Wednesday, 17 June 2026

 Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (11:26): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 (Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill seeks to legislate a right to work from home for two days per week, where reasonable, in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act). This right is applied on a pro rata basis for employees who do not work full time. The Bill specifies the factors that must be considered by an employer in determining whether it is reasonable for an employee to work from home, being the inherent requirements of the employee’s role and the impacts on the employer.

The Bill will provide categories of employees that cannot access the right to work from home. To ensure a well-trained and skilled workforce, employees undertaking a probationary period at the commencement of their employment and employees participating in formal training programs, such as apprentices, trainees, work experience students and interns will not have access to the right at this stage of their employment. However, these employees would be eligible to benefit from the reforms and exercise the right to work from home for two days a week, where reasonable, once their probation period or training program has concluded. Further categories of employees may be prescribed by regulations, if required.

Those employees who can request flexible work arrangements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fair Work Act) on the basis of their particular circumstances (for example if the employee is pregnant or is 55 or older) will continue to be able to access these rights for flexible work

under that Act, where their request for flexible work arrangements relates to those particular circumstances. Requests for flexible working arrangements under the Fair Work Act, can among other things, including working from home. Certain categories of employees are also already covered by the Fair Work Act.

The dispute resolution pathways under the EO Act, namely the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, will be extended to disputes which arise where an employee considers that their employer has unreasonably refused their right to work from home or contravened the provisions regarding the new right.

Human Rights Issues

In my opinion, the human rights under the Charter engaged by the Bill are the:

•   right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8 of the Charter); and

•   right to protection of families and children (section 17 of the Charter).

For the reasons outlined below, I am of the view that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because, to the extent that some provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I consider that other provisions of the Bill promote human rights.

Right to recognition and equality before the law

The Bill engages the right to equality in section 8 of the Charter because it has the potential to both promote and limit equality before the law.

On one hand, access to regular working-from-home arrangements may enhance workplace participation, especially for women and people facing barriers to entry into the workforce, aiding productivity and worker satisfaction.

It also brings the benefits of working from home, such as reduction in the cost of commuting and improved work/life balance, to a broader sector of the Victorian community. In this way, the reform promotes greater equality before the law.

On the other hand, the proposed reforms in the Bill could be said to limit the right to equality with regards to roles which cannot be performed remotely or for employees who lack a suitable environment within which to conduct their work from home. The employees who cannot benefit from the proposed reforms may be disadvantaged by comparison to those whose roles can be performed away from the office. The Bill addresses this by ensuring that the right applies across all business sizes and industries and only exempting limited cohorts of employees. It also requires employers to cover necessary costs to enable the employee to work from home, including essential equipment and secure access to the employer’s information systems.

Employees who are otherwise eligible to request flexible working arrangements under the Fair Work Act based on their particular circumstances (such as where the employee is pregnant or is 55 or older), will continue to be able to do so where they are making a request on the basis of those circumstances. However, like other Victorians, if these employees would like to work from home for two days per week because it is their preference and not based on their circumstances, they may do so under the Bill. This promotes equality before the law and ensures existing protections for employees with particular circumstances (such as where the employee is pregnant or is 55 or older), still have access to other pathways to request flexible working arrangements.

A key aspect of the proposed reforms is that the right to work from home will apply only where it is reasonable. ‘Reasonableness’ will be assessed on a list of factors prescribed in the Bill that relate to the inherent requirements of the employee’s role and the impact that working from home would have on the employer.

The Bill further engages the right to equality before the law by potentially impacting the ability of employers and business owners to conduct their business. Industry and employer stakeholders have raised concerns that the reforms will negatively impact on businesses through the requirement to provide equipment for employees working from home, a potential increase in industrial disputes, and challenges in attracting and retaining staff in frontline roles for which work from home is unlikely to be possible. However, these risks are intended to be addressed through the ‘reasonableness’ factors that must be considered when determining if an employee can work from home.

The ‘reasonableness’ factors included in the Bill support employers to vigorously analyse employee requests to work from home with regard to the inherent requirements of their role, including the need for in-person attendance to satisfy that role effectively. A consideration when making this assessment is whether the employee’s role includes legal requirements related to safety, welfare, supervision or security. This clarifies that the right is not intended to detract from the critical functions that frontline employees complete to keep Victorians safe. The reasonableness factors also require balancing the inherent requirements of the employee’s role with the impacts of that individual working from home are likely to have on the employer. This includes productivity and efficiency, safety, supervision, training and professional development of employees, building relationships with stakeholders, clients or customers, customer service outcomes, confidentiality and cost.

In time, it is expected that hybrid working (working from home for a portion of the week) will become the new norm for businesses and employees alike, which will provide benefits for the entire Victorian community.

The Bill aims to strike a balance between ensuring that the right to work from home applies to as broad a sector of Victorian employees as possible, whilst also taking into account the operational realities of businesses, ultimately bringing great benefits for the Victorian community at large. For this reason, to the extent that the Bill limits the right to equality in section 8 of the Charter, this limitation is reasonable and justified.

Right to protection of families and children

Section 17(1) of the Charter provides that ‘families are the fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected by society and the State’. The Bill engages this right because it directly assists in the capacity of eligible employees to maintain and support family life by reducing commuting time and increasing flexibility in managing work and caring responsibilities. A work-from-home entitlement may promote the ability of parents and carers to participate more fully in family life, alongside their employment, thereby supporting the protection of the family unit. In this way, the proposed reforms in the Bill promote the right to protection of families and children. In addition, the Bill does not impact existing entitlements under other legislative frameworks such as the Fair Work Act.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because, to the extent that some of the provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Hon. Jacinta Allan MP

Premier

 Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (11:26): Under the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of treaty compatibility:

In my opinion, the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 (Bill) is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025 (Treaty Act). I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The Bill proposes to legislate a right to work from home for two days a week through amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act).

The Bill will set out criteria for an employer to assess the reasonableness of an employee working from home, which will be based on the inherent requirements of the employee’s role and the impact that employee working from home would have on the employer. The matters to be considered when determining if it is reasonable for an employee to work from home are:

• the inherent requirements of the employee’s role, including whether those requirements can be satisfied

•   without the employee’s attendance in person at their regular workplace; or

•   without the employee using equipment at their regular workplace; or

•   without in person interactions between the employee and members of the public or clients or customers of the employer; and

•   having regard to any legal requirements relating to safety, welfare, security and supervision

• the impact that the employee working from home would have on the employer, including whether the employee working from home on specific days or at specific times

•   would likely cause a significant decrease in productivity or efficiency for the employer; or

•   would have an adverse impact on any person’s safety; or

•   would have a significant adverse impact on supervision, training or professional development of the employer’s employees; or

•   would have a significant adverse impact on the capacity to build relationships between the employee and stakeholders, clients or customers of the employer; or

•   would have a significant adverse impact on customer service outcomes; or

•   would have a significant adverse impact on confidentiality or data protection; or

•   would impose financial costs on the employer that are excessive; or

•   would require the employer to make changes to the working arrangements of the employee or any other employee that are impractical; or

•   would require the employer to make new hirings that are impractical; or

• any prescribed reasons.

The dispute resolution pathways under the EO Act, primarily through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, will be extended to disputes which arise in relation to an employer deciding that it is not reasonable for an employee to work from home.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

Due to the recent establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl, it was not possible to give the First Peoples’ Assembly the opportunity to advise on the Bill or for them to otherwise make representations about the effect of the Bill on First Peoples.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the following objects set out at section 66(3)(d) of the Treaty Act:

• advancing the inherent rights and self‑determination of First Peoples;

• addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

• ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

Advancing the inherent rights and self‑determination of First Peoples (section 66(3)(d)(i))

The inherent rights of First Peoples, including the right to self-determination, are recognised by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

The Assembly has identified that the right to self-determination for First Peoples includes economic self-determination. The right to economic self-determination, empowers and supports First Peoples to make decisions about First Peoples’ financial resources and encompasses the right to freely pursue economic development.

The Bill may indirectly limit the achievement of economic self-determination for First Peoples by imposing obligations on businesses owned and operated by First Peoples. This includes potential increased equipment and administration costs to set up employees working from home.

However, whether the work-from-home entitlement arises is determined by a test of ‘reasonableness’. This test is sufficiently broad to address various scenarios which may be faced by a First Peoples–owned business, due to which it may not be possible for the business to allow employees to work from home for the period of time being requested. The reasonableness factors direct the employer to consider operational and financial obstacles

which may prevent the business from being able to reasonably offer work-from-home arrangements for employees but are simultaneously sufficiently limited to avoid denials of work-from-home requests based on irrelevant considerations. The test aims to strike the balance between considering the legitimate needs of all businesses, including those operated by First Peoples, against the new right to work from home which will benefit all eligible Victorian employees, including First Peoples.

The Bill will ensure that the right to work from home applies across all business sizes and industries and only exempts limited cohorts of employees such as those on probation and trainees. Ultimately, it is intended that the benefits to the Victorian community will outweigh any potential negative impacts on businesses.

Despite the potential limitation on the right to economic self-determination, the Bill is nonetheless compatible with the object of advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples, as the limitation is reasonably justifiable in the circumstances for the following reasons:

• This Bill represents a positive and modern reform that will benefit a large sector of the Victorian community, including First Peoples. The right to work from home reflects contemporary expectations about flexible and hybrid work and helps create more inclusive, adaptable and resilient workplaces.

• The reforms in the Bill may enhance equal participation in employment for people who experience structural barriers to traditional workplace attendance, including First Peoples (and in doing so advance economic self-determination for those employees). An employee is only entitled to work from home where it is reasonable, taking into account both the requirements of the employee’s role and the impacts on the business. On balance, my view is that the obligations on business owners are proportionate when considered alongside the advancements for employees, and the requirement that work-from-home arrangements meet the “reasonableness” test set out in the Bill.

Addressing unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation

The Yoorrook Justice Commission’s ‘Truth be Told’ report (‘Yoorrrook Report’) describes the effects of colonisation on First Peoples. It describes how the gap between outcomes for First Peoples and other Victorians in areas including education and employment is caused by the impacts of colonisation in the past, which continue today.

The Bill may address the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation. It does this by improving access to employment, including through reducing commuting costs. These measures can help mitigate barriers arising from housing constraints, particularly in remote and regional areas, and support greater workforce participation for people living in rural and regional communities.

In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the object in section 66(3)(d)(ii) of the Treaty Act because it addresses the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation due to the following:

• The amendments apply equally to First Peoples and non–First Peoples.

• The ability to work from home improves equality by enhancing equal participation in employment. The Bill is expected to support the workforce participation of First Peoples living in regions where long commutes are a barrier to exclusively working onsite. The Bill may support distribution of economic activity across the state which would support regional businesses owned by First Peoples and boost regional employment.

• The Bill provides greater flexibility to manage work alongside family and cultural responsibilities for a broader sector of the Victorian community and enables greater connection to country and community.

Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples

A Bill may affect the equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms by First Peoples where, in its express terms or practical effect, it has a differential effect on First Peoples as compared to the broader community.

It is possible that the Bill may not present the same benefits to First Peoples as the broader Victorian community. However, ahead of the reforms being tested, and subsequent data generated, it is not possible to know whether the advantages of the Bill will be proportionately accessed by the First Peoples community, as to the broader Victorian community.

As the Bill does not in its terms deal with First Peoples and does not directly or indirectly in its practical effect engage the human rights or fundamental freedoms of First Peoples, the Bill is compatible with this object.

Hon. Jacinta Allan MP

Premier

 Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (11:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Bill proposes to legislate a right to work from home for two days a week, where reasonable, through amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act). The Attorney-General will be the responsible Minister for the new provisions in the EO Act.

For Victorians, working from home has innumerable benefits. It saves families money at a time where every dollar makes a difference. It cuts congestion and improves work–life balance with less time being spent commuting. It increases workplace participation, especially for women and people facing barriers to entry into the workforce, aiding productivity and worker satisfaction. Yet, this is all at risk, as every day Victorian employees are being denied reasonable work from home requests. In an Australian-first, this Bill will create a right to work from home for two days a week, where reasonable, thereby enabling more Victorian employees to access the benefits of working from home.

These reforms are intended to benefit as many Victorians as possible and to that end, there are no exemptions based on business size or industry. However, the Bill will provide categories of employees that cannot access the right to work from home. To ensure a well-trained and skilled workforce, employees undertaking a probationary period at the commencement of their employment and employees participating in formal training programs, such as apprentices, trainees, work experience students and interns, will not have access to the right at this stage of their employment. However, these employees would be eligible to benefit from the reforms and exercise the right to work from home for two days a week, where reasonable, once their probation period or training program has concluded. Further categories of employees may be prescribed by regulations, if required.

Those employees who can request flexible work arrangements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act) on the basis of their particular circumstances (for example if the employee is pregnant or is 55 or older) will continue to be able to access these rights for flexible work under that Act, where their request for flexible work arrangements relates to those particular circumstances. Requests for flexible working arrangements under the Fair Work Act, can among other things, including working from home. However, like other Victorians, if these employees would like to work from home for two days per week because it is their preference and not based on their circumstances, they may do so under the Bill. This promotes equality before the law. Certain categories of employees are also already covered by the Fair Work Act.

The proposal to introduce a new right to work from home for two days a week will protect employees from unreasonable refusals of work from home requests. Whether it is reasonable for an employee to work from home will only be assessed in relation to the inherent requirements of the employee’s role and the impact that the employee working from home will have on the employer. In determining reasonableness, the list of factors to be considered include:

• whether the inherent requirements of the role can be performed remotely or require in-person workplace attendance

• whether the employee can only undertake the inherent requirements of their role using workplace-based equipment

• whether the inherent requirements of the employee’s role require in-person interactions including with clients, customers or members of the public

• whether the impact of allowing the employee to work from home would be likely to result in a significant loss in productivity or efficiency for the employer

• whether the impact of the employee working from home would have an adverse impact on safety, or have a significant adverse impact on supervision, training or the professional development of staff, capacity to build stakeholder, client or customer relationships or customer service outcomes, or a significantly adverse impact on confidentiality and data protection

• whether the financial cost of implementation to the relevant employer would be excessive

• whether it would be impractical to change the working arrangements of other Victorian based employees or recruit new employees in Victoria to accommodate the employee working from home.

These reasonableness factors will ensure that only those employees who reasonably can work from home, will be able to do so. For example, our frontline workforces play a critical role in providing care and education and keeping our communities safe. These employees have obligations in relation to safety, welfare, security and supervision that require in-person interaction. The reasonableness factors are drafted to ensure that these critical tasks continue to be carried out in our community. In addition, the Bill makes it clear that legal requirements relating to safety, security, welfare or supervision must be considered (among other things) as part of the inherent requirements of the employee’s role.

An employer may determine the specific days of the week that an employee may work from home. In doing so, they will be required to apply the reasonableness factors. As an example, to mitigate any likely significant loss in business efficiency or productivity, an employer may determine that it is only reasonable for the employee to work from home on Mondays and Fridays on the basis that their business’s peak trade period is Tuesday to Thursday, and in consideration of the reasonableness factors outlined in the Bill.

An employee who wishes to exercise their right to work from home will be required under the Bill to make the request in writing to the employer, with the employer having to consider the request and respond to the request in writing within 21 days, outlining whether or not they have determined it is reasonable for the employee to work from home as requested. Where the employer determines that it is not reasonable for the employee to work from home as requested, they must provide written reasons for their decision.

The Bill extends the existing dispute pathways under the EO Act to the new right. Where an employee considers that their employer has unreasonably refused their request to work from home, an employee may lodge a complaint with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission seeking conciliation or make an application direct to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the EO Act to resolve the dispute. Where the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determines that it is reasonable for the employee to work from home, they can order that the employer allow the employee to do so.

Where a dispute raises federal jurisdiction, for example, if one of the parties resides interstate, or where it is not clear which pathway the application is being made under (for example under the Fair Work Act or the Equal Opportunity Act) the matter may be heard by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Applications made under the Fair Work Act will continue to be determined by the Fair Work Commission where there is a dispute.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission will also support implementation of the proposed reform by producing guidance material.

The Bill specifies that the employer is responsible for the reasonable costs associated with enabling the employee to work from home, including IT hardware and software.

The Fair Work Act states that a modern award or enterprise agreement applies subject to the EO Act. The Bill makes it clear that these reforms are not intended to detract from existing and more beneficial flexible working arrangements provided for eligible employees under the federal scheme. This means that a term of a modern award or enterprise agreement that includes flexible work arrangements will have effect, to the extent that it is more beneficial to the employee than the new reforms proposed in the Bill.

The Bill does not alter existing occupational health and safety or workers compensation schemes. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, employers have a duty to provide a working environment for their employees that is safe and without risks to health. They must do this so far as is reasonably practicable. The Workplace Injury Rehabilitation Compensation Act 2013 establishes a ‘no fault’ injury compensation scheme for people who are injured arising ‘out of or in the course of their employment’. These Acts currently apply to employees working from home and will continue to do so following implementation of the Bill.

Similarly, the Bill does not alter existing land taxation requirements. Land tax is not charged on a person’s principal place of residence where an employee is working from home, on the basis that they are not conducting their own business from home (they are simply working for their employer at a different location).

Working from home offers significant benefits for employees, families and the broader economy. This Bill represents a positive and modern reform that will benefit the broader Victorian community. The right to work from home reflects contemporary expectations about flexible working and helps create more inclusive, adaptable and resilient workplaces. It strikes the right balance between allowing businesses to meet their operational needs and ensuring that reasonable work from home requests will be protected.

I move that the Bill be read a second time, and I ask that my Second Reading Speech be incorporated into Hansard.

I commend the Bill to the House.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:26): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 1 July.