Wednesday, 29 July 2026

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:28): I rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026, and I say at the outset that the coalition, the Liberal and National parties, support the right to work from home. Let me say that very, very clearly: we support the right to work from home, and because we support the right to work from home, we of course will not be opposing the bill.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: How excited the government are, because this government have tried to use a change in law to play raw, brutal politics, and that reflects on them, doesn’t it? I say again: we support the right to work from home, and therefore of course we will not be opposing this bill.

We will seek to make some amendments to ensure that some of the issues the government has overlooked, which the government has admitted to in the government bill briefings, are addressed, because the government, with the former Premier’s office managing the bill briefing, admitted to matters in the bill which it had not either fully thought through or understood the practical implications of. Worse, the then Premier’s office committed to providing information to the opposition – the Liberals and Nationals – in relation to questions that we had in that briefing and have not provided that information. The government have not provided the detailed information they committed to providing in that bill briefing, which I think says a lot about some of the implementation issues with the bill that were raised in the bill briefing.

As we know, this bill enables a right to work from home two days a week, pro rata for employees who work for less than 38 hours, where it is reasonable for them to do so. The bill commences on 1 ‍September and also applies to employers with fewer than 15 employees. Simply put, this bill enables an employee to provide notice to an employer in which they seek to work from home two days a week, and the employer must respond within 21 days based on, effectively, a reasonableness test. In terms of cost, there is a cost burden placed upon the employer that is uncapped. An independent review is built into the legislation to commence on or after 1 July 2030. As we are today at almost the start of August, this bill is set for commencement in just over four weeks, going through both chambers and also receiving royal assent. We can presume that in under three weeks after royal assent, perhaps two weeks after royal assent, the entire Victorian economy – the entire Victorian business sector and all of its employees – will have this legislative framework placed over it. As we know, the Fair Work Act ‍2009 federally has its own provisions in this regard, and this legislative instrument will, the government would say, sit alongside the federal right. Others may say it conflicts with that right, and I will speak about the constitutionality and concerns that have been raised at a separate time.

As I mentioned earlier, under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to the bill and request that they be circulated. As I said earlier, the coalition supports the right to work from home and therefore does not oppose the bill. But as I also mentioned, in the government briefing on the bill the government confirmed to us in detailed conversation that they had not fully thought through certain implications of the bill. We have sought to address those concerns, to help the government with the mistakes they perhaps have made, by way of our amendments. I will take the house through the amendments that we are proposing, which I understand have been circulated.

Firstly, we accept that this bill will be implemented, if it is passed, on 1 September, and we in no way are seeking to change the date, 1 September, of that implementation. However, what we are proposing is that the government allow, as the government has allowed with other policies – for example, the machete ban – a small amount of time between the date of implementation and the first effective, to use simple terms, appeal date for a decision on 1 January. What that would mean is that, when you roll out a statewide, economywide measure, you give implementation opportunity to businesses and employees, in terms of understanding what this means, until 1 January before an appeal can be made to a decision of a business. In no way would we stop the rollout occurring, the commencement occurring, but we would allow a small window of time before an appeal could be made to a decision. You have to note that once an employee makes a request there is a three-week period of time before a response is required. If you think through the timelines, it is only reasonable to allow a small amount of time for businesses to roll this out and ensure that it is fully and fairly understood by both employers and employees. That is why we have proposed a 1 January timeline before, effectively, appeals can occur, in the simplest terms.

Secondly, we propose a simple ban on a home office or a home being taken into account for any new land tax obligation. This is a very important one, and it will be very interesting to see what the government do on this amendment and to see whether or not they support a ban on new land taxes based on employees moving to work from home, because this debate has occurred for some time. The government and the former Premier especially debated me on this issue and said they had no secret plan to increase land tax collections because of this bill. Then very simply I would say to the government that through this amendment they have the capacity now to simply ensure that ban is in place in the bill. If the government keeps its word in that it is not seeking to increase land tax collection ‍– and I do not believe that is true – it will agree to that amendment that we will not see an increase in land tax collection because of this bill. We believe it will. We believe that the government is looking for every opportunity to increase land tax collection. I take it as a matter of faith that that is what Labor does. This amendment is very simple and will allow the government to stand by what they have said publicly and not see land tax extended because of this new bill.

We are also proposing that if an eligible employee’s primary place of employment is in Victoria their request must be for a place in Victoria unless there is agreement between an employee and an employer, for more than one reason. One, it is only fair and reasonable that a Victorian-based piece of legislation should apply in Victoria. But secondly, there are constitutional concerns, which I will get to, that then flow from that if it is not in Victoria. We believe that that is a simple and fair amendment.

We also are proposing two amendments, which I will speak to a little bit more, which the government ‍– I do not want to put words in their mouth – in the briefing on this bill did seem very unsure about the full application thereof and the impacts. We have sought to help with our amendments, firstly, providing an exemption for company directors under occupational health and safety legislation for incidents while employees work from home, because currently we have a conflict. A director of a company has a director’s duty, through duty-of-care provisions, to look after their employee at work, even when that is at home. Understandably, that employer does not go into a person’s home, and I do not think anybody is seeking for that to be the case. Therefore we have a conflict in that directors are responsible for everybody’s workplace at home when they cannot – and I do not think any of us would argue should – be going into people’s private homes. It is unreasonable that the director has a liability in that way. We also – similar perhaps to the land tax prohibition – are proposing an amendment to provide an exemption to WorkCover increases for incidents that occur at home, because if a government is seeking to legislate in this way, of course you would expect them to, frankly, foot the bill. They should, frankly, foot the bill, and it is not reasonable for businesses to be paying for WorkCover increases in that way.

There are two more amendments that I draw the house’s attention to. Firstly, in relation to the reasonable costs, we propose a reasonable cost of $1000. We think that reasonable costs are understandable, but what is a reasonable cost? I think you will find that whatever judge in whatever court you ask will have a different view on what is reasonable. Every single one of them will have a different view on what is reasonable. Because this is an economywide rollout, it is not unfair to put a guide or a cap on what that is, and we are proposing $1000.

For example, in the government’s bill briefing, I proposed an instance where an employee is significantly injured, and that unfortunately may happen in an employee’s lifetime. The government confirmed that there would be obligations on that employer to fit out the person’s private property to make it fully accessible, which would include, potentially, ramps into the home, assistance with bars et cetera throughout the home – an entire infrastructure upgrade to the family home – and it was confirmed that that would be a reasonable cost. Further, an entire refit of the home office to make it ergonomic or to ensure that it assists that employee with their changed accessibility requirements would also be required. In that instance we are talking potentially about $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. That is just in the example I have given. What would happen where an employee is renting? I am not sure. What happens if the employee lives in a multilevel building where there is no lift? Who would know? But one thing we do know is there would be liability on the directors of that company for that employee.

We have proposed a $1000 cap in relation to that reasonable cost, which of course would cover something like a transition to a laptop. Where an employee has a desktop in the office and exercises their right to request to work from home, what we are proposing is that they would have a $1000 cap, which would allow them to move to a laptop. But also, as I said earlier, if they were to exercise the right to request straight away, soon after 1 September, the business would have until 1 January before there was any appeal. In no way are we seeking to amend the 1 September date but rather to give employees and employers time to understand the bill, make sure that their forms and processes are in place and make sure their staff are fully briefed and informed on what this legislation means.

I might say I asked for advice in relation to the Parliament and how the Parliament had viewed this proposed legislation, and they said they had not even considered it yet. The Parliament itself had not even thought through what this would mean. When you think about that, we are making the laws here. The Parliament itself had not even thought through the implications of this bill, so it is not unreasonable to assume that not every business in Victoria has fully thought through this proposed reform. As we have, as I said, between the date of royal assent and 1 September some two weeks, I would suspect, for an economywide rollout, we think that delay on appeal right is only reasonable.

Finally, I also mention that in the amendments that we are proposing union right of entry is prohibited. What we are very concerned about is that the government confirmed to the opposition, as I said, in the bill briefing that when it comes to both union right of entry and WorkCover right of entry there would be full right of entry into the private home. I do not think people fully understand that, and I do not think Victorians are aware of that. I do not think Victorians understand that this government’s bill enables, through this legislation, full union entry into family homes. I have not seen that on the government’s tiles. I have not seen the right-of-entry provisions advertised in any of the government’s media releases or WorkCover advertised on the government’s media releases. It has not been. But they confirmed in the briefing that provisions that currently exist, rolled across this new legislation, would enable that.

When you take into account the massive number of people who will be working from home because of this new legislation – and the government confirmed that they expect a significant increase; they also committed to giving the modelling on the number that would be and have not provided it – and that there will be a significant increase in the number of people working from home, this set of new provisions, when you lay across the current rights of entry and WorkCover entry, I think would be a concern to Victorians. We are proposing that unions do not have a right of entry into the family home. I do not think that is unreasonable at all. Other than union members, I do not think any Victorian would think that is reasonable. I think that any reasonable person would say, ‘I don’t think that if I’m signing up to work from home I should have a union right of entry.’ I say again: it was confirmed by the department and the then Premier’s office in our briefing on the bill that provisions that exist in law will apply to the new bill. I think the government will have an opportunity to set out their views on these amendments when they are considered. Because they are textual, we will not be voting on them in detail in this place, but we certainly will be in the other place.

I mentioned constitutionality earlier, and I am concerned about the constitutionality of this bill, because though this bill has been written to sit alongside the federal laws, there is clearly overlap. That I think is where we have concern. You look at people like the Australian Business Lawyers & Advisors, who say:

… it would be surprising if the legislation did not attract close legal scrutiny and potentially constitutional challenge …

I think that is right. Because of the overlap, we are dealing with, effectively, a state government that is trying to use a bill that is not designed for workplace law to enable a new workplace right. The equal opportunity amendment is not primarily a workplace relations bill – it is not – and Victoria has ceded its powers in relation to workplace law. There are significant conflicts when you set two laws next to each other and seek to use the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to impose a workplace law. What the government could have done is they could have tried to pull back their workplace powers – they could have done it that way – but instead they are happy to use a bill which is not designed for workplace law. I suspect we will have significant problems as a result.

Setting aside inconsistencies, because there will be inconsistencies in the application when you have federal laws which allow you a work-from-home right where certain provisions exist, this law allows you an automatic right. It is the opposite – an automatic right. So we will have two conflicting rights which look at this issue from opposing sides, and that is why we will see constitutional issues. But we will also see constitutional issues in relation to where disputes arise, because where disputes arise you will see certain matters, for example, go to VCAT. VCAT does not have jurisdiction over federal matters. You will see applications go through to VCAT, and VCAT does not have the jurisdictional power to hear that application, so when a matter is before it, you will see, after a delay – and I should actually have said that: all of the disputes that arise in this area, sadly, are currently facing massive, massive delays in our system. Our courts and our VCAT tribunal already have massive delays, and that does not include the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, where already only 42 ‍per cent of complaints are solved within six months. Only 42 per cent that are currently going through are resolved within six months. I do not have the number before me of the disputes before that commission, but I suspect that in an average week in the future we will probably have more disputes through working-at-home appeals than we will in the commission’s entire year of complaints. I cannot imagine the commission is receiving thousands of complaints a day, but I suspect the number of issues to be addressed through this legislation will be significant. I would not be surprised if we see a doubling or trebling over the next year of the number of matters before it.

But as I said earlier on VCAT, there is a serious issue in VCAT’s jurisdiction, and to push matters through to VCAT where they inherently might deal with a substantial element that falls within the Fair Work Act will immediately move that matter out of VCAT. I suspect we are going to have – and, frankly speaking, the legal sector are talking about this at length, and they believe it is – a fundamental flaw in the bill in terms of that jurisdictional issue. I am aware of course of the Magistrates’ Court’s capacity in relation to this legislation, but not all matters will appear before VCAT with there being a full understanding in the matter of all of the elements as they have first arisen. You will see, I think, a substantial number of cases appear before VCAT where the detail is not fully there. As it unfolds you will see elements of it clearly fall within the Fair Work Act, which will then cause issues in relation to VCAT even being able to hear it.

The Victorian Congress of Employer Associations have put forward a number of proposed amendments – they put forward nine proposed amendments. The coalition has looked at those and thanked them for the work they have done on behalf of a number of significant organisations who represent a vast body of Victorian businesses. We have picked up some of those amendments. We have in our amendments drafted others, but we thank them for the work they have done in that regard.

I also want to mention the Law Institute of Victoria, who always provide incredible advice on legislation before the house, and they have done so here. They have expressed concern in relation to the two powers, both the Victorian and Commonwealth powers. They are:

… concerned that the proposal to guarantee a right to work from home may lead to duplication, confusion for both employers and employees …

They have expressed their concern in relation to that duplication. They have also expressed, as I just said – just to reinforce the point I raised earlier – the lack of capacity of our commissions, courts and tribunals in relation to the delays that already exist and the significant problems there.

May I finish where I started and say that the coalition supports the right for people to work from home. We support the right for people to work from home. Despite the politicking of the government, we have always supported that right. We have always supported the right for employers and employees to make those arrangements. Therefore, as a result, we will not be opposing the bill. But what we have proposed is a series of reasonable amendments – banning land tax, stopping union right of entry, giving a better understanding of what a reasonable cost is – reasonable things for an economy-wide rollout of this legislation. When those amendments go to the other place, I hope that the government supports and works with the coalition on them.

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston – Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Cost of Living, Minister for Renters, Minister for Men and Boys) (11:58): I rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026. I speak to it as Minister for Cost of Living, because that is what this bill is really about. This bill is about the cost of getting to work. It is about the cost of being kept away from home. It is, in essence, a cost-of-living measure. A while ago we made a promise to Victorian families and Victorian workers. That promise was that if you can do your job from home, working from home would be a right that your boss could not take away. This bill keeps that promise. It amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to give Victorian workers a legal right to work from home two days a week. That is it. And yet, to listen to those opposite, you would think we were proposing to tear down the whole economy.

The fearmongering from those opposite is absolutely ridiculous. When we announced our plan, the member for Brighton immediately started running a scare campaign, saying that workers were going to be taxed for working from home. Rather than being honest with Victorians about how they oppose it – apparently they are supporting it now, though – they instead tried to scare people from working at home and having a home office. I will give you an example that we just heard from the member for Brighton. He was talking about a union right of entry to private homes.

It is that old saying: never ascribe malice to that which is adequately explained by incompetence. There are employers, there are health and safety representatives and there are authorised representatives as well, of registered employee organisations. I think that is what he is talking about, but I could not quite make it out, and I do not think anyone else in the chamber could. Employers do not have powers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 that would permit entry into an employee’s residential premises in circumstances where they are working from home. Health and safety reps have powers under the OH&S act – that is true – including the power to accompany an inspector during an inspection; however, these are about members of designated work groups and can be exercised in specific circumstances. They do not have power of entry under the OH&S act.

Finally, to clear it up for the member for Brighton, the shadow minister, authorised representatives of registered employee organisations, or ARREOs, also have certain powers to enter workplaces. An ARREO is a permanent employee or officer of a registered employee organisation who has satisfactorily completed a WorkSafe-approved course and holds an entry permit issued by the Magistrates’ Court. An ARREO can only enter a workplace during working hours and when there is a reasonably suspect issue that a contravention of the OH&S act and/or the OH&S regulations has occurred or is occurring at the workplace and a suspected contravention relates or affects the work that is being carried out by one or more members of the relevant registered employee organisation or relates to or affects any of those members. An ARREO cannot – I repeat, cannot – enter any part of a workplace that is used for residential purposes unless they have the consent of the person who lives there. I will say that again for the member for Brighton: they cannot enter any part of a workplace that is used for residential purposes unless they have the consent of the person that lives there. Now we have put that to bed.

Let me put the cost-of-living case plainly, because the numbers do the arguing for me. For a household that can work from home for a couple of days a week, this is worth about $110 back in your pocket a week. Over a year that is more than $5300 staying in the family budget instead of going on petrol, on tolls, on bills and on child care, which we know is expensive. In the middle of a global cost-of-living squeeze, that is not loose change. It might be loose change if you have got 17 investment properties, but it is not for the rest of us. That is the grocery shop; that is the school excursion; that is the gap between a tight fortnight and an impossible one where ends just do not meet.

Working from home also buys you something you cannot put a price on, and that is time. It hands Victorians back more than three hours a week of their time, which they would otherwise lose in traffic or standing on a platform, waiting for a bus or waiting for a train – 3 hours with your kids, 3 hours to get to an ageing parent who needs an appointment, 3 hours to coach the under-11s or run the canteen on a Saturday. That is not some fringe arrangement, and it is not something that is not considered by Victorians.

More than a third of Victorian workers already work from home. For professionals it is three in five. When we asked Victorians what they thought of working from home, nearly 37,000 of them answered. They answered en masse: 74 per cent said the right to work from home matters enormously to them; more than 28,000 said that they get more done at home, not less; and more than 3000 Victorians told us something that should trouble every member in this place, that they do not feel like they can even ask their boss for it, for fear it would be held against them. That power imbalance is exactly what this bill exists to fix.

The mechanics are fairly straightforward for those on this side of the house, who are willing to listen, willing to read and willing to not misconstrue the advice of the department. Employees who can perform their duties from home will have the right to do so two days a week. A refusal is possible, but it has to be reasonable, judged against the inherent requirements of the role and the impact on the employer as well – nothing else, though. The right covers regular casuals and part-timers. It covers small business, because a worker at a suburban firm deserves the same right as someone at a big bank. We have given smaller employers more time to get ready: for workplaces with 15 staff or less, the right begins on 1 July 2027. For everyone else it is 1 September this year – ample time. If a request is knocked back unfairly, there is actually a clear path through the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and on to VCAT if it comes to that. It is measured, it is fair and it is exactly the practical side of help that this side of the house was elected to deliver.

On this side of the house we think that working from home should be a right. Those opposite, although we have heard they are going to support the bill with amendments, think it is a rort. Do not take my word for it, take theirs. The member for Brighton, when he was the very short-lived Shadow Treasurer, told the Herald Sun that he would force every single worker back to the office. He called working from home a ‘sweetheart deal’. He complained about hundreds of thousands of dollars being wasted. His remedy was to march everyone back to the office five days a week, whether the job needed it or not. But it is not just him. His federal colleague the member for Goldstein, now the federal Shadow Treasurer, went further again. In the pages of the Australian Financial Review he called protecting people’s rights to work from home ‘professional apartheid’. Apart from the disgraceful nature of bringing that argument into this one – he actually did say ‘apartheid’ – he said it over letting a mum in Mulgrave work from home a couple of days a week. How dramatic, how inappropriate and how wrong. It is worth asking where the member for Goldstein learned to talk about workers like that. Maybe it came from seven years at the Institute of Public Affairs. It was the IPA who sneered at Victorians who deserve this right by calling them the ‘laptop class’. It was the same IPA that he worked for seven years who told workers who dare to work from home that they should expect to be the first out the door when conditions turn, expect to be paid less and expect not to be surprised when their job is shifted offshore or handed to a machine. That is not economic advice; it is a pig-headed lecture about knowing your place and knowing your class, and those opposite are more than happy to take up that advice as their own.

We have seen where this ends before. Their federal counterparts took a policy to the last election to force public servants back to the office full-time. Does anyone remember how that turned out? Victorians looked at it, they recoiled in horror and the coalition dropped it so fast their own leader admitted that they had made a mistake. But they did not change their minds. They got caught, and that leader was voted out in fact. And the threat has not gone away. Those opposite have got a $40 billion black hole, and where do they fill that from – cuts to the Victorian budget. You cannot rip $40 billion out of the economy without cutting services families rely on and without coming after the very jobs this bill protects.

Now is not the time for governments to step back. When the world is throwing cost-of-living challenges and shocks at working people, this is precisely the moment to step up. Without this law, working from home is only ever a favour granted today and taken away tomorrow. This bill turns that favour into a right. It will not hang on the goodwill of one employer or the mood of a manager, it will be protected in law. Only Labor has the new solutions to make life easier, safer and more affordable. This is one of them, and I commend this bill to the house.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:08): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 and respond to a couple of the things that the minister previously speaking said, in particular starting with an attack on the opposition about scare campaigns and then proceeding to fill the rest of his 9 minutes with entirely a scare campaign.

This legislation is a reflection of the changing circumstances we all find ourselves in, particularly since the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020. I think most of us had not considered or thought of work from home much before then, but with changing technology and with the circumstances we found ourselves in, in lockdown in the COVID era, it had a far greater take-up. I remember those early days, that first month or so, of lockdown. It was actually quite a pleasant experience initially, for me at least, being home with my family. I was certainly inundated, and my workload went up dramatically in terms of people seeking advice and information on the lockdown arrangements. But it being pleasant did not last very long, and we all could not wait to be able to get out again. But since then there certainly has been a growing trend of people seeking to work from home. I remember during the first few weeks of lockdown my colleague the member for Berwick actually talking about Zoom, and I had no idea what Zoom was. Now, sadly, we are all far too familiar with it, or with Teams or any of those. But these new technologies over the last decade or so have certainly allowed working from home to flourish for those who can do it.

I think probably the jury is out on whether it is better for productivity or not. I think you could probably go and find any evidence either way from economists and workplace relations specialists as to whether it is better for productivity or worse, and certainly it is a different view for different workers as well. Some people I speak to say, ‘I get so much more done when I’m at home.’ I get others who say, ‘I just get distracted and I don’t work that well.’ But the reality is it has become a circumstance that many employers and employees are happy to accommodate.

This legislation amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to establish a statutory right for employees to work from home for up to two days a week or a pro-rata period for employees working fewer than 38 hours where it is reasonable for them to do so. There is a question mark as to the constitutional validity of this, and certainly many commentators, employer groups and others have raised whether it is constitutionally valid for the government to introduce this legislation or to enact this legislation. That will be a matter for the courts to decide.

The bill will commence on 1 September this year and will apply to employers with fewer than 15 ‍employees from 1 July 2027. As the member for Brighton has foreshadowed, we have a number of amendments, and one of those is not to the commencement date but to the date at which employees will be able to make a claim. That simply pushes that date back to 1 January 2027, which will give employers time to understand the implications of the legislation, to put in place their policies and to work through with their employees how it will work. As the member for Brighton indicated, even the Parliament itself has not been able to consider the detail and how it will work. I am sure all of us are interested in whether this will apply prospectively or not to our electorate offices.

The legislation requires that an employee must give written notice identifying the proposed days and times, unless it is not practicable to do so, and any agreed location other than their private residence. There is no minimum notice period prescribed in the legislation. However, the employer must respond in writing within 21 days. That I guess highlights one of the issues that many people have raised as a concern, that these arrangements really should be between an employer and an employee.

The employer must allow the proposed arrangements unless it is not reasonable. Whilst there are legal definitions of ‘reasonable’, that will certainly be open to interpretation. Where the proposal is not reasonable, the employer must allow an equivalent period on different days or at different times or any lesser period that is considered reasonable. Any alternative arrangement or refusal must include reasons, and an alternative arrangement must specify the permitted days and times. A complete refusal is available only when no period of home-based work is reasonable. There are circumstances where that is obvious, I am sure: whether you are a nurse, a teacher, a police officer, a barista in a cafe or a truck driver – all of those. There are so many positions of course where it will not be either practicable or reasonable for people to work from home.

Nonetheless the matters that may be considered reasonable in the bill are limited to the inherent requirements of the role, including the need for workplace attendance, equipment or in-person interaction; the impact on the employer, including a likely significant decrease in productivity or efficiency; an adverse safety impact; significant confidentiality or data protection issues; excessive financial costs; or impractical changes to working arrangements or hiring and other prescribed matters. Regard must also be had to legal requirements relating to safety, security, welfare and/or supervision.

The bill requires an employer to allow an employee to work from home and that they must pay any reasonable costs necessary to enable the arrangement. That expressly includes essential hardware and software and secure access to information systems. This is an issue where the opposition would like to tighten that arrangement and see the definition of ‘reasonable employer cost’ limited to $1000. We think that is fair. When I mention, for example, things like essential hardware and software and secure access to information systems in particular, those could be quite significant costs for an employer, depending on what the employee is actually doing, so we think it is reasonable also to ensure that employers are not up for significant costs in this.

In addition, we have indicated that our amendments, which we will move in the other place, would be to provide exemptions to company directors with respect to OH&S legislation, for instance, where employees are working from home, because quite simply the company directors will not have access to that person’s home and will not have the opportunity to ensure it is a safe location, so we think that is only fair. Likewise, when it comes to WorkCover increases following any incident occurring whilst working at home, it is not fair, given the inability of an employer to impact the home arrangement, for them to then suffer the consequences if, unfortunately, an employee is injured whilst working from home.

We are also looking at amendments to limit the right of employees whose primary place of residence is in Victoria, with work-from-home locations limited to agreed premises in Victoria unless agreed by both parties. Of course there will be circumstances where that can be agreed. And, as the member for Brighton indicated, we have an amendment to prohibit land tax being applied to employees who utilise the bill to work from home. The government minister indicated that is not the intention. Well, we have seen instances where this has been less than clear that have been reported publicly already, so we think it is important to be able to clarify that.

This is a bill that addresses what has become a growing issue, that more and more people work from home. The Nationals and Liberals do not oppose the prospect of people working from home when it is reasonable for them to do so. Indeed we support it. We support that where it is an improvement to their working lives, an improvement to the productivity of the business and an improvement to many other external aspects like having less traffic on the roads and the potential for it to support more local businesses in the suburbs and country towns. So we will not be opposing this legislation, despite what those opposite say. They are seeking desperately to find that we have an alternative view. We are certainly not opposing this legislation, but we will move amendments that we think make it far more reasonable.

 Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (12:18): The member for Gippsland South I think was trying to bore us to death during his contribution, and I think this will be the approach of much of the opposition. It is good to see you nodded. We have got on well, in particular in our time on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. But he was attempting to bore us to death because they want to really hide away from this legislation. They want to hide as much and be as small as possible on this one, because they know how unpopular it has been to oppose it. When Liberal members called this apartheid, they knew it was deeply unpopular, and their constituents told them so. So they are going to wrap themselves up in a little ball on this one, and they are going to try and hide away and keep it low and say, ‘We don’t oppose it necessarily.’ But they put a couple of big caveats in there. They put the big caveat of ‘We just should delay it a little while’. ‘Can we just delay this legislation till 1 January 2027?’ is what the member for Brighton said. He said, ‘We just want it delayed, just a little bit’ – and there might be something that happens between now and then.

Danny O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the standing orders require the member to be factual, and that is not what the member for Brighton said. There is no delay to the implementation of the legislation. Our amendment is only in relation to when action can be taken.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): I have heard the point of order, Leader of the Nationals. I believe the issue is a matter for debate.

Mathew HILAKARI: As he said, it is a matter of contention, and he would like to see that delayed till 1 January next year. There might be something that happens, an important event for democracy in Victoria before that time, and that is of course the election. They will go very small and very shy and not want to talk to this as an issue, but they have historically wanted to talk about this a lot. Their Liberal counterparts federally wanted to talk about it a lot. Then they got the results of the federal election, and they knew at that point in time that that was one of those key moments when people understood that the Liberal Party was not on their side. They knew that they are not on their side and the National Party was not on their side.

The Labor Party is committed to working from home. We understand the value of work from home. Our communities understand deeply the value of work from home, because time in the car is wasted time. Contributing to traffic is a waste for everybody across our community. They know how unpopular it is. They should have probably worked out that it is so unpopular some time ago, but I am glad they have come to the party in saying they will not oppose this bill. Sometimes the member for Brighton was putting in the caveat of course of when employers say yes. Well, that is certainly the case today. That is how it exists. It was not full-throated support of course. I am glad they have moved from this view of work from home as an apartheid regime – a miserable way to describe anything, I would have thought.

But they talk as if this is wholesale change. It is not. I will go through how there are large numbers of people who work from home already. Indeed the member for Gippsland South was a person who worked from home. Indeed I was a person who did work from home in my previous job. In fact, when I was offered it by my then new employer, my employer said to me, ‘Mat, would you like an office in town? We’ll deck it out and do all that.’ That was going to be an expense to my employer, and I said, ‘Actually, is it possible to work from home?’ He said, ‘Fantastic.’ He saved on rent. He saved on all the facilities that are required for an office in town. It was good for my employer that I worked from home, and it was good for me. I had just recently had a child. It was wonderful. What a time to be working from home. It was a great time. I loved that point in time. It was good for me as well because my commute was several steps to my stand-up desk. I made the stand-up desk myself. I am happy to assist the member for Narracan in building one as well. If he never needs a little bit of trades assistance, I am happy to help him.

Wayne Farnham interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: He will be okay. It was a couple of steps to get to my office each morning, and I was fresh and ready to go. I did a coffee downstairs on the espresso machine and got ready to go, and I was ready to go and be productive, because I was not in the car for an hour and a half each way, each day.

For the community that I represent, what does this mean? It means an extra couple of days of effective work every single week. That is why people in the community that I represent are dog tired. That is why it is a challenge to get involved in your local sporting team or to get your kids to swimming after school, and that is why it is a challenge to have that wonderful family time. There is so much time spent commuting across our community, and it is the least productive time. I thought those opposite, who talk about productivity regularly and often, would be super keen to talk about how this could improve productivity across our community. In fact, when we asked members of the community what they thought about their own efforts at work from home, 83 per cent said they were more productive working from home in terms of both hours worked and milestones achieved. Many employers have also clued into the benefits of work from home in getting the best employees. You know the best employees like to work from home because employers put it in their advertisements. They say it is a big benefit of the job. We also know many or most employers would not offer work from home if it was not good for the business and if people were not productive. That is why so many do. That is why so many people in our community do work from home.

The member for Brighton also raised issues and a scare campaign around tax obligations. It is something they have been running across the community for some time now, hoping to frighten people and hoping to frighten businesses. Really, they are trying to frighten families by saying that there will be a tax put on their family home. Well, this bill, be assured, does nothing to change tax obligations, which the federal government imposes, not this state Parliament. That has actually been through some case law recently. In fact it looked for a time that people would be better off under federal tax regimes by working from home than otherwise because of the claims for home offices. Now, the ATO has taken that to court and, I would say unfortunately, had a win. The tax obligations, by and large, are done at the federal parliamentary level. It is another scare campaign because they are shy on this one. They are shy on this one and want to delay it. They want to see it done later so they can avoid it ever being implemented. Well, we are not for that. This Labor government is for work from home. We know the benefits. Our community knows the benefits. We hear the benefits every day. When we do that doorknocking in the midafternoon in our communities, we hear it because people are actually home. So many people in the community that I represent, Point Cook, work from home, and they love it because it means a better family and community experience.

I do want to go to some of the specific arrangements in this bill. It goes to a legal right to work from home for two days per week. It will protect employees from unreasonable refusals of work-from-home requests. Certainly in the survey that we undertook recently – this was a massive survey, by the way; more than 36,000 people participated in it – those who had asked to work from home and were unable to do so because their employer had denied them felt that it was unreasonable. This was for 57 per cent of those people who had asked to work from home where it was possible for them to do work from home.

When I speak to people in the community that I represent around the work-from-home legislation, its proposal and coming forward, it is always characterised as ‘if you can and if you want to’. That is the most important part of this legislation: if you can and if you want to. Not every single person wants to work from home, not every single person can work from home, but we all, as a community, benefit from working from home. For those that can work from home, they can have greater participation in their community and community life. For those who cannot – and there are many people in our community who cannot work from home, such as ambos, firefighters, childcare workers; so many cannot work from home – they benefit because there is less traffic on our roads.

I know from time to time it gets raised that work from home is going to be a real challenge for small businesses in Melbourne. Well, I can just let those opposite know that the 30 per cent vacancy rate in shopfronts in town dropped to 6.1 per cent in 2025 and it has dropped to 4.6 per cent this year. On La Trobe Street there is a zero per cent vacancy rate. So those cafes and restaurants – it is always a hard thing to run a small business like that, but they are filling up the shopfronts in town as well as in our suburbs. I commend this bill to the house. I look forward, later this year, to this commencing.

 Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (12:28): I am pleased to rise to contribute on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026. Just in reference to the member for Point Cook, I do not know if I would work on the table or the desk that you built. Given your practical skill as a tradesperson, I think that would be an OH&S safety hazard right at the start. I would not trust it. For anyone else out there that is going to use it, do not. I do not think he is qualified.

I am happy to contribute to this today. Right from the outset, as we have said, we do not oppose this bill, but there are aspects of the bill that, as the member for Brighton has put forward in his amendments, probably need to be brought to the government’s attention. This was pointed out in the bill briefing, and the government were going to get back to the opposition on these issues, but that was not forthcoming. Therefore the member for Brighton has put these amendments forward.

It is interesting. Quite rightly the member for Gippsland South pointed out that our working arrangements clearly changed when COVID hit Victoria in 2020. It was a time when Victorians had to work from home and figured out that they could work from home and be productive. Where it worked for an employer and their employee, this happened and it has continued to happen now for six years. But there are certain aspects of this bill that need to be taken into serious consideration, especially around the WorkCover implications of the bill. There is some feedback I have had from various stakeholders that they are concerned about the WorkCover ramifications of working from home or legislating working from home, and rightly so.

If you go to section 21(2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, it requires employers to monitor the health of their employees and conditions at the workplace so far as is reasonably practical. Generally, if a workplace incident happens a lot of businesses come under this section of the act: section 21(2)(e). That is what they will get prosecuted on. When we are legislating working from home, we have to consider what the implications are, because all of a sudden if it is legislation and people reasonably can work from home then that is, by extension, another workplace that that employer is possibly liable for. I think this is something that needs to be given serious consideration. Generally, as an employer you have a registered workplace, and that is the workplace you are responsible for. As a builder, unfortunately, my workplaces were obviously onsite, so I was always responsible for those onsite obligations in regard to OH&S. But when we are talking about people working from home, if there are 10 employees that can reasonably work from home, is the employer now responsible for those workplaces? This is a really, really important part of this and it needs to be given careful consideration, because all of a sudden, from a businessperson’s point of view, they could now be responsible for an extra 10 workplaces. They did not construct those workplaces.

I will give you an example. Let us say there is a step going up into the workplace – into the home. Let us say that step is an illegal step – instead of being a maximum 185 mil, it is 210 mil. I have gone technical there, and everyone has got lost, but bear with me. If somebody trips up that step – Mary, John, whoever – and smashes their shoulder because that step is not legal, is that now the employer’s responsibility? I think in all of this we have to be reasonable. That is the real part of the point I am trying to make on this: we have to be reasonable in the expectations and obligations about what employers and employees have to do. I do not think it is reasonable that at a workplace the employer did not construct he could become liable, so the government needs to work on this. It is a really, really important part of this bill and this legislation. There should be no grey area in this. It should be very black and white that if people are working from home, it being that the employer did not build that premises, the employer should not be liable for accidents that could occur.

The member for Brighton did put forward some amendments around the costs and capping the costs to the employer. That is important as well. It just cannot be a free-for-all. Businesses will not survive. All of a sudden, if a business has to spend $10,000 on 10 different workplaces, that is $100,000. Businesses are not doing well enough to spend that amount of money. This is where the government has to get this right, and this is the reason why the amendments are being put forward, which will obviously go through the other place. They need to be considered very, very carefully. It is very important.

The other area where I have a little bit of a concern is: is this legislation constitutionally right? We are putting it through the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, but is this in the federal sphere? I mean, we have seen this government put forward taxes through this place that got knocked out in the High Court. The one that comes to my mind is the electric vehicle tax, where it got thrown out in the High Court and the government had to repay the money. When we look at the description of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, it states that discrimination is unlawful when it is based on protected personal attributes such as a disability, age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy or parental status. By putting the provisions of this bill in this act, is that constitutional? I think that is a question that could possibly be raised. Has the government gone beyond its remit here? Is this a federal issue more so than a state-based issue? Now, as I said earlier, right at the start of my contribution, I do not have a problem with working from home. It can be practical for some people. For some people it cannot be. Tradies cannot work from home, ambos cannot, teachers cannot, police cannot. All those people cannot work from home – nurses, doctors, all the rest of it, right. Where it is reasonable, some people can. But have we overreached in the fact that we are putting it through the Equal Opportunity Act? Have we overreached and will this or will this not be challenged at some point in the future? I really do not know. I think this is where maybe the government is trying to get it through. Maybe it will get challenged. As I said, it has happened in the past with this government when they introduced the EV tax, which got thrown out.

My assumption is that the government has done its homework. My assumption is that the government possibly has this right, but I am not quite sure. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I am not going to pretend to be one. But to me it just seems as though we are putting it through this act when there is no relevance in the act to workplaces. The Equal Opportunity Act is more about discrimination against people and, as it states, their personal attributes. So I do have concerns that this may or may not get challenged in the future, which is fair enough. If it has not been done right then the government has something to answer for because, realistically, you have probably got the hopes and expectations of Victorians up when it may not be constitutionally correct.

As I said at the start, the member for Brighton has put forward his amendments and for good reason, again. He did this because the government did not get back to us after the bill briefing on the questions that were raised. Because they have not got back, the member for Brighton has put through these amendments and they will be considered in the other place. When the bill gets to the other place, I am sure they will go through it and they will come to a determination on these reasonable amendments. But I would encourage the government to listen to these reasonable amendments and consider them, because they will probably make the bill a little bit fairer.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (12:38): I rise today in support of the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026. It goes without saying that this is a piece of legislation that inspires engagement and debate almost unlike any other I have had the privilege of considering in my time as the member for Mulgrave, and I understand why. People are anxious about work, their job security and the rising cost of living, so any changes to workers rights are fertile ground for cheap scare tactics and misinformation. The result is that nothing gets the trolls more riled up than a reel spruiking the benefits of work from home, and I have seen this for myself with one of my own reels reaching about a million views just this year. So I think it is a popular piece of legislation, so popular that those opposite have changed their mind and are now supporting it.

Let us talk about working from home for what it actually is. It is sweeping reform, putting modern legislation in place to reflect a workforce stretched thin by commitments to their jobs, their families, and all the broader commitments that life in 2026 entails. Where technology allows, society and workplaces specifically adapt to improve efficiency, conditions and the wellbeing of those who actually generate the revenue that keeps our economy alive and growing faster than any other Australian jurisdiction. The naysayers joke that plumbers and sparkies will not be able to work from home, but they ignore that this benefits them as well. Less people headed into work means less people on the roads clogging our streets and shaving hours off the daily commute. It means fewer cars stuck on the Monash during peak hour. It means tradies get to their jobs faster, freight can move more efficiently and emergency services can respond more quickly when every minute counts.

The benefits of flexible work arrangements extend well beyond those who work behind a computer screen; they ripple right across our economy. That is the point that so often gets lost in this debate. Working from home is not about forcing people out of the office or about telling businesses how to operate, it is about recognising that where a job can reasonably be performed remotely employees should have a genuine right to request that flexibility and employers should engage with that request in good faith. There are so many employers that are currently doing that. There are many, many people working from home already. This just supports those who can being able to continue to do that.

For decades we accepted that the workplace was defined by physical location because, quite simply, that was where the work had to happen, but technology changed that reality. High-speed internet, secure cloud computing, video conferencing and collaborative software have transformed how millions of Australians do their jobs. The COVID pandemic accelerated that transition dramatically. What many employers once considered impossible became standard practice almost overnight. Businesses continued operating, government services continued functioning, universities kept teaching, financial institutions processed billions of dollars in transactions and professional services continued advising clients. Productivity in many sectors did not collapse, as some had predicted. Instead, Australians demonstrated remarkable adaptability and resilience. The lesson was not that every job should be done remotely forever, the lesson was that flexibility works.

Since then many businesses have embraced hybrid arrangements because they have seen the benefits firsthand. Staff retention has improved, recruitment has become easier and employees report greater job satisfaction, lower stress and improved work–life balance. Businesses have been able to recruit talent from regional Victoria rather than limiting themselves to applicants who live within commuting distance of Melbourne’s CBD. That matters because talent exists everywhere. A young software developer in Ballarat should not have to uproot their family simply to access opportunities that technology now allows them to perform remotely. A marketing professional living in Mildura should not be excluded from metropolitan career pathways simply because geography places them hundreds of kilometres away. Flexible work helps decentralise opportunity while strengthening regional communities.

It also has significant implications for gender equality. Despite enormous progress, women continue to shoulder a disproportionate share of unpaid caring responsibilities. Whether it is caring for young children, elderly parents or family members living with disability, those responsibilities remain unequally distributed across Australian households. Flexible work arrangements cannot solve that imbalance alone, but they can make workforce participation substantially easier. When parents can avoid spending 3 hours each day commuting, that is 3 hours that can instead be spent preparing children for school, attending medical appointments, helping with homework or simply being present during important family moments. That flexibility helps parents remain attached to the workforce instead of feeling forced to reduce their hours or leave employment altogether. It is not only parents who benefit. Workers with disabilities often face additional barriers associated with commuting – inaccessible transport or workplace environments that are not designed with their needs in mind. Working from home can remove many of those unnecessary obstacles while allowing employees to contribute fully to their organisations.

I regularly go out doorknocking and make phone calls to my constituents, and I have spoken to so many that answer the door on a Friday afternoon whilst they have got their headset on and are in the middle of a Teams meeting. They know that we are protecting their right to be able to do that at least two days a week, and they love that. They love that we are protecting it, because they are able to spend more time with their kids and with their family. They are able to have that work–life balance that is so important to wellbeing for many Victorians.

I spoke with a new mum not that long ago who was looking to return to work and looking to do a couple of days remotely – working from home – as part of her return to work and loved that we were protecting her right to do so. Her employer is a generous employer who already gives her that opportunity, and she understands that not every employer is like hers and so sees the benefit of legislating two days work from home for Victorians who can work from home. There are countless stories that I have heard from my constituents about the benefits that they are reaping because of this legislation. This is a cost-of-living measure – this measure takes cars off the road; this measure helps with families spending time together and with mental health as well. There are so many benefits to this legislation and being able to work from home. I can also add that Victorians who might be managing chronic illness can perform their duties more comfortably and effectively from home without sacrificing that productivity or requiring extended periods of leave. That is inclusion in practice.

This legislation recognises that flexibility is not a luxury reserved for executives or highly paid professionals. It is increasingly becoming an expectation of modern employment wherever operationally feasible. The economic benefits are equally compelling. Like I said before, every worker can save some money, whether it be on fuel, on parking or on public transport. They reduce the wear and tear on their vehicle. But equally, employers benefit from lower overheads, reduced office accommodation costs and access to broader labour markets. This is not a zero-sum equation where employees win and businesses lose. When implemented sensibly, flexibility benefits both.

Of course, working from home is not suitable for every workplace or every employee. Some people genuinely prefer the office environment. They enjoy the social interaction, the collaboration and the separation between work and home life, and that choice remains available for them. Others work in industries where physical presence is essential; nobody is suggesting otherwise. Instead, it simply says that where flexibility is possible, requests should be assessed fairly rather than dismissed automatically because of outdated management practices or misconceptions about productivity. Good managers already understand this, and they are already doing this.

Work should be measured by results, not by proximity to the manager’s office. I think this legislation sends an important cultural message. For too long workplace flexibility often depended on who your manager happened to be. Some employers embraced it enthusiastically, while others refused to even consider it. Rights should not depend on luck. Workers deserve consistency. I commend this bill to the house.

 Anthony MARSH (Nepean) (12:48): We recognise that flexible work is now an established feature in many Victorian workplaces. Where a role can be performed remotely, working from home can reduce travel time, assist employees with family responsibilities and help employers attract and retain staff. When I had my own business I worked from home, over a decade ago, and I had many employees over that time that worked from home as well, well before this became the norm during COVID. But this debate should not be reduced to a false binary choice between supporting flexibility and opposing it. The question is whether this bill establishes a workable, balanced and legally coherent framework to enable this to occur. In its present form the opposition believes it does not.

This bill creates a statutory right for eligible employees to work from home for up to two days each week or a proportionate period where employees working fewer than 38 hours in a given week can take a proportionate work-from-home period, where doing so is reasonable. That entitlement sits in addition to existing rights under state and Commonwealth laws, awards, enterprise agreements and workplace determinations. An employee may nominate the days and times that they propose to work from home, and the employer must generally accept that arrangement unless they deem it not reasonable. Even where a particular proposal cannot be accommodated, the employer may still be required to offer an equivalent period on different days or at different times or a lesser period that is reasonable. A complete refusal is available only when no period of working from home is deemed to be reasonable. That moves beyond the right to request flexibility and creates a presumptive entitlement, with the employer carrying the burden of establishing why the arrangement should not proceed. It also places ordinary workplace decisions within the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, exposing employers to a new enforcement regime through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and VCAT. Routine decisions about where, when and how work should be performed may therefore become subject to a formal dispute or litigation.

The opposition have proposed a series of practical and reasonable amendments to address the bill’s deficiencies. First, we propose the delay of the operation of the liability and enforcement provisions until 1 January 2027 – not the commencement date. Employers should have adequate time to understand their obligations and amend workforce policies, assess risks and train managers before becoming exposed to any formal proceedings.

Second, we seek to impose a cap of $1000 on the reasonable costs that an employer might be required to meet. The bill requires employers to pay costs necessary to enable home-based work, including essential equipment, software and secure access to information systems, but it provides no clear outer limit, and we heard many examples of where that could be quite extreme earlier in this debate. The statutory entitlement should not create an open-ended financial liability, particularly for small businesses already facing rising wages, insurance costs, energy costs and compliance costs. Employers need to know the potential cost of this arrangement before it commences, rather than discovering the extent of their liability when it is already too late.

Third, our amendments address occupational health and safety and workplace compensation risks. A company director should not incur personal liability under the occupational health and safety legislation from an incident arising because an employee is working from home in a place the director does not control or using a desk they built themselves, for example. Nor should such an incident be taken into account when determining an employer’s WorkCover contribution or insurance premium. Employers must take reasonable steps to support safe working arrangements, but they cannot inspect, supervise or eliminate every hazard within an employee’s house. The law should not impose a liability as though the home were an ordinary workplace under the employer’s direct management.

Fourth, where an employee’s primary place of residence is in Victoria, we propose that a work-from-home location should also therefore be in Victoria unless the employee or employer otherwise agree. The bill should not create a unilateral entitlement to work interstate, with the tax, insurance, regulatory, data security and practical complications that may follow that decision. An interstate arrangement may be perfectly appropriate under the circumstances, but it should be by agreement rather than by assumption. We also propose to ensure that the right-of-entry regime under the Fair Work Act 2009 does not apply to a private residence merely because an employee is exercising this entitlement. A family home should not become a workplace entry point for permit-holders simply because paid work is being performed there. We heard the Minister for Cost of Living say earlier that that is not the case, but again, we can clarify that quite simply with these simple amendments.

Our amendments would also protect employees from unintended land tax consequences. Exercising a statutory right to work from home should not alter the land tax treatment of a person’s home. Parliament should not create an employee entitlement that may expose a household to unforeseen and unrelated financial penalties.

These amendments are not intended to frustrate flexible work. As I said at the outset, I have supported it and done it myself with my own business. They are practical safeguards designed to define the boundaries of the entitlement and allocate cost, responsibility and risk more fairly. There is also the broader question of equity. A lawyer, an accountant or an administrator may be able to work remotely quite easily, but a nurse, a tradesperson, a retail worker, a mechanic, a hospitality employer or a tourism operator cannot. That distinction is particularly apparent on the Mornington Peninsula and in Nepean. Our local economy depends heavily on hospitality, accommodation, tourism, construction, retail, health services and other businesses where working from home is simply not an option. A general statutory entitlement risks creating two classes of workers within the same workplace – those able to access this benefit and those that cannot. The bill also confines the matters an employer may consider, and in several areas requires significant adverse impact before operational concerns carry decisive weight. That threshold may be difficult for an employer to establish in advance, particularly where the effect is cumulative rather than immediate.

Productivity is not always measured only when an individual can complete the assigned tasks at home. It involves supervision, mentoring, teamwork and professional development, workplace culture, customer service and the transfer of knowledge between experienced and less experienced staff. That is something we have seen over the last few years, particularly with new people coming into workplaces. They are not getting that knowledge transfer with their superiors or more experienced staff within their office. Those considerations are real, but they can be difficult to quantify before the harm occurs. A business should not be required to wait until productivity training or customer service has significantly deteriorated before its concerns are treated as legitimate. Questions also remain about privacy, cybersecurity, confidentiality and responsibility for incidents beyond the employer’s direct control. These matters determine who carries the risk, who pays the costs, and whether a business can confidently comply with the law.

The opposition has received constant adverse feedback from employers, business representatives and legal practitioners across many sectors. Their concern is not about the flexible work itself, but really their concern is about the cooperative workplace practice being converted into a rigid legal entitlement without adequate limits, protections or regard for the diversity of Victoria’s workplace. Flexibility works best when it is practical, reciprocal and built on trust. It should support employees without making employers responsible for the risks that they cannot reasonably manage. It should recognise modern work without pretending that every job, every workplace or every industry is exactly the same. The government has chosen to legislate in a very complex area and now has an obligation to ensure it gets the detail right. I believe the opposition’s amendments are constructive, proportionate, very reasonable and quite necessary, and they preserve genuine flexibility while providing clearer limits on costs, liability, location, privacy and implementation. Again, it is not a binary choice whether working from home should be allowable or not, or legislated as a right or not, but making sure we get the details right and we get a good position that makes it something that can be implemented for businesses without unforeseen costs and consequences.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (12:57): In the short time I have before we break I would just like to foreshadow that some of my contribution will be around not just the mechanics of the work-from-home legislation that is before us but also the significance when it comes to our economy, as well as how it operates in the outer suburbs, particularly in the suburbs that I represent, like Wyndham Vale, Mambourin and Manor Lakes. Last time in this place when I spoke about working from home, I gave everyone a bit of a lesson about the history of the power loom and the disruption that it caused in England during the 1790s. It was a disruption to the way that we worked in Western society. It disrupted cottage industries where a lot of products were made at home, working from home, and took people instead away into factories and into industrialised settings where bosses could loom over the top of them – at the loom – and control their everyday business as they completed that work. I think a lot of the objections to working from home are really at their depths about control, and this idea of how much control a corporation or a business can have over the person completing that work for them. I do think that this legislation is particularly important from that justice point of view as well.

What I would also foreshadow that I will be speaking about is around the issue that work from home traditionally has only been available for people in mostly inner suburbs in professional workplaces. However, we have seen increasingly so in outer suburban areas like mine more people able to access work from home, particularly pushed along because of the pandemic and the technology adoption that we had to have in order to still engage with our work at the time when we were not allowed to move and travel across the state. So I think it is particularly important to reflect that this is a big issue for my community. Some of the top responses to the government’s engagement on the work-from-home legislation were from Wyndham, particularly Wyndham Vale and our neighbours Point Cook and Trug. They were some of the top responses in the survey that we did around working from home, and I think this goes to a point that many of my colleagues have made.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.