Thursday, 5 March 2026

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (10:46): I move:

That the word ‘former’ be inserted before the word ‘Shadow’ wherever occurring.

This is a really critical motion, the work-from-home motion. I know there are some over there that might interject already, but let us just say how important work from home is and how critical it is. Just in case those opposite, including the member for Warrandyte, do not know, the house condemns the opposition leader for failing to stop the reckless campaign to mandate five days of work in office. Where did that absolute truth bomb come from? Where did that one come from? That was from none other than the member for Brighton. The member for Brighton was very opposed to work from home, and then we saw the federal Shadow Treasurer, the member for Goldstein in the Sandringham electorate area and the Brighton electorate area, do a bit of singing this week. Did anyone see that routine? Member for Sandringham, I know you have got a bit of a baritone and a singing voice, but do not ever try that. But when did the member for Goldstein first roll up with some of the most crazy policies we have seen in opposition to work from home? This is where we see those opposite not on the side of workers, not ever on the side of flexibility.

We know that work from home is so critical to supporting people to return to the workplace or have that balance. But also it is a gendered policy: more women in our society, in our communities, have caring needs and load. It should not be that way. We are hoping to move the dial in the future to support women in the workplace. We see that, and so the flexibility that you get from the work-from-home policy means that more women can return to the workforce. We see our productivities – the productivity commissioner said a blended model of work, where you have some from home and some in a workplace, is critical to health and wellbeing in our communities.

You wonder why, with such an evidentiary basis, those opposite are so opposed. Could it be, Deputy Speaker – I know you are an astute observer of some of the politics on this and on different things – that One Nation is so forcefully opposed to work from home? Could that be it? Could it be political expedience? Could it be that there are not enough people in that opposition room that speak up because there are so many blokes there? They still do not have quotas, they are still not supporting women in the workplace. Maybe if they had a clue about the gendered nature of the workplace –

Members interjecting.

Tim RICHARDSON: Those opposite interject around their leadership now, but how long did it take to get to that point? And how about the absolutely horrendous treatment of Sussan Ley federally? We step forward now with a work-from-home policy that is about supporting Victorians in their workplaces. It supports more participation and productivity because people can consider their arrangements when applying for a job: are they able to balance some of the care requirements that they might have? There is that flexibility of being around their community. We know it is good for small businesses in the community because workers are based in their patch. We saw some of those hallmarks back in 2020 and 2021, and we see now local businesses and the strip trading shops that are supported by work from home. It has so much flow-on benefit. There is the fact that so many people do the trundle on the train, on the bus or in the car, and having that flexibility with work from home lowers congestion overall in our communities and supports people. These are the hallmarks and why work from home is so critical. It is why from 1 September 2026 the Allan Labor government will bring it into law.

It will be of substantial benefit for so many in our communities, and you wonder why anyone would be opposed to that. You have got productivity benefits. You are reducing congestion in the community and the cost of living. You are not doing the commute, filling up the car. We know with some of the instabilities at the moment around the world we will see petrol prices rise and the impact of that and there is the mental load that families carry each and every day trying to make ends meet, with inflation and the cost of living. We are just taking a little bit more out of the saddle bags. If anyone then is required to be in five days a week, we are lowering the congestion burden and the impact for those in our community as well. We see it at the tail ends of a week, the Monday and Friday, the commute in for tradies going into town, for the nurses at major health precincts, for those that need to be in the CBD or in the regions. It makes a massive difference. You are getting in in 40 minutes rather than an hour and 20 from my community, and that time is everything. Time adds up for someone who is seeing their three-year-old go through kinder for the first time and wondering if they will see those formative moments through their eyes at the end of the day. Time matters for a graduation that you need to get to on a Thursday afternoon, and you are desperate to see that one play. You have heard the same song over and over, and you have practiced it with your little one, but you do not know whether your work requirements and the 10-hour slog that you might do means you cannot get there at the end of the day. These are the types of things that matter. This is what time is, and this is the cost on people’s lives and why a work from home policy benefits everyone. It is all ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’ here.

It is not that those that have to go are disproportionately impacted because they have benefited from a blended economy that has people moving around in different ways. It benefits productivity because we have greater participation, because we know so many women are out of the workforce with care responsibilities and that load that is disproportionately gendered. This policy sees them in their community, in our economy and says they have got a place to work in our communities. What makes so much sense in this policy are the Productivity Commission’s findings that a blended model of this – the two days from home, it could be two days at work in the workplace, or it could be three days – brings productivity benefits across the board. We see sectors already doing it. But there is the lived experience of Victorians who have shared their work from home journey or have not even been able to raise that in their workplace for fear of repercussions or it not being an inclusive environment to then even start that conversation and they feel like they cannot even raise that conversation. This policy says that the government, the Allan Labor government, is on their side. The Allan Labor government again is on the side of working people to have that flexibility in those critical moments.

I will just go back to that again. For many of us, we can go instinctively to those special moments in our kids lives, and there are moments and sacrifices people have to make. Shift workers have to make those sacrifices, people stuck in congestion, people who will not be able to get to those critical moments and I just think time is a big part of this policy. Time is everything. When you are thinking about how you will make ends meet, time is everything. When you are thinking about those formative moments in your child’s journey or connecting with loved ones, or if you have got care responsibilities for an older parent as well, these are all moments when flexibility in work or not alienating people from workplaces because of the circumstances of their lives is so very critical. This is analogous to some of the childcare policy reforms. We did big reforms federally that were done on the back of Labor governments, and it always seems to be Labor governments fronting up to support working people in this space. We saw this with greater investment in child care, greater places in child care and saw more participation for women in the workforce. We are seeing the same here. This is such a critical frame to this. You wonder then why members of Parliament, like the Shadow Attorney-General and member for Brighton, are so opposed to working from home. They are so opposed and want to see lower wages it seems as well – EBAs, go after unions; we see all that as well – but lower wage outcomes for people and lower work flexibility outcomes.

You wonder why. Generally, you find it is blokes. It is blokes in conservative movements that are saying this. The member for Goldstein in the federal Parliament opposed it. What did he say work from home was? What was that? Anyone on that side can participate, member for Warrandyte? Ovens Valley? Narracan? Narracan might know. He called work from home ‘apartheid’. That is what the member for Goldstein, the Shadow Treasurer – Mr Karaoke himself; goodness me, if ever there was a cringe moment – said.

He said it was apartheid. That was the description. From those opposite we want to know, with the One Nation masters that they are all pandering to at the moment, are these the circumstances that they find themselves in? Is it apartheid to have the flexibility to get to your kids pick-ups and drop-offs and have flexible work arrangements with your employer? Is it apartheid to lower congestion on our roads and get people home safer and sooner, because the blended mix of work in our economy benefits everyone? Is it apartheid in our communities to have cost-of-living pressure reduced because you are not travelling and filling up the car as much, or you are not paying your yearly rate to go into town on the train system or the V/Line from rural areas? Is that apartheid? Because that is what the federal Shadow Treasurer said. The member for Brighton, with his strong opposition to work from home, is a key supporter of the Leader of the Opposition. We have not heard from the Leader of the Opposition about whether they are opposed to it or not. If they are not opposed at all, will they vote for and support our work-from-home policy?

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:56): I move:

That after the word ‘occurring’ insert: ‘and after the word “Victorians” insert “and that this house notes how stale and political this sledge motion is”’.

The Deputy Speaker for the house has agreed that my amendment is in order. I say again to the house that this house also notes the further amendment proves how stale and political this sledge motion is. The raw, ruthless politics of this government has come to full display this morning. What has happened for the first two weeks of this year is the government has not wasted the Parliament’s time until the end of a Thursday, when, in a ham-fisted attempt to play raw politics and be political, the Leader of the House has, at the end of a Thursday, moved to a sledge motion, two weeks in a row – not once. You would think that when you make a mistake once, you would learn from the mistake the first time. One would think that they would only make a mistake once, but the Leader of the House managed it twice. The Leader of the House managed to make the same mistake twice, which I think says quite a lot about the competency, or not, of the Leader of the House. But what the Leader of the House has done today is rearrange the notice paper to put the sledge motion up front. So we are now going to, under this government, waste a whole day on a sledge motion.

The rawness of the politics and the ruthlessness of the politics is on full display. There is no cover to it. There is no attempted cover for the house to do anything to start the day and then slip it in at the end to close off the week. What the Leader of the House has done is say, ‘Don’t worry about a full day of Parliament – we are just going to waste the Parliament’s time with raw politics.’ What this move has done is expose to Victorians that this government cares more about a sledge motion than the needs of Victorians, the wants of Victorians and frankly the priorities of Victorians. Because Victorians know that this government has not dedicated one minute of this chamber’s time in recent weeks to the $15 billion of money that has been corrupted. Their money – taxpayers money, not Labor’s money. It certainly is not your money, government members. It is taxpayers money – $15 billion.

So we are now debating a sledge motion, which follows – I think it is fair to put on the house record – repeated sledge motions each and every single week. That is why I move my amendment – to make it clear to this house through my amendment that this house is repeatedly being forced to debate sledge motions, as has been noted in my amendment, because this government is wasting the Parliament’s time in doing so.

I do want to make one point at the outset about the substantive motion in line (b) –

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I have checked the microphones. They are in working order. Could we have people stop yelling in the house repeatedly?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, member for Point Cook. You are just going to annoy me.

James NEWBURY: You said what I was thinking, Deputy Speaker. I want to start my contribution in referring to line (b) of the motion, where the government notes ‘spreading misinformation’. This week and in recent weeks we have seen a Premier and a government spread misinformation in a way that is damaging Victoria’s confidence in our institutions – directly damaging Victoria’s confidence in our institutions – because the misinformation they are spreading is beyond anything we have ever seen before in Victoria. This is a level of misinformation that has never been seen before. The sledge motion goes to it on working from home, but also on other matters in relation to political parties, on both issues, the Premier herself has been the chief misinformation spreader in this state. It is no wonder she has no friends on social media. It is no wonder that she has to buy bots from overseas, because this Premier is spreading so much misinformation, as the motion itself speaks to. It is clear from this motion and what strikes me from it is that the Premier is the chief misinformation spreader. She is causing damage and causing distrust amongst our institutions. Shame! Shame on the Premier, who thinks it is appropriate to spread misinformation.

We have said almost every single day – every single day – that we support working from home. How clear is that? What the Premier has done in a –

Danny Pearson interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I ask the minister at the table to refrain and the member for Brighton to continue.

James NEWBURY: Thank you. We have said that we support working from home. We support working from home. How many times do I need to say it? We support working from home – we support working from home – and every single member –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Order! The member on his feet will be heard with less raucous behaviour in the chamber. Thank you.

James NEWBURY: What the Premier has done is gaslight Victorians by not releasing draft legislation on this plan, and it is time that it was called out. The coalition has said we support working from home, so bring in the legislation, bring it in, but the government will not.

Danny Pearson interjected.

James NEWBURY: The minister at the table has admitted the government does not intend to bring in the legislation because of politics.

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is unparliamentary for the member on their feet to respond to interjections from the chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I ask the member for Brighton to continue debating the motion that we have before us.

James NEWBURY: If the government members ceased interjecting, there would be less interjections to respond to. I again go to the point in the motion in terms of the government’s legislation. The government has no legislation. It is gaslighting Victorians. The Premier is gaslighting Victorians. If the Premier had legislation, she would bring it in. We saw only this week a bill brought into this place that was drafted over a weekend. The government had the capacity over a weekend to draft a bill before bringing it in urgently for the house to consider. I would say in relation to the faux legislation which is pointed to in the motion: bring it into the chamber. If you have a plan, bring it into the chamber. We have seen successive governments put legislation into the chamber in the final week of a Parliament, designed to stop it passing the Parliament. This year the government has set out a legislative program that is short, that has us finishing in the early days of September for an end of November election –

Danny Pearson interjected.

James NEWBURY: Acting Speaker, it is unparliamentary for the minister to be screaming abuse. I do not know if he has had an early lunch, but the early –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Excuse me. Minister at the table, please hold your enthusiasm back a bit. The member for Brighton has the floor, and he is entitled to be heard. Member for Brighton, you have got to stop pointing. You have got to use your words rather than just pointing at him. What are you asking me to do when you point at him?

James NEWBURY: Acting Speaker, I think next door can hear the abusive language that is coming out of the minister’s mouth. I am sure you can hear it. I do not think I need to make you aware of every instance where someone is abusive, and it is only reasonable –

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Brighton is reflecting very badly on the Chair, and I ask him to apologise to the Chair.

Brad Rowswell: On the point of order, I think you will agree, Acting Speaker, that the intervention by the member for Eureka is unnecessary and also untrue, and I am confident that you will rule accordingly.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I am going to ask the member for Brighton to come back. I am going to remind the minister at the table to allow the member for Brighton to make his contribution without assistance, and I call on the member for Brighton to continue to make his contribution to the motion before us.

James NEWBURY: As I have been, Acting Speaker. This is where we have descended to: a government that is shouting personal abuse across a chamber. That just goes to show the quality of the minister. The only thing I could suggest is that he has had an early long lunch, as he is prone to do.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Excuse me, member for Brighton. I am asking you to discuss the matters of the motion on the table and stop making character references about the minister at the table.

James NEWBURY: I appreciate that you heard my contribution. It seems that some contributions can be heard. On the motion, as I was saying in relation to the government’s faux legislation, we have called for the government to introduce their legislation, not put out social media tiles about what they are going to do, not release press releases saying what they might do, because it is fair and reasonable to be concerned that with the timing of the parliamentary year it will not be possible for the government to put through their entire legislative program unless they map out properly what they intend to do throughout the remainder of the year. As I have said, the Parliament finishes in the early days of September. I understand from media reports the Premier said yesterday there is an intention to release legislation in July. Well, anybody in Victoria can go onto the Victorian Parliament’s website and they can see that Parliament does not sit in July; it sits for two days at the end of July. Parliament is not sitting for the entirety of July, so the government has a window of a very, very short couple of days to try and finish their entire legislative program. I think every Victorian should start to ask about this, and they have seen this in the past when it has come to government previously. Governments have a habit of putting in bills at the end of a term with a known intention for it not to pass before the election – a known intention – and when it does not get through the Parliament because of a lack of time governments will say, ‘It’s not our fault. We intended to do it, but there was so much legislation we couldn’t get it passed. It just couldn’t get passed in time.’ So I think every Victorian has a right to ask whether the government actually has an intention to legislate this policy. Do they have an intention? If they do, why would they not bring in the legislation? Is the government seriously suggesting that it is unable to introduce legislation? As I said before, early this week we saw a bill drafted over a weekend. It was brought in on Tuesday. It was provided urgent status effectively – not officially, but the house committed to do that. I requested on that instance for the house to consider the matter on the first day and for the house to consider that matter swiftly, and it was put through; the Council is considering that matter today. The government in that instance was very able to see that legislation dealt with and acquitted within one day and to have the Council considering it today. So the idea that the government have not got the capacity to legislate before July, when the Parliament is not sitting, their working from home legislation suggests to me –

Belinda Wilson: Acting Speaker, on relevance –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): You are making a point of order?

Belinda WILSON: I am making a point of order, and that is on relevance.

James Newbury interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Excuse me, member for Brighton. Just a moment. She can make a point of order. Now I am going to call you to respond to the point of order, but you should not be shouting while you are on your feet. Could you please –

James Newbury: Acting Speaker, you are reflecting on me.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I am.

James Newbury: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, item 3 of the substantive motion talks about the legislative plan of the government, which is entirely what I am speaking about.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): There is no point of order. I ask the member for Brighton to continue to speak on the motion.

James NEWBURY: As I have been, and I will continue speaking about the legislative plan, or lack thereof, of this government.

This government clearly, in my view, do not intend to put legislation to this Parliament and see it passed, because if they did, the legislation would be before the house today. I am saying not just that this government, because I think they know what they are doing by way of their gaslighting, but every Victorian should now ask the truthfulness of what this Premier has committed to. Truthfulness, because the coalition supports working from home, and we have said we want to see the legislation. Please bring in the legislation – that is what the coalition has said. We have said we want to see the legislation. We want the legislation to come in, because you cannot make new law by a Premier’s press release. That is not law. The Premier’s Facebook and Instagram posts to her African bots are not new law.

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: That is where the bots are coming from.

Nicole Werner interjected.

James NEWBURY: And South-East Asia. That is where the bots are coming from.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: Both, both, both.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I would ask the member for Brighton not to react to interjections and to continue to talk on the motion.

James NEWBURY: Where the bots are coming from was the point that I made – and an Instagram and social media post directed at the Premier’s bots do not make law. Bills brought into Parliament passed by a Parliament make law. We would say that the government does not intend to pass this legislation and have it enacted before the end of the year. It is deeply concerning to Victorians that the government, and the Premier specifically, are being so political about this issue on when both sides of the chamber have said we support working from home. Both sides of the chamber have said it. There is an inherent mistruth and, as the motion says in line (b), a misinformation campaign, clearly, from this government, which is seeking to play politics with this issue. If the government intends to implement a policy, bring in a bill, bring in legislation. That is what the government needs to do. That is what this Premier needs to do. But the government is not.

This amendment that I have moved goes straight to the truth of this matter – that this motion proves how political and stale this sledge motion is. That is what it is: it is a sledge motion. It is nothing else. It is an attempted sledge on the opposition based on no truth. As I have said and as we the opposition have said over and over again, we support working from home. It is time for the government to bring in their legislation. I think Victorians are now starting to ask – because they know there has been no change in law. Victorians know the law has not changed. Victorians know that, and they know that we are now some six months after the Premier said people can work from home. Of course under their workplace arrangements many people are working from home, but Victorians are now starting to ask, ‘Why hasn’t the government attempted to change the law? Why hasn’t the government tried to bring in legislation? Why hasn’t the government brought in legislation? Why haven’t they?’ It is a very fair question, because the government only wants to play politics with this issue. They do not want to legislate. The government does not want to legislate. If they wanted to legislate, they would. They could and they would. We have seen, as I raised earlier, an instance where the government was able to legislate over a weekend, but on this matter the government has not sought to legislate. In fact on the timeline the government has set out between announcement last year and some supposed introduction of a bill in July when Parliament is not sitting, it will have been some one year.

The government will not have legislated for a full year between the announcement and what they intend to do. As I said, legislation needs to be passed to change the law. It does not happen through social media. It does not happen through a press release. It does not happen when a minister stands at the back of Parliament and talks to the media. That does not change the law, which is why the coalition has consistently called for the legislation to be released. It is only fair and reasonable. In fact I think Victorians are now starting to ask, ‘Where is the legislation?’ I think they want to see legislation introduced. I do not think that Victorians think that –

Anthony Cianflone interjected.

Wayne Farnham: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I will just point out that the member for Pascoe Vale has now reflected on the Chair three times in a row. I would ask you to bring him into order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I will ask the member for Pascoe Vale not to interject in this debate or reflect on the Chair.

James NEWBURY: As I was saying, I think Victorians are now starting to ask, ‘Why isn’t the government changing the law? Why aren’t they doing that? Why won’t they bring in the legislation?’ As I have just outlined to the chamber, my concern on the legislative timeline of this year is Parliament is not sitting in July. Parliament is only sitting for two days at the end of July – two days.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): The member for the member for Narre Warren North is not in her correct seat.

James NEWBURY: You cannot pass a bill through a parliament in two days. Even the bill we dealt with this week required several days to be put through both chambers. It did not just happen. It takes time to go through both chambers. So we would say not only do we support working from home but it is time for the government to stop playing games and introduce the legislation, because as we are seeing with this motion and as my amendment goes to, the government has been caught playing politics on this issue – gaslighting Victorians. That is what they are doing. If they had an intention to do it, they would.

Instead what the government wants to do is find any opportunity where things are not going well and use an announcement on this issue to take away from the fact that they have covered up corruption. That is what we have seen over recent days. The government is using working from home as a policy to cover up their failures on corruption. They are using this issue. How morally bankrupt can you be? Because the government could bring in the legislation and settle any question for Victorians as to what is being proposed, and the house could consider it, but they do not. They wait, they wait and they wait, because they know that if they hold the legislation back, they can make an announcement and try and deflect from the corruption that has occurred under their watch. That is shameful. That is political and that is shameful.

Anthony Cianflone: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, just on relevance, the member is not talking to the substantive parts of the motion. He is not being clear. Do the Liberals support legislating working from home? He is totally avoiding the question. He does not want to answer the question. I will draw you on relevance, please.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I will ask the member for Brighton – I have not called you yet, so just wait a moment. I will ask the member for Brighton not to respond to a point of order while the point of order is being made. I now ask you to make your point of order, please.

James Newbury: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I am speaking to my amendment, which is entirely in order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Looking at the amendment to amendment, yes, I can see that he is speaking to his amendment. I will ask you to continue.

James NEWBURY: I can understand why the government is concerned about me raising the truth of what the government’s strategy is. I can understand why they do not want it exposed. The fact that this government is using working from home to take away from their cover-ups on corruption is shameful, and that is what is happening. Instead of introducing legislation, the government is now holding it back so that they can use this issue to deflect from corruption under their watch.

How shameful, how morally bankrupt to use people’s right to work from home – which the coalition has said it supports; we support working from home – to use that issue, and not legislate, purely to cover up what is happening under their watch in terms of a $15 billion corruption. That is what is occurring – and that is gaslighting. I say not only should the government introduce the legislation and introduce it now, but the government need to explain why they are using this issue for brutal, raw politics, trying to take away from the cover-up of corruption that has occurred under their watch. The parliamentary sitting calendar for this year shows how difficult it will be to pass that legislation, so I now question whether the government have the capacity to pass the legislation in the timeline they have set out. Bring it on now. They will not because they need a shield for their corruption. To use this issue in that way is shameful. That is what they are doing, and I think Victorians can now see it. They are using this issue to shield their failures in corruption. It is a disgrace and Victorians will see through it because this government will not introduce the legislation, and that speaks for itself.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (11:27): I am delighted to rise and speak on this substantive motion that has been put up by our side of the house in support of working from home. I note the member for Brighton is leaving the chamber the moment that I rise. He is happy to dish it out, but he just cannot take it, this guy. He can dish it out, but he just cannot take it at all. What we heard there from the member for Brighton is just as important as what we did not hear, because what he continued to say was that supposedly the Liberals support working from home. But he left out the key phrase, which was: do the Liberal Party support legislating the right to work from home? That is what he did not say. That is because they do not support legislating the right to work from home. That is why he has totally avoided the question. He has danced around the whole question and moved his amended motion. Just to be clear, this motion says –

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, to the motion at hand, there was no question posed in the motion. It is simply a sledge motion. There is no question for the Manager of Opposition Business to answer.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): We have a broad-ranging debate that includes the words ‘sledge motion’ in it, so I will ask the member for Pascoe Vale to continue.

Anthony CIANFLONE: The only ones that want to talk about sledging are the opposition. That is in their motion, not ours. Because what our motion says is:

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 –

which is exactly what he has been doing in his reply, and –

(c) commit to Labor’s plan to legislate working from home as a right for Victorians.

That is what our motion is about. On this side of the house we are very, very clear: we support the right for Victorians to have the legislated protections to work from home for at least two days per week. We are being very clear, we are being very open and we are being very transparent around our position, because we understand that supporting Victorians to work from home saves them time, it saves them money and it certainly allows particularly parents to have more time to work flexibly. It allows them to pick up the kids from school or from kinder, to go out on that little shopping run down to Coles or Woolies or the local IGA during the lunchbreak or to do the washing while they might be doing the Teams meeting at the same time. Whether you are a mum or whether you are a dad, working from home works for a lot of people. In my community of Pascoe Vale, Coburg and Brunswick West we have some of the highest proportions of people who do work from home. They work across all sorts of sectors flexibly and happily, and they support that right to continue and to have it legislated and protected.

But they know very clearly that the Liberal Party do not support the right to legislate to protect working from home. You do not just need to listen to the gibberish from the member for Brighton and what he did not say in this chamber just now; all you need to look at is their federal colleagues. We have had the federal party Liberal review finally tabled in Parliament. The secret Liberal Party review that no-one in the Liberal Party wanted to talk about was tabled by the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and it made very clear some of the shocking policy calls and strategic calls that were made by the Liberals – one of those went to working from home.

Peter Dutton, the failed federal opposition leader, wanted everyone to return back to the office. That was very clear. But they still support that position. He may be gone, and I acknowledge his departure, but the current federal Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party Senator Jane Hume, who is a senator of Victoria, was the one leading that charge for people to return to the office five days a week full-time. The current deputy leader supports the abolition of working from home. The federal Liberals have no interest in it. The deputy leader currently in that chair, in that position, campaigned on it during the election. But it is also the member for Brighton’s federal colleague, the member for Goldstein, the now Shadow Treasurer, who was the one – wasn’t he the guy we all remember – that said it is modern-day apartheid, that working from home is creating a modern-day apartheid. This is not Peter Dutton we are talking about, who has left the Parliament; this is the current federal Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson, the Liberal member for Goldstein – the federal member for the area where the member for Brighton is the state member – fighting the campaign to get rid of working from home.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, as is the member for Pascoe Vale’s right, he has raised a number of points of order relating to relevance. The member for Pascoe Vale is addressing matters pertaining to federal members of Parliament and the federal Parliament, which I do not believe are consistent with the motion that the house is considering. I would ask you to draw the member for Pascoe Vale back to the motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): It is a very broad-ranging debate, and we have seen that through the member for Brighton’s contribution on this matter. I will ask the member for Pascoe Vale to continue.

Anthony CIANFLONE: If the state Liberals do not want me to talk about the federal Liberal opposition to working from home, that is fine. Why don’t we then turn back to the state Liberals, because the big missing piece in all this is: what does the current Liberal opposition leader believe when it comes to working from home? We have heard nothing at all – I have not seen the press release; I have not seen the members statement or the adjournment or the constituency question – from the current Liberal state leader, coming out to say, ‘Yes’, the Liberal–National opposition here support our plan to legislate the right to work from home two days a week. She has been totally silent, and is it because the Liberal opposition leader used to actually work for the Business Council of Australia, which is the cheerleader, the cheerleading organisation, that is fighting against our Labor government’s plan to legislate the right to work from home? Is there a bit of a conflict of interest there, or is there a bit of a clue potentially in terms of her thinking and where her head is at in terms of this issue, and is that why they are being so tricky? The member for Brighton should write the next version of Kama Sutra, to be honest with you, with the amount of positions he has taken when it comes to working from home. He has got a hide on him, I tell you. He has got a hide on him to come in this place and claim that they support working from home. Let us leave out the legislation part – that is the part that is going to protect working people.

Whether it is working from home or on so many other big-picture items that our Labor government has been progressing, the Liberals have just always opposed them. They start off criticising whatever our proposal is. We then progress the proposal, we implement it, we deliver it, and they criticise it all the way through and beyond. If you had had the Liberals in office since 2014, none of the major things we have delivered would have ever come close to being delivered. We saw that during the Baillieu years from 2010 to 2014. Just look at the list of things we have delivered that they have opposed every step of the way, and working from home is just the latest chapter in that Kama Sutra edition book for the member for Brighton. The big infrastructure build – they opposed the West Gate Tunnel and the Metro Tunnel project. They opposed those two major infrastructure projects that we opened at the end of last year, which never would have been delivered under the Liberals. On the Education State, we are opening 100 new schools in this state – a tremendous milestone. Fifty per cent of the newest schools across the country have been opened in Victoria. When they were in office during the Kennett years, they closed 12 schools across my community of Merri-bek – unforgivable. Our community will never forget it. They closed the original Coburg High and Newlands High. They closed and decimated all 12 local schools.

The new hospitals: the Footscray Hospital never would have been delivered, the Joan Kirner hospital, the Frankston hospital – the list goes on and on. On each and every one of our cost-of-living measures, they have not committed, to this very day, to saying – where is the member for Brighton’s statement saying the Liberal Party supports the retention of free kinder, the Liberal Party supports the hundred-dollar energy bonus, the Liberal Party supports free public transport for young people and seniors? They do not say these things because they do not believe them and they will cut them. In major policy reforms – industrial manslaughter, legislating wage theft, major reforms that protect workers – they talk about claiming to be on the side of working people, yet every major reform we have introduced in this place to protect the rights and conditions of working people they fought against and campaigned against.

It is the same with housing. We want to put more young people into housing, and what do they do? The first major policy announcement from the current Liberal opposition leader is to slash 300,000 proposed homes in the activity centres. They want to abolish our proposed activity centres, including in Coburg, Brunswick and Sydney Road in my community. They oppose Plan for Victoria, the housing statement and the big social housing build as well, which is the biggest social and community housing pipeline in the country. We had the recent bushfires and natural disasters, yet every measure we take to try and combat climate change, they oppose. We have brought back the State Electricity Commission – they sold it off and they privatised it.

Members interjecting.

Anthony CIANFLONE: The member for Narracan knows that. He knows that. And if they ever got back in, they would sell it off again. In conclusion, the reality is that working from home is just the latest chapter in that whole debate where Labor stands on the side of working people and the Liberals want to cut, slash and burn.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:37): I just feel like we need to take it down a couple of notches, as spirited as the member for Pascoe Vale’s contribution was. Full credit for the way in which he presented it, setting aside the content of his presentation and the mistruths he peppered throughout – unchecked and untested untruths, which I will address during my contribution. The bottom line here is that all you need to do is look at this side of the chamber. We have got working families amongst us. The Leader of the Opposition herself –

Members interjecting.

Brad ROWSWELL: If you are laughing at working families and the circumstances that –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Excuse me, member for Sandringham, please do not use the word ‘you’. Direct your contribution through the Chair, please.

Brad ROWSWELL: I will do just that. The member for Warrandyte joins me at the table today, herself a working mother with a beautiful boy and a very supportive husband. I have two children myself. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Kew, has a child herself – a beautiful boy, young Patrick. People on this side of the chamber are working parents. We understand the pressures that are placed upon the shoulders of working families. We get it because we are living it ourselves. We get it because we are living amongst our community. We are living in our communities. Our friendship groups are equally working families who are experiencing the pressures that working families experience. I know from experience myself, from speaking to other –

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, seeking clarification – is he indicating he will support the legislation, because I am confused with his contribution so far.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I will remind the house that we do not have a bill before us, we have a motion, and I will ask the member for Sandringham to continue to contribute to the motion before the chamber.

Brad ROWSWELL: Indeed I will. We get it. We get the difficulties of being part of a working family. We get the pressures. We get the fact that for a period of your life you are in survival mode and certainly not thriving mode. There is a great sense of solidarity amongst working families, not just on this side of the chamber but resonating throughout our communities as well. With that as background, I just cannot understand for the life of me why, inside this place and outside of this place, and on the social media channels being infiltrated by the bots and whatever else, this government says time and time again, this Premier says time and time again, these Labor members of Parliament say time and time again, the ministers, the caucus members, the backbench members, the crossbench members and all of them say that we do not support working from home.

I want to say this really, really, really, really, really clearly, as clearly as I can. I get that sometimes it is a little bit hard for members of the government to understand words, so I will use clear words, simple words. I will say it as clearly as I possibly can, exercising articulation, diction and all those other things that will make it as clear as possible for government members: we support working from home. We support working from home – simple, period.

Now that that has been said as clearly as I can, using as simple language as I can, hopefully somewhere between the ears on the government benches they would have recognised, picked up – at least thematically – something that I said just then. At least then they know that henceforth whenever they tell these mistruths inside this chamber, outside the chamber, on their social media, whatever it might be, that it is in fact not true that this side of the chamber does not support working from home, because we do. It is a circumstance where we recognise the need and the benefit of that for our communities. It is as simple as that.

This distraction has been brought on by the government because they do not want to talk about corruption on Big Build sites here in this state. They do not want to talk about some of the solutions that we have offered this week. They do not want to talk about any of that. One of the great injustices of the distractions the Labor government has brought on this week and last week is the fact that they are drip-feeding it. It is being drip-fed. They actually do not understand – they say they do, but in actuality they do not – the pressures and the demands on the lives, on the heads and the shoulders, that mental load that those working families experience, because they are seeing this through a political lens. They are seeing this as a political solution. They do not understand, because if they did, they would not drip-feed it. They would not drip-feed bits of information here, there and everywhere. They would be up-front, they would be frank, they would just get on with it. For goodness sakes, it was at the Labor Party conference – when was it? Last year? Last August? Silence from the government. Last August the Premier first announced their intent to bring this on, and we are now in – what is it – March. August, September, October, November, December, January – right, yes, I can count and it is less than 10, so I am all good. Eight months on and there is no detail – that is cruel.

Working families already have enough on, and they are trying to figure out how they support their kids who have so much stuff being thrown at them at the minute – the increase in mental health concerns amongst our kids, the learning difficulties, the neurodiversity in children at the minute, the things that they are exposed to globally and around this state, the violence they see on television screens, via social media et cetera. That itself is a significant enough concern. Then there are the economic concerns. We have got a federal Treasurer who quite clearly cannot control inflation and keeps on spending, spending, spending and fuelling inflation, and the threat of the Reserve Bank again increasing interest rates. You have got the cost of education going up, you have got the cost of power going up, no matter what the Minister for Energy and Resources says – ‘Prices are going down, down, down.’ How could we ever forget that from Minister D’Ambrosio when the truth and the reality of that is something else? Working families have enough going on without the cruel way in which this government, through a political solution – a distracting lens – is drip-feeding bits of information out. They first announced it in August. They are the government: get on with it. If in fact you are going to do this, if in fact you are so sure about it, get on with it. Was it Jerry Maguire or who was it? ‘Show us the money’ – was that Jerry Maguire?

Nicole Werner interjected.

Brad ROWSWELL: Show us the legislation. Show us the detail. That is what hardworking Victorian families –

A member: Don’t start singing. Don’t do that.

Brad ROWSWELL: No risk of that, Minister. Forgive my disorderly conduct, Acting Speaker.

I think it is only fair that, with the significant mental load that working families are experiencing at the moment, this government cease and desist their cruel way, through the political framing and the distraction framing of this debate, and gets on and shows Victorian families the detail.

What this government does not want to deal with is the reality of the circumstance. What is on the minds of Victorians at the minute is the fact that they are not prepared to enforce the law, to chase the money and to stop the rorts on Victorian government building sites. That is on the minds of Victorians. And I will tell you why I am suggesting that: if Labor members, government members are curious as to what my source information is for that claim, check out the comments on your social media feeds. Honestly. I do occasionally, in a moment of absolute and utter insomnia, scroll through some of the comments on government members on their social media pages. Check out what they are saying, check out what Victorians are saying. Victorians want to know when their government will take responsibility for the $15 billion rorted on government building sites, on Big Build building sites. That is what they are interested in. They want their government to be accountable. They want their government to be up-front and frank. For as long as these sorts of motions are brought on, trying to wedge and trying to distract, frankly, we are not going to play ball. We support working from home. We proudly support working from home, and that is in fact the truth of the matter.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:47): I am a little bit confused by those opposite, because on the one hand they are protesting, ‘Yes, yes, we really support working from home,’ but ‘All this is a waste of time and why are we talking about this and debating this motion in the chamber?’ It is a little bit confusing as to their position, because it is one thing to say you support working from home. Do you support legislating working from home, because that is the matter that we are discussing today? But they also have said only this week that there has been too much spending by this side of the house on infrastructure and services for Victorians. You can see that with the way they consider Victorians, or perhaps disregard families et cetera, there is a thread, and this is why it is hard to actually believe them on this front. We know that federally, under the former opposition leader, they bombed on the whole working from home issue, and it was deemed to have been deeply alienating to the electorate.

I am going to pick up on that word ‘wedge’. Why would we be wedging them if they actually were genuinely supportive of working from home? No-one is seeking to wedge anyone on this issue. This is about looking at the electorate, looking at their needs. We engage with families and other people in our electorate every day of the week, so bearing in mind long commutes and the challenges that they have to face paying for petrol or otherwise, it is actually about having that work–life balance. Because what is it: it is about work–life balance fundamentally, at the end of the day, and being able to balance the budget.

In my electorate there are literally thousands and thousands of people who work from home. And we are not going to apologise for having done a comprehensive survey on this issue, because I feel like there is also pushback, as if, ‘Why did we have the audacity to actually ask Victorians about this topic?’ We did because we care deeply for them and we want to make sure that they are able to balance all the needs of their families and their health and their budgets. We know that it really is a game changer, not only for families but also for the economy. We know, if we look at it financially, working from home saves the average family about $110 a week, roughly $5300 a year. If the opposition are feeling wedged, that is their problem. I mean, if you say you genuinely want to support this, why would you say it is a wedge? Just be supportive of legislating it. So yes, I got a bit confused by that comment because that really sends a signal to what is deeply in their DNA, and that is, as they have been suggesting previously, to get all the public servants back into the office five days a week, as if somehow they do not deserve to have work–life balance either.

So thinking about this comprehensive survey, 36,770 Victorians responded to the survey. That is outstanding, and I really thank the Victorian community for expressing their opinions and their feelings on this issue, but it is also a testament to the fact that they care deeply and that this is really, really important to them. So yes, indeed, 74 per cent of employees surveyed said the right to work from home is extremely important to them, but over 3200 people told us they do not feel they can even ask their current employer for the option to work from home, hence the imperative to back in the workers and provide a legislative format for this important reform.

We know also when it comes to the ‘why’, why this is so important to people in our state, for some it will actually influence them choosing one job over another – that was actually 30,591 people, 88 per cent of those surveyed. Also, 88 per cent of participants say having the ability to work from home would make them stay in the job longer, 71 per cent said the ability to work from home would impact their decision on where to live and 83 per cent said they were more productive working from home in terms of both hours worked and milestones achieved. Certainly we can see the advantage for families, and I know there is this argument about, ‘With certain professions you can’t do it,’ but if you think of a whole household, if one is a frontline worker but the other is able to work from home, then that provides a way of balancing all the needs of the family. The other point I was going to make too, though, is if you are not in a family and if you are a single, maybe it might mean that at the end of the day you clock off, whether it is 5 or 6 o’clock, depending on your workday, and instead of spending an hour in the car you go to the gym or you catch up with your mates.

So when you are looking at mental health and wellbeing, this is about balancing that but also about reducing congestion, because obviously roads are only going to get more and more clogged – unless we of course have more and more people take PT, and of course we hope that they do take public transport. But otherwise for those who are commuting in the car there are a couple of days a week where they are not having to do that – saving on petrol, saving on emissions but also reducing congestion as well. There are many advantages for many in the community. I know some have said, ‘Oh, well, you know, is it really splitting the workforce’ et cetera, ‘Does it only benefit some?’ But of course if we are reducing congestion everyone benefits, and that is why this working from home reform is so very important.

I find it almost offensive that some people are saying, ‘Well, we can only talk about one topic all week. We can’t possibly in the Parliament juggle different motions and different debates.’ I thought the purpose of Parliament was to be able to debate different matters, because suggesting that talking about this is a distraction therefore implies that they think that this topic really is not that important. If it is viewed as purely a distraction, that implies that they do not see it as a priority; however, on this side of the house we do see it as a priority. We are being very, very up-front about this, transacting it thoroughly, because it literally impacts thousands and thousands of Victorians. We know that there are, as I have said, thousands who are working from home already, so this will ensure that those who currently find it difficult or are not able to get that prioritisation through their workplace actually have a legislated backing to help support them.

I do find it curious, though, that those opposite think that we should not debate this thoroughly; it is a pretty major reform. I think that there is something to be said for actually having a really open and transparent conversation on something which arguably will have – and it already has proven to be the case with the many who are already working from home – a significant impact on quality of life. So I would hope that the opposition, instead of seeing debating this issue as just a distraction or labelling it as a mechanism to wedge or purely a political tangent, take it as much more important to Victorians. We know that, because we have surveyed them thoroughly. No-one was forced to respond, but we had an overwhelming response and it was emphatic on many accounts, but arguably all the fronts that they led by were ones that I think good, reasonable human beings can understand: not wanting to be in long commutes, wanting to save money and cost of living and actually wanting to spend more time with family.

I know from a lot of parents in my area the amount of time they spend in their cars getting their kids to and from sports. We want them to get them to and from sports; this is a really important thing. Certainly with our Get Active Kids vouchers we are all about keeping kids active and getting them into sport as early as possible, because we know how sporting clubs et cetera are so beneficial to the overall life of human beings. Sport certainly can encourage them into activities that they can take throughout their lives.

Bearing all that in mind, we know that this is about really striking a balance. There is certainly merit in that. Look, you do not have to take it from us, you can take it from Victorians themselves. Victorians have spoken loud and clear. We have given them that opportunity to do so because we value their input, so it is not just about the MPs in the chamber. Of course we are working hard for our communities and we are representing them here, but it is also about listening to them, and that is why we are driving this reform. But we make no apologies for having surveyed extensively and for transacting this in a very thorough way when we understand the far-reaching impacts of this, but we also know there are those who are not being supported, who are not being backed in and who need more assistance, hence the imperative for legislating this very important reform.

 Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (11:57): Thank you, Acting Speaker Addison, for filling in for me while I do this contribution. We have heard from the member for Brighton and the member for Sandringham. They have both been very, very clear in their language on where the coalition stands in regard to working from home. The member for Sandringham said it three times very, very clearly. The coalition supports working from home. Very, very clearly it has been stated time and time again, and that is why the government has brought this – and it is a sledge motion; the wording of it is a sledge motion – into this Parliament. The government keeps saying ‘Will you support it into legislation?’ You have got to bring the legislation forward, because, as we know with this government, a lot of the time the devil is in the detail. It is hard to form an opinion on something when you have not seen the legislation. That is very simple. The member for Brighton leaned into it earlier.

I will reference the member for Albert Park before I go to the member for Brighton. The member for Albert Park just stated that we can do more than one thing at a time in this chamber. I agree. But it is interesting that when the opposition try to do more than one thing in this chamber the government tear up and get a little bit sooky. We tried to bring three bills this week into this Parliament to protect workers, to find $15 billion of taxpayers money and to make our construction sites safe for people, and the government voted every one of those down. The government complained that it was interrupting their business program, so why should we do that. That is what the government said this week. But now it is okay to bring a motion forward when we have not even debated the legislation. It is very hypocritical in my opinion. It is hard to debate something you have not read, and the motion itself is a sledge motion.

The reason the government has brought this forward today is because it is political – absolutely no doubt. The government this week is looking for deflection. That is exactly what they are trying to do this week. It is not going their way at the moment. It is not going the government’s way.

They are caught up in the scandal of losing $15 billion of taxpayers money, and now they want a deflection. That is why, rightly so, it has been a drip-feed all week. ‘We’ve got to shift the focus. We’ve got to move it away from what is going on.’ It is sleight of hand, and it is sneaky. It is quite sneaky. This is political. It is political because they are rightly under the pump. They just knocked back three bills in this chamber that would have found the money, got rid of criminals and everything to do with construction, and then they bring this motion forward to just deflect. They just need that deflection, because as popular as working from home is, they also realise that at least 73 per cent of Victorians want to know where $15 billion ended up. It was very, very clear. And the polls are not in their favour at the moment. It is very interesting, the sneaky tactics the government will use.

I do know the member for Tarneit. He supports working from home, absolutely 100 per cent, because he spends more time out of question time than he does in question time. The member for Tarneit takes it very seriously, especially between the hours of 2 o’clock and 2:45. That seems to be his sweet spot when he wants to work from home. That is his sweet spot.

I totally agree with the member for Albert Park: we should be debating more than one topic in a week, but do not cut debate when it suits you. Do not cut debate if you do not want to fix the construction sites. Cut debate if you do not want to find $15 billion. That is what the government has done this week, and of course this now is a deflection. In the motion they say:

Labor’s plan to legislate working from home.

Where is the legislation? As the member for Sandringham rightly pointed out earlier, it has been eight months. I am wondering, is that eight months of drafting? What has happened? Is this paralysis by analysis? Is it ever going to come forward. We can have the debate. That is a fair comment. But they do not want to debate the things in this chamber that Victorians today are worried about. I mean, even in this motion it says:

… condemn the Shadow Treasurer for spreading misinformation on working from home.

I do not know if those on the other side listened to the member for Kew, who is the Shadow Treasurer, on the radio the other day. She was very clear where she stands on working from home – very clear. I think it was on Raf Epstein, from memory. She was very clear when she was asked the question. So that comment there, just in itself, is misinformation in this motion.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: It is interesting, I can hear my opposite number over the other side there. He is starting to sledge again. The problem with the member for Mordialloc is when there is a little bit of grain of truth, he gets a little bit niggly and he starts to bite. I mean, I would love to go fishing with him. It would be very easy to go fishing with the member for Mordialloc. He bites every time. This whole motion put forward is nothing more than a sledge motion, and it is nothing more than a political game when the government knows it is in trouble on its transparency and on its integrity.

I will tell you who probably would like to work from home: women on construction sites in this state. Women on construction sites in this state would probably really want to work from home because of what has gone on the construction sites. We have seen the footage on TV, we have heard the reports. What we were trying to do this week is fix this up, and the government did not support us on that issue, which I find pretty disappointing.

We should be protecting everyone on working sites. Again, this motion is purely to deflect and to move away from what matters to Victoria right at this point in time. Victorians are rightly angry that they have lost $15 billion to corruption in this state. I know that figure is subjective – that has been yelled out many times in this chamber. And I always say, well, if it is not $15 billion, have the investigation and let us find out how much it is. I think Victorians deserve to know. I think if it was $15 billion and you recovered 4 per cent of that, you could have built the West Gippsland Hospital. I know my community deserves good health care. That is a commitment the government made. It has not started yet, probably because there is not enough money in the budget. The cows are still on the site, and it was meant to start in 2023. Why not follow the money? Why not find out where it is? Why not recover some and actually put that back into what matters in this state?

Katie Hall: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, just on relevance, I think the member has strayed a long way from our working-from-home motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): I ask the member for Narracan to continue to address the motion before the chamber.

Wayne FARNHAM: I will. In closing: if you want us to talk about legislating work from home, bring the legislation forward. It is really that simple. Bring it forward so we can have the debate. You cannot have a debate on thin air. Bring the legislation forward so we can form a position on it and so we can look at the detail. You have not brought anything forward yet. It is a fugazi; it is not here. It is in the ether somewhere. I will leave my debate there.

 Katie HALL (Footscray) (12:07): I am absolutely delighted to speak about working from home, because I know in my community of Footscray, in Melbourne’s inner west, we have a very large proportion of families who rely on the benefits of working from home. In fact I understand there are approximately 15,000 residents in my electorate who are working from home. During the pandemic of course we saw the emergence of some incredible women-led businesses and microbusinesses that were designed around the flexibility of working from home. You see every day at school pick-up that this flexibility works for families in the community, and I am enormously proud to be part of a government that is looking at these sorts of solutions to make life easier, safer and of course more affordable. I know that the local businesses in my community benefit too, because you see lots of people who are working from home now buying their coffees and their lunch at local cafes.

If you can do your job from home, I am very proud to be part of a government that will make that your right. If you can do your job from home, no matter the size of your workplace, we will ensure that from 1 September you will have a legislated right to do so. This is going to be transformative, particularly for women in my community, who often disproportionately carry the burden of school drop-offs and pick-ups and medical appointments and things like that to manage the family home. But I also know, and I think the Productivity Commission has confirmed this, that people are more productive at home. I know that on the very rare occasion where I have an opportunity to do some work from home, it can feel like you get a lot more done away from some of the distractions of the office. And it makes life easier. Not having to travel to work, to get those hours back in your day, it takes traffic off our roads and it also means that people have the opportunity to claw back some of that time in their day, which means that they can do something else, whether it is going shopping or picking the kids up.

My kids are currently on strike from after-school care, so I know that it can be a very beneficial thing if you can get to the school gate and pick them up.

This is about fairness and flexibility, which can be less common in small businesses where more than 1.3 million Victorians work. I was listening recently to a Raf Epstein special on working from home on the ABC, and I heard a small business owner, I think from the electorate of Cranbourne, who owns a swim school. The owner of the swim school said, ‘Well, certainly the people that do the administration can work from home.’ I thought that was a really interesting way to think about it. I think that small businesses are understanding the productivity gains that can be accrued from working from home. Of course not everyone works for a big bank or a big corporation, and every day unions are hearing requests from people in businesses of all sizes to have reasonable work-from-home requests.

Across the country what we know and what we saw, certainly at the last federal election, was that the Liberal Party were absolutely tied up in knots over work from home. I heard the Leader of the Opposition yesterday again on the ABC unable to confirm whether the opposition would be supporting these endeavours to ensure that fairness and flexibility is embedded for workers when we bring the work-from-home laws into effect from 1 September. To make it happen we will introduce legislation in July, and the new right to work from home will be enshrined in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. This is the latest in the updates to the design of Labor’s Australia-first work-from-home laws. It follows our update that work-from-home rights will apply regardless of the size of your workplace. As I mentioned, coming into effect from 1 September, disputes will go to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission for conciliation, and if conciliation fails, disputes will be heard at VCAT.

I will give some of the reasons that work from home works for families. More than a third of workers, including 60 per cent of professionals, regularly work from home. It saves families money, giving Australians back on average $110 a week or more than $5000 a year, which is so significant. I mentioned before the cuts to congestion. Victorians are saving more than 3 hours a week commuting, which can really feel like dead time for people who have so many pressures in their life, whether it is making sure that there is a load of washing on or there are groceries for the week. It gets more people working, it improves workforce participation, and that unfortunately is at risk, because we hear from unions that workers are regularly denied reasonable work-from-home requests – we hear that, we know that. Whilst the opposition might say, ‘Well, people are already working from home. Why would we need to legislate it?’, it is because we know that reasonable requests are being denied.

Flexible work should not just be a perk for the few. It should be something that working families across Victoria can benefit from, with the savings to the household budget, the workforce participation improvements and the family work–life balance improvements.

Our workforce participation rate is now 4.4 per cent higher than before the pandemic, in part due to this flexibility. We know that Victorian workers want and need their right to work from home protected, because we have surveyed them. We undertook a survey and received almost 40,000 survey responses back from workers across the state, and the message was clear. Seventy-four per cent of employees surveyed said that the right to work from home is extremely important to them. More than 3200 people told us that they feel that they cannot even ask their current employer for the option to work from home. Of those who cannot work from home but want to, most had requested it and were refused. Nearly all of them said that that refusal was unreasonable. So yes, this is a cultural shift for businesses, but it is a massive productivity gain for those businesses too. It does require a shift in thinking, because the labour market has evolved. Certainly the pandemic forced us to think in different ways about this kind of work, but we know that working from home works for families. I know that it works for families in my electorate of Footscray. I see it every day, and I am enormously proud to be part of a government that is going to make this happen for people who have reasonably requested to work from home but have been denied that opportunity. I commend the motion to the house.

 Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (12:16): I rise to support the member for Brighton’s further amendment:

… that this house notes how stale and political this sledge motion is.

It is clear in the house today that it is a political move from the Allan Labor government to talk about something that is not even legislated yet, something that we have not seen the detail of and something that they want to talk about and create a sideshow of instead of talking about the $15 billion of money that has been poured into the hands of criminals. It absolutely is political, as per the amendment, which is what I am speaking to.

Vicki Ward: Acting Speaker, my point of order goes to accuracy. I would caution the member to ensure there is evidence to back up her baseless claims.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member for Warrandyte was being relevant to the debate.

Nicole WERNER: The government brings forward a sledge motion rather than legislation, instead of talking about the alleged $15 billion of taxpayers money they have poured into criminals’ hands. On this side of the house we support work from home.

Vicki Ward: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I actually take offence at the statement that this alleged money was from the government. Suggesting that the government is engaged in this activity is scandalous.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): There is no point of order. The member was not talking about anyone specifically.

Nicole WERNER: We support work from home, as I was saying, as per this amendment, talking about how stale and political this sledge motion is. We support this amendment, as I have referred to. We are in a position where we have still not seen any legislation, and we know that this government is brazenly political. It leaves me to wonder what indeed is in this legislation. They want to talk about work from home, but they have not presented any legislation. We need to now think about what is in the legislation and then let us have a look at it. We know that this government is addicted to taxing Victorians. We know they have got a pet tax going, a school tax, the nation’s highest property taxes and land tax for those who work from home – 63 new or increased taxes since they came to government. It is clear that the government have a $200 billion debt and that they are addicted to taxing Victorians. We already know that this government charges land tax on those who work from home, and we have not seen this new legislation about work from home. Experts are already warning that the government’s proposed laws could trigger yet another tax for Victorians. So I ask this question: is it the government’s plan to legislate working from home just so they can sting Victorians with yet another tax? We already know they are charging those working from home with business land tax. It seems like they are coming after those who work from home next.

Under Labor’s current changes, if a home-based business earns over $30,000 a year, the owner may be slugged with land tax, hitting startups, side hustles, freelancers, contractors and more. The Australian Financial Review reports that because of these changes more than 400,000 Victorians last year copped these bills for the first time. The government is already coming after those who want to make money from their own home. So I ask my question again: is it the government’s plan to legislate work from home in order to be able to slug everyday Victorians with yet another tax? This would make for the 63rd or the 64th. It is these increased and new taxes that they love slugging Victorians with because they have absolutely indebted the state. We know the government is broke. We know that 46 per cent of Victoria’s total tax revenue comes from property-related taxes, including land tax and stamp duty. We know that it is the highest proportion of any state and we know that Labor desperately need to plug their budget black hole, so they have tried to do that with tax after tax after tax after tax. So I ask again: is it the case that the Allan Labor government want to make people work from home so they can then slug them all with land tax?

Experts have been warning of it. Tax experts have been saying that these work-from-home laws could trigger another tax for Victorians. Again I say we support work from home on this side of the house, but what we do not support is taxing Victorians again and again and again like this Allan Labor government is addicted to doing. Home owners are currently exempt from tax on a primary place of residence, but the exemption does not apply where ‘substantial business activity’ is being carried out from home. This is where tax experts are saying permanent working-from-home arrangements could trigger the tax for workers, especially freelancers or contractors. In fact barrister Emma Mealy, an expert in state taxes who worked for the State Revenue Office, said there was definitely scope for employees working two or more days from home to be caught in this tax trap. I quote this expert:

It appears that it makes no difference to the commissioner as to whether a person works from home for their own business purposes or as part of their employment …

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member for Polwarth will come to order. The minister is not to shout across the table.

Nicole WERNER: I go on to quote:

For home office arrangements, the commissioner –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The minister at the table, the Minister for Emergency Services, and the member for Polwarth will cease shouting across each other while I am trying to listen to the debate. Thank you.

Nicole WERNER: I was quoting the barrister who is an expert in state taxes who worked at the SRO. She went on to say:

For home office arrangements, the commissioner in the ruling focuses on the extent of the business activity carried on in the home office compared with elsewhere, such as the employer’s offices.

Well, I would not put it past the Allan Labor government to slug Victorians again with another tax. Again, we have not seen this legislation. Of course we are supportive of work from home. Again I say we are not supportive of another tax when they promised they would not increase or raise taxes, and here we are on the 63rd since they were elected to government. Here we are again on the brink of another tax so that they can tax every single Victorian all over again to plug their budget black hole.

Vicki Ward: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I do speak to accuracy. There is no compulsion in working from home, so I think that there is a great deal of confusion coming from the member in her speech that she really needs to ensure is accurate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I will rule on the point of order. We keep them short and succinct. The member is being relevant to the amendments that have been put forward.

[The Legislative Assembly report is being published progressively.]