people that I know very well, because I do always like to establish relationships with people – and the opportunity now to meet with stakeholders via Teams has made a significant difference, and it saves people travelling perhaps from rural Victoria to come and meet with me or vice versa. It gives us this great opportunity to come together, and quite frankly I have no interest in where the people that I am meeting with are situated, whether they are at home or whether they are in their workplace. Indeed I just had a meeting – I am going to embarrass her now – with one of my deputy secretaries, and a small person ran past. And, do you know what, that filled me with delight. I thought that was great. There is absolutely no reason why so many people cannot –
A member interjected.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: Yes, exactly. As I said, children in the workplace are to be celebrated. There should be no shame attached to little ones running by in a Teams meeting that one might be having when one is working from home.
But we know that when it comes to advancing – well, forget advancing, let us just talk about protecting – when it comes to protecting the rights of working people one only has to look at the record of the two parties, Labor and the opposition. You only have to look at the record of both in government, and you will see quite clearly that Labor governments since time immemorial have existed to protect the rights of working people from the worst excesses of capitalism, which of course has a long history of seeking to exploit labour in the interests of the few accumulating a lot of wealth. Every advantage that has been secured for working people in this state or in this nation has been done through struggle. This is just a fact: nothing that working people have achieved has been given to them; they have had to fight for it. When we think about things like annual leave, access to public holidays, working hours, maternity leave, family leave, sick leave, occupational health and safety, the right again to organise – any of these – they have all had to be fought for. And it has only been by people on this side of the chamber, members of the Labor Party, who by the way are so much more than just members of the Labor Party; we are proud members of the labour movement, and we stand always with our brothers and sisters from the union movement in common cause to protect and advance the interests of working people. Who have we had to protect them from? Well, quite frankly, it has been from the Liberal Party, because the Liberal Party in government have done everything that they can, every time, to try to strip away the protections that workers have gained for themselves.
So this is a very important motion that I have brought to the house. And as I have said previously, it does not matter who is holding the office. I mean, the Leader of the Opposition this week may be here in 2026, they may not be. Three leaders in 12 months – anything is possible. But it does not matter which one it is –
Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Speaker, I have two points to raise, actually. Firstly –
The SPEAKER: Just one at a time, member for Sandringham. Be concise in your point of order.
Brad Rowswell: I draw your attention to the state of the house.
Quorum formed.
Brad Rowswell: On a further point of order, Speaker: relevance.
The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: I was making the point that it does not matter who holds which shadow portfolio on the other side, they are united in common cause against the interests of working people. The proof has always been in the pudding. There is an anecdote that I want to share for this proof point. It goes to Mr Davis in the other place and when he was the health minister in the previous government. Let me tell you a little bit about that. At the time there was an industrial dispute between the ambulance union led by the member for Melton – oh, he is not here – and the Liberal government. Mr Davis was so frustrated by the ambulance –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, this is not a grievance debate.
The SPEAKER: No, it is not a grievance debate. Leader of the House, is this coming back to the motion?
Mary-Anne THOMAS: Yes, it is, Speaker, thank you. The point of the story that I was telling to the house was the fact that in power, Liberal governments will always do everything that they can to attack the rights of working people. That is why they will not support this motion. This is a motion that is designed to improve the lot of working Victorians and to make sure that we are giving people back more time to spend with their friends, families and loved ones. The opportunity exists for those on the other side to back this in – to lead the nation by making the right to work from home a right that is legislated. Why wouldn’t we legislate it? Over time we have continued to introduce laws that seek to protect workers’ entitlements and rights – this is absolutely no different. This is a very important motion. It is one that I know that members on this side of the house could talk about all night long, and they may well be doing that. I commend the motion to the house. I am going to cede the space to other members who I know are looking forward to making a contribution on this matter.
Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (17:24): It is absolutely farcical that the Leader of the House could stand up in here and spend so much time talking about the importance of people being at home with their kids, the importance of people spending time with their families, when she came to this chamber just minutes ago, before this particularly unedifying speech, and extended the working days of many of the young parents in this place without any notice whatsoever, and not just no notice – no notice and no explanation. Without notice and without explanation this purported champion of the rights of working people, this purported champion of people spending time at home with their families, has frustrated all of those people who had one foot out the door and were expecting right about now, at 5:25, to be going home and spending time with their families. What outrageous hypocrisy from the Leader of the House to be pretending to be on the side of people spending time with their families. She was speaking out of both sides of her mouth, pretending that is a concern of hers, when in fact she came in with no notice and with no explanation and extended the sitting of the house for who knows how long – absolutely no explanation whatsoever, no context, nothing, just treating this chamber as her personal plaything. That is absolutely shameful conduct, and she ought to hang her head in shame for treating this chamber with such gross contempt – contempt for every single person who may very well have had things planned with their children, with their families, right about now. It is absolutely outrageous conduct to pretend on one hand that she is in favour of people working from home in order that they can spend more time with their families and kids and yet in the very same breath be denying members of this place time with their families and kids. Which is it to be?
The question needs to be asked just what the motivation is. It is absolutely farcical that, of all the motions on the notice paper to select to start running the clock while other matters are dealt with upstairs, the Leader of the House picked the one that shows her up for this outrageous hypocrisy. It is easy to get behind a motion that says we should protect working-from-home rights. I am not sure that we need to legislate it, because I think it is actually happening already, by and large. I am not sure that legislative protection is required. I think that sounds a bit like politics du jour. We have had a lot of that this week, as we have had various bills rammed through the joint not in service of good policy – there has not been a great deal of that – but just in service of the politics of the day. It is all about playing the political games, wedging the opposition on this or that and maximising the government’s chances of re-election and nothing to do with good policy – certainly not anything to do with evidence-based policy. We have seen that no more particularly than the very bill we now wait for the return of from the other place. The bill we are waiting for to come back from the other place is a classic example of a triumph of politics over anything like decent policy.
Here we are at 5:30, with no end in sight, no context, no rationale, no notice – just contempt from the Leader of the House for everyone who is not in the leadership group of the government. That is just shameful conduct. It is grossly disrespectful to the 35 of us or whatever it is who do not sit on the government benches and just a complete misuse of the resources of this place, a complete misuse of everyone’s time and a complete misuse of the resources of the clerks of the Parliament as we just faff around meeting a political end, not a policy end. The reality is that if amendments come back from the other place they can be dealt with on Tuesday – of course they could be – so there is no substantive reason for us to be here, simply none whatsoever. It is just politics, just base politics, and more and more as we have come to the end of this legislative year we have seen the government engaging in just that – politics triumphing over policy at every single turn. The Leader of the House’s contempt that she is showing for non-government members is just shameful, and as I say, she ought to hang her head in shame. The motion dates back to August, hilariously again underscoring that this is just about politics. It condemns the Leader of the Opposition – that has changed – and the Shadow Treasurer – that has changed – so the motion is out of date.
Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.
Will FOWLES: Shoosh now.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Ringwood, through the Chair. It is not appropriate to respond to interjections. The Leader of the House will not interject.
Will FOWLES: Speaker, on a point of order, can you please ask the Leader of the House to stop interjecting.
The SPEAKER: I just did.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, the member on his feet made a disparaging comment to me. He told me to shoosh. He is trying to silence women in this place. I ask that you ask him to withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The member for Ringwood to withdraw.
Will FOWLES: I withdraw. Special – it is special. The contempt that the Leader of the House has shown for this place is no more evident than in that exchange, as she is busily bossing away at me across the chamber and then takes great umbrage at being called into line.
The SPEAKER: Member for Ringwood, I ask you to come back to the motion before the house.
Will FOWLES: I am glad to, Speaker. This motion in the name of the Leader of the House is out of date. It was out of date when the changes happened, and it further underscores that this is a triumph of politics over policy. There is no substantive grunt to this motion, because the thing is out of date. It refers to an opposition leader who is no longer the opposition leader. It refers to a Shadow Treasurer who is no longer the Shadow Treasurer. I find it risible that the Leader of the House would pick a motion that is so absurd, made even more absurd for her assertions about protecting the rights of people to spend time with their families – the very right she was trampling over just minutes before putting this motion. Members of this Parliament of course are expected to do the work, but at a minimum they ought to be told when that is going to happen. It is just a shameful piece of two-faced political theatre for the Leader of the House to pretend she is all for people being able to plan their lives and spend time with their families in the very same part of the day where she is trampling on people’s ability to do exactly that. I think –
Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, the member for Ringwood might not usually be in this house at this time – most of us are – so I take his concerns as being completely irrelevant.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Will FOWLES: On a point of order, Speaker, I take offence at the comment made by the member for Point Cook, and I ask that he withdraw.
The SPEAKER: It was a point of order.
Will FOWLES: It does not matter. I have taken offence, and he should withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Member for Point Cook, I am not sure what you said, but can you withdraw?
Mathew Hilakari: Neither am I, but I withdraw.
Will FOWLES: On a point of order, Speaker, withdrawals are to happen without caveat.
The SPEAKER: Did you withdraw, member for Point Cook?
Mathew Hilakari: I withdraw.
Will FOWLES: I am pleased we got there eventually. Notwithstanding the outrageously dishonest assertions from the member for Point Cook, here I am, as many members of Parliament are, now having had orderly plans for spending time with our families upset by the Leader of the House –
Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.
Will FOWLES: who may very well scream ‘half past 5’ –
Kathleen Matthews-Ward: On a point of order, Speaker, I would like to raise relevance. This motion is about giving workers the opportunity to work from home.
The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Ringwood to come back to the motion before the house.
Will FOWLES: On the point of order, Speaker, the Leader of the House made very clear that her motion was about people spending time with their families, and I am speaking directly to that matter.
The SPEAKER: I ask you to speak to the motion before the house.
Will FOWLES: Here we have a motion that is about working from home. It is a motion that is out of date, because it was raised in August and the people who are the subject of the motion no longer fill the roles that are referred to in the motion. It is risible that this is coming about in the way that it is, it is risible that this house is being treated with the contempt that it is and the government ought to, at a minimum, take your advice, Speaker, and communicate with other members of the chamber. You as Speaker have previously advised this house that you encourage the Leader of the House to have conversations with members of the chamber about the operation of the chamber. Yet again the Leader of the House is defying your advice and is doing so for petty political reasons that stand to her shame.