Thursday, 10 September 2026

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:06): I was talking about WorkCover charges, and I will resume from that point. We were talking about amendment 5 to the bill and how such incidents are not taken into account in determining an employer’s contribution or premium under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. That brings me to our amendment 8. Part 3-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 gives a union official holding a permit the power to enter premises where work is being performed to hold discussions or to investigate a suspected contravention. The bill makes a private residence a place where work is performed. The conflation of the two things is unresolved in the bill. The Minister for Cost of Living told the other place that this was not a concern and that entry into homes does not follow, but he did not demonstrate how. I think those who work from home and their families would want absolute certainty and for that to be reflected in the bill. There is no way people are going to accept even the remote possibility that someone from a union could turn up to their house and push for access to it just because they work from home. People work at home alone in quiet residential streets. They are entitled to determine who enters their house and who does not. We do not want people turning up at a door, brandishing a permit and insisting they be let in. Let us not ask anyone to trust the government, because we have seen how OH&S roles have been corruptly filled on Big Build sites with impunity. There is a precedent here that requires steps to restore confidence, so we will amend that.

I turn finally to where this could all end up in the very unfortunate situation where the agreement goes wrong and we have a dispute. The bill sends contraventions to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission or straight through to VCAT. The commission does not investigate it and does not decide it; it conciliates voluntarily under section 122, and that can be bypassed entirely. But the problem here is really the risk of delay. VCAT has not been set up for the volume of likely disputes, and it has already got very long lead times. Nobody wins in that queue, and it is certainly not a win–‍win.

We also need to discuss the matter of jurisdictions. One of the absolute worst scenarios we could have here is to pass a law and put it into process and have people preparing for it if we know all along that it is likely to be unconstitutional. The government says it has received advice. We would like to see that advice, because to put this into law when it is knowingly unconstitutional would be a terribly cruel joke on the people of Victoria. I am not a constitutional lawyer – I will not pretend to be one – but we have been down this road before where we have had laws that were unconstitutional, and it was incredibly disruptive.

I will conclude by reiterating what I have said throughout. We support flexible work. I have run a business on it myself. We are not opposing this bill, and so we will not. But we want it to work, and working here means something specific. It means: the employee can ask and the employer can answer, and both of them know where they stand – without a lawyer, a tribunal or a 12-month queue. I think there are ultimately three important tests for the success of this law. Does it create more working-from-home choices for workers? Does it increase productivity? And are there few disputes? To anyone who says this is simple, going from an analogue discretionary system to a regulated system, it simply is not. It is the mechanics that will make it work or not work. It is the mechanics that we must examine so that we actually get the outcome this bill is seeking to achieve. We want people having flexible work arrangements and we want work from home to work, but if you are going to regulate it, then the mechanics need to be right.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:10): I rise to make a very efficient contribution on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026. This bill is an important bill, and it is important because it gives people who want to work from home a right to work from home. As somebody who has represented working people for many, many years – for many decades in fact – one of the things that was quite obvious just before I came to this place was that there were a lot of women and people who had young families who were wanting to work from home because it basically made their lives a lot easier. Working 9 to 5, you have still got the dropping off of children, the shopping, the cooking, the washing, the cleaning – all those things have to go on top of trying to hold down a job. But also, when you have got young children, it becomes quite challenging. Being able to work from home means you can combine your work and family responsibilities just that little bit more easily.

In the lead-up to having this bill brought before the house today I was approached by employer groups, who I met with, and they went through some of their concerns. They indicated to me that they were not necessarily opposed to working from home but just had some clarification aspects around it. Those are some of the things that have been touched on in the bill and that Premier Carroll has also spoken about. There were some things that were reasonable requests – like if there are any additional costs, who is going to bear those costs, what happens if someone is working part-time and how the entitlement would work if it is part-time – and reasonableness factors.

I can say that when I was a union official, particularly working for the nurses union, we had a lot of women who were seeking flexible work arrangements. That was not work from home necessarily, but flexible working arrangements around hours, which would give them the capacity to balance their work and family better. It was always very difficult. It was very rare that I would have a large employer just say, ‘Yes, we can make that work.’ And always those nurses then would have to no longer work in an ongoing permanent capacity but would shift to casual, and that meant a loss of entitlement as well. So there is a gendered aspect to this when we are talking about women with family responsibilities and children. It was always difficult, and in my mind, as somebody who had worked from home successfully myself as a public servant in the past – when I was a union official, my car was my office. I was out on the road and I had a boot full of files and the like. So the idea that we all have to be anchored to an office is outdated.

But there are unfortunately some pretty outdated views and positions on working from home. It does not have to be difficult. When an employer and a worker sit down to try and nut through these things, most things can be resolved. But as I said, sitting down with the employer groups, they had some, I thought, quite reasonable points of clarification around costs and how it would work: what happens if there is an injury? Does a union have right of entry? They are all legitimate questions. It does not matter whether we resolve those questions or not today, but certainly for employers and workers to sit down and have a conversation themselves to see whether they can resolve those issues is where it all needs to start. Of course then, if it cannot be resolved, what this bill will do is give workers the capacity to go to VCAT to have those matters resolved. As someone who has represented workers in many industrial jurisdictions, including this jurisdiction – not here in this state, but in New South Wales – when you are going to these sorts of tribunals, of course the first part of any application is you have mediation. The parties sit down in a room with someone who is quite learned, and they go through and work out whether they can come to some kind of arrangement. That is a positive thing, and sometimes you can get to a resolution with a little bit of help. That is not a bad thing; it is actually a good thing.

As I said, I have got to be efficient today with my contributions. But again, it is an important thing to have working from home as a right. Not only will it be a really great right but it will save time for people who are commuting. It will save money. It is a really good cost-of-living initiative as well. Again, parents can be there for school pick-up and school drop-off, particularly if you have got kids at kinder and kids at school and you have got the double drop-off – all those sorts of things. Our model of work in Australia and most Western countries was really founded around postwar notions of men going to work in factories and having set hours, and in a modern society those norms do not apply to many people, because they have families and they have other obligations – and not only family responsibilities but also caring responsibilities like caring for older parents. These days a lot of gen Xers and boomers are having to get parents to appointments and the like, so if you can work from home, you can juggle all of those different aspects of your life. It is actually really, really helpful. I might leave my contribution there – as I said, I have been told I need to be efficient – other than to say I commend the bill to the house.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:16): I am pleased to rise and speak on behalf of my Greens colleagues and myself on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 today. It has been a while coming. I cannot even recall how long ago now it was when this legislation was first announced under a former Premier, and it has been a bit of a journey since that time. I got the sense that there was a much bolder approach from the Labor government when this was first being spruiked. I believe it opened – was it? – a state conference. I cannot recall. But since the former Premier and the way in which this was approached, as opposed to now, there has been quite a significant shift, at least from what I have observed in public commentary.

We are now at a situation where we have just had a myriad of amendments that have been dumped on my desk late yesterday evening that people have been asking to see for a long time – and reportedly others in the community have as well, including the ones that were supposedly consulted. We are getting across those. My speaking notes today will not speak to those particular amendments, because we are literally still going through all of them and understanding their full implications. What has arrived does, from the immediate outset, appear to be somewhat of a capitulation to the business lobby, frankly. Seeing a sheet of paper that says ‘11th draft’ on the top of it says quite a lot. What we see now under the new Premier and the Labor government at this point in time, as opposed to when these laws were announced – laws which my colleagues federally back in and would like to see applied in a similar fashion across the country at the federal level – is the new Premier and the Labor government being afraid of their own bill. They are hiding under the doona from what was a bold announcement that they were spruiking so heavily when it was first brought before the Victorian people. After a few whispers in the ear of the business lobby, suddenly there is a raft of amendments that are appearing right before us at 2 minutes to midnight, and we have to get this through today with all of these amendments. Words like ‘constitutionality’ are being thrown around, and frankly, I do not take that word out of the mouth of the business lobby. That is something we need the time to consider and get advice on.

As I said, I will comment on the amendments when they come up later in the committee stage of the bill, but I did hear from some of these business voices that I suspect are the people that are being talked about that have gone to government. One of them – I will not name them – put to me on the phone, ‘What happens if someone does not have a home?’ in relation to these laws. I just thought, ‘What a ridiculous question that is.’ I would think that the person being homeless is the more significant issue there than whether they have a working-from-home entitlement. And then also, are they saying that person should not also have flexibility to ensure they stay participating in the workforce? Some of the questions that I suspect are being put to this government around these laws to water them down further in an anti-worker fashion are pretty appalling.

Anyway, to come to the matters before us, the Greens absolutely support the right for people to work from home. It benefits so many workers in many different ways. It helps women, it helps carers and it helps people with disability to stay in the workforce. Working from home saves people money. It saves on transport costs, it saves people other expenses and it really helps at a time when so many of us are hearing about people’s bills going up and up and up. It increases overall workforce participation. It allows parents and carers as well as people with chronic illness and people with disabilities to work in a more accessible way. They can stay participating in our Victorian workforce. Working from home reduces your commute – reduces it to zero – affording you less time sitting in traffic or on public transport and also more time to do the things that you enjoy without having that commute eat up the before and after of the working part of your day. It gives people the opportunity to balance their work and home life much more easily, which improves physical and mental wellbeing.

I know not all workers have the option to work from home. There are many workplaces where it is just not possible or it is just not practical to do your job from home. But for those that can, this bill, in its unamended original form, ensures that this right is protected and cannot be arbitrarily denied. Again, this is something that the Greens here in Victoria support, and it is a matter that my federal colleagues have backed in and would like to see applied across the nation.

Many people out there are already working from home a day or two a week right at this moment. Most have been doing this since perhaps the pandemic or even before. It has become a normal part of many parts of working life across the Victorian community. This bill does not change that. If anything, it is legislating what is currently commonplace across many parts of the workforce here in this state. I do not take this view that has been put by, again, parts of the business lobby and perhaps some voices from across the chamber that suddenly businesses will close, that people will flee the state, that jobs will flee the state. If anything, this is an opportunity for the state to be a leader in this space and set what hopefully is a national trend that we have this increased uptake in working-from-home entitlements and the assuredness for workers that they can approach their employers to take the right that is before them to have that ability to work in a more flexible way from home.

This bill is just going to protect the right for workers to request that they work from home a day or two a week and ensure that their requests will be accepted, if reasonable. That is it. If we were going to be far bolder than what the legislation before us actually seeks to do, I would point to the Greens also supporting a four-day work week, a matter which has been proven across many countries, to allow people to complete their full-time job in four days or 30 hours with no loss of pay, bringing a raft of benefits. A proposal like that gives people less stress to experience and less burnout. They have literally more time for their hobbies and families and recreation. They take less sick leave, and workplaces also then see the benefits of happier, healthier workers who continue to complete their jobs in reduced hours.

I think around all of these things we have been told by this market economy world that we need to give our whole selves to our jobs – to be productive, to be wealthy, to be successful, we have to sell our souls to our jobs – but it is just not true. For some work can bring great pride and satisfaction, but for others it is an absolute chore, and many people are only choosing to work for such a significant amount of their lives because they have got bills to pay. If it is possible for people to do their jobs in less time, then we should encourage this. If people can do their jobs in a more flexible way, such as what is proposed under this legislation, we should encourage this.

To reiterate, I will come back to the amendments when we get to the committee stage on this bill. Again, they have been dumped at 2 minutes to midnight before me on the crossbench and I imagine other members of the chamber. So to fully understand their implications and speak to those, the committee stage would be when I would be seeking to do that. But my Greens colleagues and I absolutely support the right for Victorian workers to work from home. We would love to see further progress and workplace flexibility so people can even more easily balance their jobs with family, friends, hobbies and all the rest. I will come to those amendments later in the committee stage, but at this point I will commend the bill in its unamended form to the house.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:23): Thank you very much for the call and opportunity to rise and speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026. Every Victorian family deserves a chance to get ahead, build a secure life and spend meaningful time with those they care about. Our Labor government understands that the cost of living and daily pressures of modern family life are very real. We are committed to delivering practical reforms that make life easier and more affordable for working people. This legislation is a landmark Australian-first reform that amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to enshrine the legal right for Victorian workers to work from home two days a week where reasonable.

Coming out of the pandemic, the way we work underwent a permanent shift. We proved that productivity does not rely on sitting at a specific desk five days a week. Flexible working became an absolute lifeline for families, and it remains just as vital today. For parents and carers working from home is about managing the reality of modern family life. It is about having time to do the school drop-off without racing through traffic or help an elderly parent with an appointment. It gives working people the breathing room to handle what life throws at them without choosing between keeping their job and showing up for their family.

For so many Victorians flexible working has become a permanent part of how modern workplaces operate. The economic, social and health benefits are clear. This arrangement delivers immediate, tangible financial relief at a time when every dollar counts. On average, working from home puts money back into the household budget, saving on fuel, public transport fares, parking, vehicle maintenance and daily commuting expenses. When household budgets are stretched, having that extra money makes a massive practical difference to family life. It also hands back something just as vital: time. Victorians who work from home save precious hours each week that would otherwise be spent sitting in traffic gridlock or standing on the train. That time returned to families translates directly into reduced stress, improved mental health and better work–life balance. By taking cars off the road during rush hour, working from home eases congestion across our transport network. That delivers faster, more reliable commutes, even for workers whose job must be done in person.

Working from home has driven gains in workforce participation, which is now higher than before the pandemic. It has opened genuine employment pathways for women, primary carers, people with disability and workers in regional communities, where long commutes are a severe barrier to full-time work. It allows parents to stay connected to the workforce while managing caring duties and allows skilled workers in regional Victoria to access high-quality jobs without uprooting their families.

Yet despite these proven benefits, working from home currently exists only as a discretionary favour. An employer can offer flexibility today and arbitrarily pull it back tomorrow, leaving employees with no say, no certainty and no legal protection. We know that this is happening across Victoria. During our public consultation over 37,000 Victorians had their say, and more than 74 per cent said that the right to work from home was extremely important. Thousands told us that they felt anxious about even asking their manager for hybrid arrangements, fearing informal punishment. Of those who could perform their duties remotely but did not, the majority had requested to do so but were refused without a genuine explanation.

Our government is stepping in to ensure workers are not left unprotected. This bill takes a practice that has proven its value and enshrines it as a clear enforceable right. Under the amended Equal Opportunity Act eligible full-time employees will have a statutory right to work from home for up to two days per week. Crucially, Victorians working less than full-time hours will have a strict pro-rata entitlement for 40 per cent of their working hours. Part-time workers, carers – predominantly women – and students should never feel they have a lesser claim to flexibility. In fact often that is what attracted them to part-time work to begin with. Adding this explicit entitlement gives every part-time worker absolute certainty. We also have confirmed this right applies strictly to employees whose principal place of residence is within Victoria. The legislation applies broadly across industries and business sizes, ensuring an office worker in a small enterprise has the same basic access to flexibility as an employee at a multinational firm.

In fact the bill establishes some really sensible boundaries. To ensure new entrants receive hands-on mentoring, employees on initial probation and workers in formal training schemes like apprenticeships and graduate programs will not access the statutory right during their training. Casual employees who do not work on a regular, systemic basis are excluded to avoid unworkable scheduling burdens. The bill also respects federal industrial relations laws; workers already entitled to request flexible work under the Fair Work Act 2009 based on specific personal circumstances will continue to make those requests under the federal scheme.

To exercise this right, an eligible employee must provide a written notice to their employer. This notice must set out the days and times they intend to work from home and whether they will work from their principal residence or another agreed location. This legislation makes it explicitly clear that the days and times set out must be times the worker is already required to perform their duties. This right is about location, not scheduling. Workers’ existing hours and rostering protections are absolutely not up for renegotiation.

The test of reasonableness is a core safeguard in this legislation. If the right can be knocked back for any vague reason, it is not much of a right, which is why this bill strictly sets out what is reasonable. An employer must consider the inherent requirements of the role, and I think that is really important, including whether the job can actually be completed remotely, whether it requires physical attendance, relies on specialist onsite equipment or requires direct, in-person interactions with the public. In assessing these requirements, the employer must have direct regard to legal obligations relating to safety, security, welfare and supervision. These specific criteria ensure our frontline workforce will continue their critical work without interruption. People in occupations that inherently require physical presence, such as nurses, police officers, teachers and construction workers – well, their work cannot be performed from home. The legislation fully respects the essential nature of these roles and ensures frontline service delivery is completely protected.

The employer must also consider the practical impacts on the operational needs of the business. We have strengthened this test to require genuine, specific consideration of these needs. An employer can assess whether working from home on specific days will cause a material decrease in productivity, have an adverse impact on workplace safety, undermine staff training, impact customer service outcomes, breach data confidentiality – which I think is a really important point here – impose excessive financial costs or create impractical staffing disruptions.

We have extended the period in which employers must respond to a notice to 28 days. This makes sure every worker’s circumstances are thoughtfully considered rather than dismissed in a rushed, box-ticking assessment. Where an employer finds that the proposed days are not reasonable, but an alternative arrangement is, they must offer that alternative. If two days is not workable, but one day is, the employer must permit that one day. Where an employer refuses a request entirely, they must provide clear written reasons explaining exactly why the arrangement is not reasonable. If an employer asks a worker for further information about their set-up, that request must be strictly relevant to assessing reasonableness, ensuring informed decisions are made rather than creating arbitrary new hurdles.

We have also recognised that operational circumstances change. The updated legislation allows an employer to issue a written notice if a worker is no longer eligible or if continuing the arrangement is no longer reasonable, whether temporarily or on an ongoing basis. For example, if a sales officer usually works from home on Thursdays but is required to attend a week-long trade show in person, the employer can temporarily adjust the arrangement. However, we are making it very clear that this is not a back door for employers to walk away from commitments to their staff. Any change must be fully justified with written reasons and alternative arrangements must be provided where reasonable.

To ensure workers are not financially disadvantaged, the bill requires employers to cover the reasonable costs necessary to enable remote work. When an arrangement is agreed upon, the employer must meet the costs for essential equipment, such as hardware and software, and secure access to the employer’s information systems. Importantly, to maintain fairness for the businesses out there, the employer is not required to pay for a worker’s basic utilities or general internet services.

Where disputes occur, this legislation establishes a highly accessible, fair resolution pathway. An employee who believes their request was unreasonably refused can bring a dispute to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission for free conciliation. If conciliation does not resolve the matter, they can apply directly to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which has the power to make binding orders directing an employer to allow the employee to work from home. In cases involving federal jurisdictions, the matter can be referred to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.

We are ensuring a reasonable timeline for the rollout of these major reforms. The right will formally commence on 1 July 2027 for most employers, and we have provided a further delayed commencement of 1 January 2028 specifically for small businesses – that is, those with less than 15 employees. Workers in small businesses absolutely deserve these flexible rights too, and this delay ensures smaller employers have the time they need to prepare. To guarantee this right is working seamlessly for the people it is designed for, we are bringing the statutory review of the legislation forward to 18 months, commencing on 1 January 2029. If workers are still hitting unfair barriers, this early review will enable us to find out sooner and act sooner to fix them.

In this era of wider political debate we are seeing an open call for workers rights to be wound back by some political leaders and conservative voices. At a time when those voices are advocating the stripping away of hard-won protections, it is more important than ever that our government take a different path: the path of backing workers, supporting working families and strengthening workplace rights. This bill strikes the right balance. It gives businesses clear, workable parameters while giving Victorian workers the legal certainty they deserve. Our Labor government will always fight for working people. I commend this bill to the house.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:36): I rise to speak about the great work-from-home swindle. The Libertarian Party is not in the habit of trying to fool the public, and I will not start by supporting this legislation. This con job works on multiple levels, and if you stay with me, we will get to the very top and get a clear view of the absolute state of political leadership in Victoria. All of this is underpinned by one big falsehood: that people could only work from home because of the generosity of the government. This legislation changes nothing for people who work from home thanks to voluntary agreements with their employers, but that is where the good news ends. This legislation will be disastrous for some employers who need people to turn up. If this legislation ever came to be, it would punish wealth creators and cause businesses to flee. Meanwhile, VCAT will be brought to a virtual standstill as it deals with ridiculous cases, quite possibly while its own staff are working from home. The government have waited until now to introduce this, I suggest, because they do not want people to see the clown show before the election.

But this is not even the biggest swindle going on here. We already know that there will be legal challenges. The Property Council of Australia released independent constitutional law advice finding the bill is inconsistent with the Fair Work Act 2009. Very well credentialled legal experts have said this law will be rendered invalid under the Australian constitution. They seem to be excited, which means Victorians should be less excited. We know the government have not released the legal advice, and we know they will not, because it was never designed to be good legislation; it was purely designed to embarrass the Liberal Party. We remember they did not release expert advice during the pandemic, and much of that advice never actually existed.

I shudder to think how much this will cost. I do know about Limbrick’s law, which states that if you have to ask who is paying for something, the answer is: it is you. This is what happens when governments make promises they cannot keep before elections, just like at the last election, when the government promised to deliver a regional Commonwealth Games and wasted $589 million in the process. This is Commonwealth Games 2.0. Let us take a minute to think about where the money this Parliament is probably about to splash against the wall comes from. It comes from things like stamp duty, paid by people who have slaved for years trying to buy somewhere for their family to live. It comes from things like payroll tax, which is a fine imposed on wealth creators for employing people – people who may no longer be required to show up. But unfortunately the Liberal Party are in on it. They know all this but would rather waste our money than risk being called names by the government. When the legislation fails, they intend to put on their best surprised face and blame the government, and we will all end up paying.

All of this is based on basic disrespect by both major parties – disrespect for Victorians’ money and a belief that they will not remember this or hold anyone to account. So much for a new direction and a fresh start. This legislation is a multilevel hoax, with the major parties at the very top. Ironically, there are many sitting days like this one when we would be better off if we worked from home. The Libertarian Party, for one, will not be part of this.

 Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:39): This is a very interesting bill. I am not for it and I am not against it at the moment. The internet has driven a number of possibilities, some good, some bad. The ability to work from home is one of the good things in a lot of ways, but it also brings up the point: if I can work from home, why can’t I work from Barbados or South-East Asia? As an IT nerd in a previous career – in one of my many previous careers – it enabled me to, in one case, work from Vancouver in Canada, where I had to do a database restore over very dodgy wi-fi. That was, back when I did it, groundbreaking; it is just so ho-hum and everyday now.

I support the principle of working from home as a best effort, but I am not convinced yet that it should be a right. We have no idea how it is going to work. We have no idea how many people are going to contest determinations and how the businesses will have to react – like whether they will be able just to turn up themselves if they can or whether they will need legal counsel. And VCAT yet again will get another role. I have been in this place 12 years or so now, and VCAT have been a dumping ground – I do not like using the term, but I cannot think of a better one – for various dispute resolutions that have come up. They as an organisation obviously are going to need more and more resources. The questions I have and that I am hearing here – the many questions – are the basis for my reasoned amendment, and I have other amendments which we will get to should the reasoned amendment fail. I ask that my amendments be circulated now, please.

My reasoned amendment is basically a mechanism to get a short, sharp but in-depth inquiry into the bill. There have been plenty of questions raised by the business lobbies; I have plenty of questions myself. I feel these need to be answered through a mechanism that allows people to have their say, and a report will be made and all that sort of thing. Although there is not a large amount of time, the review is designed so that there is an ability for the bill to be delivered, as there will still be the possibility of a sitting day before we hit caretaker mode. Obviously if the bill review gets done earlier, then we can get into it earlier. That should be basically the crux of it. It is a fairly standard inquiry. I am not going to go through it all, but I would suggest that it would be a good thing. This whole working-from-home thing could actually end up being a problem or it could end up not being a problem, but we have not had a chance as a society to look into it. We have got to be so careful that this does not drive further businesses away from Victoria because it is all just getting too hard. I commend my reasoned amendment and my other amendments to the house. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘:

(1)   this bill be referred to a select committee for inquiry, consideration and report, by 20 October 2026, and the second reading of this bill be deferred until the final report of the committee is presented to the house;

(2)   in undertaking this inquiry, the committee should consider whether the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 should be amended to clarify that using prescription medication or requiring medical treatment for a disability is a characteristic that a person with that disability generally has;

(3)   the committee consist of two members from the government nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Council, two members from the opposition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Council, and two members from among the remaining members in the Council, to be nominated jointly by those remaining members;

(4)   substitute members may be appointed and the provisions outlined in standing order 23.08 will apply;

(5)   the members will be appointed by lodgement of the names with the President within seven calendar days of the Council agreeing to this resolution; and

(6)   the first meeting of the committee will be held within one week of members’ names being lodged with the President.’

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (14:44): I rise to make a contribution on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026. The name is on the tin. The bill seeks to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to enact a right to work from home for two days per week where reasonable. I do not need to go into further details of what this bill entails, as this has been very thoroughly covered and articulated by other speakers before me. I want to say from the outset that Legalise Cannabis Victoria absolutely supports the right of people to work from home where reasonable. That is not conditional. It is a reasonable thing. Everyone in my office works from home. I work from home. We do it on a weekly basis, and it would be hypocrisy, which people are all too familiar with, for us to say that should not be a right whenever it is practicable. My staff love it and I love it, and we would love to see it available to all workers where practical.

This bill – and I will talk about this more in a minute – will not deliver a right. This bill is a wedge. I gave a second-reading speech yesterday for a private members bill on property development integrity. It calls for truth in advertising for new housing estates. It is a pity that truth in advertising does not apply to legislation, because whatever the government is spruiking, this bill is unlikely to deliver. It is like a piece of cheese that has been sitting in the fridge mouldering away since the 2025 federal election, when the coalition very quickly scrapped their return-to-office mandate after realising that people actually like flexible workplace arrangements, including working from home. That spectacular coalition own goal was manifestly the inspiration for the government introducing this bill, and to be blunt, it has not aged well. In a way this is the answer to a question that possibly not a lot of people are actually asking. Of course there are people that would not be accessing working from home that would like to. There are undoubtedly people who want to access working from home who are being denied that, and that is part of the workplace. I am not saying it makes it acceptable, but whether you look at wages, hours, classifications or any of those things, it has always been thus that there are differences between employers and employees as to what is reasonable, and that is why we have unions. Because we have unions, we have the Labor Party, and because of the Labor Party, we have this bill. Somewhere it has gone a bit wonky.

This bill addresses, clearly, a huge unmet demand for working from home at a rhetorical level. But does this bill deliver a remedy? Does it actually provide for a level of confidence that that employee who might well be making a perfectly reasonable request will have that request delivered and that justice shall be done? I think it is really fair to say that is very much a moot point with this legislation. If an employee applies to their employer to work from home and if that employer denies that request, the bill states that the employee can seek resolution via the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission as the first port of call. Cool. We have nothing but admiration for VEOHRC – great people doing important work. We have referred a number of things ourselves, and we will later be referring something further to the human rights commission, such is our regard for them. But it is not the Fair Work Commission. It cannot make an order; it can only make a recommendation. I am sure this will be litigated, but it can probably provide a level of protection to an employee who is seeking relief via the commission. But that will have to be tested, because that will require an extension of the current act, and obviously that is one of the intentions of this bill. But VEOHRC cannot, and this bill will not give it the right to, make a decision that is enforceable. If the employer decides not to accept the recommendation of VEOHRC, or if the employee is not happy with the decision of VEOHRC or the recommendation from VEOHRC, their only recourse is to apply to VCAT.

I suspect there are probably lots of people here that have made applications to VCAT or have been involved in those things. With the greatest respect to the commissioners at VCAT, it is like: ‘Take a number, come back in a year and we’ll have a look at this’ or ‘Come back in six months and it’ll have a mention.’ These are not like timely remedies. I heard a number of the speakers here say, ‘This bill will provide certainty,’ I mean, if you were selling vacuums, you would be in the mags in no time for misrepresentation. This will not provide certainty. This is at best overselling, and at worst untrue, and that is pretty piss-poor. Pardon my French, but that is the nature of what we are dealing with here. My apologies, Acting President Broad, that was a bit of improvisation that was beyond parliamentary good manners.

The government can legislate for work from home, and that will be no doubt popular. But at the end of the day – and I think Mr Bourman and Mr Limbrick before me have alluded to the fact – we do not really have much in the way of industrial relations powers left in this state. And to my colleagues from the Liberal Party, that is all your own work. I know it precedes you, but in 1996 Jeff Kennett transferred the state’s industrial relations rights to the Commonwealth – no news there – and that is why the government is resorting to very much a secondary option, which is to try and create this head of power through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. But of course it immediately then opens its way up to a question of: is this legislation effectively ultra vires? Can it actually be done, or does it contravene the constitution and does it contravene the rights? I am not going to try and get into the explanations. There are a number of opinions floating around.

A number of leading commentators have said that this is a dead bill walking, but such is the nature of the industrial relations powers and the fact that they are vested in the Commonwealth. There is no state version, for all intents and purposes, of the Fair Work Commission that can apply to employees. But of course most Victorian employees are in federal awards now or covered by federal EBAs or safety net awards, and of course there is redress for this in many awards and EBAs. They make specific provision with regard to this, and that is probably more likely to be successful. The government knows this. It will inevitably be challenged, it will inevitably go to the High Court, and in all likelihood it will die there. If that does not occur, then we will just have a potentially half-arsed scheme that purports to deliver working from home, but we sincerely doubt that it will. We wish that it could – that would be terrific – but we just do not think that this bill is, if I may use the parlance, fit for purpose to deliver that outcome.

Can I also note, in conclusion, that we know this thing has been sitting around for years. It has been bounced around: ‘We’re going to deliver it’ and ‘It’s going to bring certainty’ and ‘Don’t you worry, vote for us and we’re going to do it.’ In that context I just wonder why on earth we would be receiving government amendments at a quarter to 10 last night. In fact we did not even get government amendments; we got a summary of the amendments we are going to get from the government. That is just insanity. They have been on this for so long, and we are getting these at the eleventh hour.

This is at its heart I believe a cynical bill. Mr Bourman talked about the need for clarity, and Legalise Cannabis is very supportive of that. The reality is that I believe, if I may speak colloquially – and I do not want to offend Ms Purcell here – it is a dog’s breakfast. I hope that does not cause concern.

Georgie Purcell interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: Excellent. Thank you. It is a dog’s breakfast.

Georgie Purcell interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: Yes, they should have breakfast, and they are not going to get much sustenance out of this bill, I can tell you that much.

We should have the right to work from home, of course. Will this bill deliver it? No, it is highly unlikely. But either way, we would like to see this bill referred to a bill review so that all of this stuff that we are getting buried with now – and it is not just the government that has left it until the eleventh hour; there are amendments everywhere. Let us put them all in front of that. Let us take evidence. Let us hear from people who understand these issues and let us allow for a public debate and discussion around this question. If the government is so committed to it and there are a set of changes made, Parliament can easily be recalled and within the timeframe that is being proposed, for half a day or whatever is required to process that. If that is the government’s commitment, to getting this through in an agreed manner, we would be delighted to support it.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (14:56): I rise to speak on this piece of legislation as well, which has obviously been a journey and a long time coming. I have put a lot of consideration into speaking on this bill today, because there are a range of different stakeholders who have really strong views for very valid reasons that I understand. Certainly as a regional MP, as a woman who has recently had a baby, as someone who is neurodivergent and as someone who is chronically ill, I do really understand the importance of having the ability to work from home while also getting the balance right with business. Certainly the way that Victorians work has changed profoundly and quite significantly over the past several years. What was once viewed as an occasional workplace luxury has, for many people, become an ordinary part of the job.

In preparing my speaking notes for this bill today, I thought about a number of stages in my life when I lived in a regional area but worked in the city and the pressures that having to come to the office every single day put on me such that it resulted in burnout and when I was having flare-ups with my autoimmune disease how difficult it would be. I was having to use sick leave for fatigue and management of my symptoms. I actually requested to work from home in one of my jobs and was told that I could not.

Of course when COVID hit it was an incredibly stressful time in many people’s lives, but it did bring one thing that has benefited many, which was that this became normalised. We realised that it came with so many benefits, particularly for communities who may have to travel longer distances or for women, for mothers. I think that has been a really, really good thing.

My staff and I all enjoy a day here and there to work from home. For many people the benefits associated with that are undeniable. I certainly know that some of my most productive days at work are when I am working from home, when I can get up early without interruption and not have to travel to the office, when I can work late and when I can fit in a walk with my dogs at lunchtime. It has benefited my physical health and mental health in so many ways. It has reduced my stress, and as a new mum I have really benefited from the ability to work from home over the past year, after returning to work just one month after having my baby to be in the Parliament. But I needed the ability to work from home in the weeks that we were not in here to spend those early moments with my child and to be able to bond and have time with her but also to be able to continue to work and serve my community and represent the wonderful people of northern Victoria.

It is really not an exaggeration when I say that working from home has changed many, many people’s lives for the better. According to the government’s own figures, more than a third of workers already work from home regularly, including 60 per cent of professionals. That is a key reason why we have actually seen workforce participation higher than prepandemic levels, because this ability has allowed people to come back to work and have more flexibility when perhaps they could not have previously.

I have touched on this, but flexible work has been particularly beneficial for women, parents and carers, many of whom have been able to remain in or return to the workforce because of the flexibility that it provides. Living regionally and representing a very regional electorate – I live in the part of the electorate that is probably one of the most commuted from into Melbourne – it is certainly a significant distance. That is hard for anyone. It takes a huge chunk of time out of the day, but for mothers or carers or people who might have to do drop-offs, that completely removes the ability to work full time. But the ability to work from home has allowed more women and more parents to be able to take on more days and have that flexibility where they can accommodate it with the time working from home. It does not make those competing demands disappear whatsoever. But certainly for me it has made those demands more manageable.

There are broader benefits associated with improving a person’s work–life balance. Cutting out the commute also cuts out congestion on our roads and saves people both time and money. In fact I have worked out when I think most people where I live work from home. I know the days that I should come into the office because the traffic is going to be lighter and I can avoid that rush on the day that people are heading into the office. Prior to the pandemic I used to commute from Kyneton to an office across from Parliament, actually right across from here, every single day, five days a week. It required a drive to the station and two trains, and this was before half-price fares as well. I was spending a significant amount of money on transport, and it was taking a huge chunk of time out of my day. In fact I used to get on the train around 6 am and I used to get home at around 8 pm, and that took time away from my friends, it took time away from my family and it took time away from my animals. It removed my ability to exercise or go to the gym and do all those things that make our life better and reduce the risk of poor mental health or burnout or stress. Like so many regional Victorians, that was the same story for so many years.

Certainly in the Macedon Ranges and in other areas, our lives have significantly shifted. In fact we have the tree changers coming to live in the Macedon Ranges now. Many people who actually laughed at me when I moved out that way have moved out to our wonderful area to raise their families. People that I even used to work with who were perplexed when I moved to Kyneton have moved out to our wonderful part of the world because they can now get the balance of living in a great area for families, out in nature, with so much to give, while also commuting into the city a few days a week, and it is perfectly manageable for them.

Flexible working arrangements do a lot of things, but they also create more inclusive workplaces. This shift has been particularly life changing for Victorians who live with disability or chronic illness. This is particularly true for people who live with invisible illness and may find it harder to ask for accommodations or to express their needs in the workplace and have a fear of other forms of discrimination. I have spoken about this before, not extensively, but a little while ago I received an AuDHD diagnosis and began to understand more about myself and the ways in which office environments and the Parliament, as much as I love my colleagues, can completely overstimulate me and overwhelm me. To be in an environment that is people focused, with a lot of stimulation going on at all times, really impacts my ability to put out significant work output all of the time. I know that is true for so many other Victorians who may be experiencing the same thing and are unable to work five days a week in an office full of people, with interactions, with constant speaking, with distractions, with stimuli. On top of that there are many living with invisible illness or chronic illness that commuting can impact and which can potentially take away people’s ability to work at all. I have been living with an autoimmune disease, a rheumatoid illness, for around a decade now. If I did not have the ability to work from home when I was experiencing a flare-up or when I was having exacerbated symptoms, I would be really questioning my ability to continue to work at the pace that I do. Certainly my staff know that I work at an unhealthy pace at times, and the ability to be able to do that in a way that separates the physical and the face to face with the online and the emails and the catch-up work without having to head into the office means I feel really lucky that I am able to make that decision for myself, being the boss.

It is something that I have always made an effort to extend to my staff, because there are many people in my office who have different but similar experiences. A number of my staff have endometriosis, and working from home allows them to manage their symptoms, which can come on rapidly or suddenly, and the pain can be so debilitating that they could not drive a car or get on public transport, but certainly they can work from home with a heat pack on and in comfortable clothes. That is an incredible thing for a lot of workplaces. It is an incredible thing for productivity. It limits the amount of times that people call in sick to work and the time spent away from the office. I actually think it is a really good thing that on days when workers who would potentially be calling in sick they can actually work from home and continue to do their jobs. It is a great thing for many, many workplaces and businesses. As I said, in many ways it would allow people to stay in the workforce, or to stay in the workforce having that arrangement to work from home two days per week, as per this legislation.

I want to touch on an example of the way that working from home can potentially limit discrimination that could be going on in a way that exists through loopholes. When I was considering what I was going to do about this bill and my views on it, taking in all the very different positions, something that really stuck with me was a conversation with a women’s organisation that represents women particularly in insecure work or that are already marginalised in the workforce. They were telling me about the fact that of course it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on the fact that they are pregnant, but it is not uncommon for this to be done under the existing legislation without saying so.

One example was given to me. Anyone who has had a baby knows that morning sickness is very, very common, and that can be debilitating in itself, but hyperemesis in particular can make people dysfunctional at times. It is short lived and only happens throughout part of a pregnancy, and even if it is throughout the whole pregnancy that does not mean that they will live with that forever, so they should not have to leave their jobs on the basis that they are struggling to work. However, the ability to work from home in those moments when they are fatigued, when they are out of energy or when they are feeling unwell can be something that gets women through what can be a really difficult time of pregnancy and a difficult time of their lives. They gave me the example that, while you cannot sack someone for being pregnant, what can happen is that someone who is pregnant could be experiencing effects of the pregnancy such as illness or extreme fatigue. They could put in a request to work from home on that basis, and that request could be denied. Their performance could then go down because they are struggling to get to work, they are being late to work or they are having to get off the tram on their commute to throw up, and they could be performance-managed out of their role while pregnant and that would technically not be a crime. Whereas if there was the ability to put in the request to work from home where reasonable, that would allow them to continue to stay in their job, get through that stage in their life and come back to the workforce after having their baby. I thought that was a really important one to share, because it is one that I actually had not considered. I had not thought about the fact that there could be women out there, particularly in workplaces where we know there is still rampant discrimination on the basis of pregnancy – it is just done in different ways and with different excuses – who without this right could absolutely be discriminated against at what is a really vulnerable and critical time of so many women’s lives.

In the justification for this legislation the government has pointed to economic benefits and stated the policy will save Victorian workers more than $5000 a year, or $110 a week, primarily through the cost of commuting. While it is clear that there are many significant benefits to working from home, it would be remiss of me not to mention, especially as a regional MP, that many regional Victorians remain far less likely to have jobs that can be appropriately performed from home. Certainly, Northern Victoria is an incredibly diverse electorate – it is half the state, so it has to be – and there are many parts of my region that cannot see the benefits in this legislation, but there are certainly many parts of it that can. I did just want to touch on that. Of course there are industries that dominate regional economies in my own electorate and other parts of the state – such as agriculture, manufacturing, construction and health care – that do not have the ability to work from home. There is also in the regions the issue of unreliable internet. While the government has been championing this legislation, there should be action alongside their federal counterparts to guarantee that every Victorian can actually benefit from these laws and have the ability to work from home and do all the things that they need to do, and that just is not possible in many parts of the state still without connectivity, whether that be phone reception or wi-fi.

I just want to touch on the way that the government has approached this legislation, and I know many on the crossbench have shared the same views. The lack of consultation as soon as we heard the bill was to be amended – I mean, I cannot speak on behalf of others – was probably non-existent. We certainly did receive the amendments that we had been waiting on for some time at 5 pm yesterday, and that has left me with quite limited time to consider them properly, noting that I had a general business slot yesterday – I had a documents motion. Many of us have been seeking just clarity on when we would get these amendments so we could set aside the time to consider them. The communication was not there. Of course, they went to business before us. It would have been, I think, very beneficial to get them to us sooner to consider so we do not feel like we are rushed in making decisions on such important legislation.

I just want to talk about the way in which this is being legislated, because obviously we cannot amend the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009. This bill will legislate the right to work from home through the state-based Equal Opportunity Act 2010, and doing this raises genuine and fair questions about what we consider to be a fundamental right that deserves protection within this framework and whether this framework is even appropriate in the first place. Putting industrial relations matters into discrimination laws is something that appears perhaps to be becoming somewhat more common. I guess I just want to highlight the fact that it is rather contradictory to do this given that the right to housing itself is not a right under our charter of human rights and housing status is not a protected attribute. You cannot work from home if you do not have a home to do it in, and I am not sure that this is the best place or even the best Parliament to be making this consideration. But I do understand the difficulties when a state government wants to do something that they might not technically have the ability to do or the legislative tools that are most appropriate to do so.

The Equal Opportunity Act exists to protect Victorians from discrimination, harassment and vilification. For some time the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission itself, along with advocates, has been calling for significant reform to the act so it can better fulfil its purpose. The commission also needs stronger enforcement and investigative powers to ensure compliance with the law and ensure organisations are taking necessary steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Any workplace disputes relating to this legislation will be run through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, or VEOHRC, rather than the Fair Work Commission, and if conciliation fails, the dispute will proceed to VCAT. There have been concerns raised about the already strained capacity of VCAT and VEOHRC. There are also genuine concerns raised by the business community, and I note that the government has made a series of amendments.

I have already spoken about the fact that it is so incredibly hard, if you take your job seriously, with the chronic under-resourcing of crossbench offices to actually get through this. It is happening week after week at the moment where we are getting hit with so many amendments at the last minute. I did just want to speak about the stresses that this puts on our staff. Of course those in major parties have pressures in many different ways; I am not denying that for a second. But for MPs on the crossbench, particularly sole MPs like my friends over here, we only get one extra staff member to consider every single thing that comes through the Parliament. When we are considering not just the legislation itself but amendments from a range of different parties and a range of different MPs, sometimes we are left with no choice but to not support them because we have not considered them or had the ability to consider them. I do want to speak about that. For such an important piece of legislation, it felt like I, as a member of Parliament with a vote on it, was getting my latest updates through the media and through calls coming to my office from stakeholders. It was really hard to keep control of, and it has been an incredibly stressful process. It is not what we are used to, and I think this has been incredibly messy.

That is why I want to finally speak to Mr Bourman’s amendment. I have found my consideration on this to be quite difficult, because I understand the concerns of the business community, I really do, and I have many stakeholders who genuinely believe in the importance of this legislation, whether that be within women’s groups or in my region or within the disability community. I just want to note that I am having quite a bit of difficulty making up my mind, because certainly I think when we receive amendments at such late notice that are hard to consider, looking into the detail of the bill and the amendments is a really important thing and perhaps should happen. But I do understand that there is a wish to get this legislation done.

In closing, I absolutely do support every worker’s right to work from home, and I think it has changed so many people’s lives in so many ways. For me in particular, I look back at my life when I was commuting into the city every day on the train, getting on in the dark in the morning and getting off again in the evening when it was dark. I felt like I did not see daylight until the weekend, and certainly for women, for mums, for people living with a disability, for those who are chronically ill and for those who are neurodivergent and need low-sensory environments at times, there is so much benefit from ensuring that it can be reasonably done and it can be protected. I understand the need to protect it, and not everyone has generous workplaces that will give them accommodations. In saying that, those are my comments, and I look forward to further conversation in the committee stage.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:17): I wondered if this moment would come today for me, but here we are. Here I am actually speaking on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026. I am very, very pleased to be talking about this bill and the amendments as well. It is particularly good for regional people, and I thought I would make that contribution. But before I go into how it uniquely supports regional communities I will cover off on some of the technical changes that are being made in this bill today. The bill before us creates a genuine and enforceable right for eligible Victorian workers to request to work from home and to have that request properly considered and reasonably considered. Importantly, it recognises just how much our workplaces have changed in a relatively short time. Working from home certainly was not invented during COVID, but I think that we can all agree that the pandemic fundamentally changed the way we think about where work can be done. I suspect there are some young people in the gallery who have done some study from home as well, online.

For many Victorians working from home has become part of their new normal. Improved technology has played an enormous role in that change. Video meeting platforms such as Zoom and Teams and many others allow colleagues to work together, hold meetings and maintain personal interaction even when they are not physically sitting in the same workplace, and that technological change extends well beyond the workplace. It has changed the way we communicate and even shaped our popular culture. Most Victorians watch video platforms now as opposed to free-to-air TV. More significantly, telehealth and our wonderful Victorian Virtual Emergency Department are changing the way people can access medical professionals and health services using online platforms. These technologies are particularly important for people living in regional Victoria.

When new social, technological and scientific capabilities change the way we live, governments must keep up. Work from home is an opportunity, but it is also an area where workers and employers need to have their roles, obligations and protections clearly set out. Labor has recognised the opportunities that working from home can provide for working people and their families. More than a third of Australian workers now regularly work from home, including about 60 per cent of professionals. This bill recognises the reality and gives Victorian workers greater certainty. Since introducing it we have listened carefully to workers, employers, businesses and other stakeholders about how these new rights and responsibilities should operate in practice, and we have made changes. That is what a good legislative process should do.

The amendments do not change the fundamental purpose or the fairness of this bill. They clarify its operation and make sure the framework is workable for workers and employees. One important change relates to commencement. After listening to the business community, the bill will now commence on 1 July 2027, with small business employers having an additional year, until 1 January 2028. Workers in small businesses deserve these rights too, but we recognise smaller employers may need additional time to understand and set up the new framework. The bill also confirms that the legislation applies to employees who reside in Victoria, and importantly, we are bringing the statutory review forward from three years to 18 months. This means that we will be able to assess sooner how these new rights are operating in practice and respond if we need to.

The bill also provides greater clarity around reasonableness. This bill has never pretended that every job can be done from home – clearly they cannot. Our nurses, our delivery occupations, our transport industries, our tradies and our hospitality workers and many, many other Victorians perform work that requires them to be physically present. Equally, a right that can simply be knocked back without a proper reason is not much of a right. This bill makes clear that decisions need to reflect the genuine operational circumstances of the particular job and particular workplace. This is the balance at the heart of this legislation: a genuine right for workers alongside legitimate operational needs of employers. Part-time workers will also have the opportunity and greater certainty, with a pro-rata entitlement of up to 40 per cent of their working hours each week. This is important for people balancing employment with caring responsibilities, study and other commitments.

The bill also recognises that circumstances can change. A work-from-home notice can be revisited where an employee is no longer eligible or where continuing the arrangement is no longer reasonable, either temporarily or on an ongoing basis, but any change must also be justified. It is not a mechanism for simply walking away from an agreement. There are also practical changes to work-from-home notices. The days and times in a notice must already be times when the employee is required to work. This legislation is about where eligible work is performed. It does not rewrite existing hours or rostering arrangements. Employers will have 28 days, rather than 21, to respond to a notice, giving them sufficient time to respond to a request. Where further information is sought from an employee, it must be relevant to assessing whether the arrangement is reasonable.

The bill also provides clarity around costs. Where a work-from-home arrangement is agreed, employers will meet reasonable costs for essential equipment and secure system access necessary for the employee to work properly and safely from home. Workers should not be expected to personally fund essential workplace equipment simply because their agreed workplace is their home for part of the week.

As a member for Western Victoria, I note flexibility is of great significance for regional communities. Distance is part of our lives. For some travelling between regional towns, working from home for part of the week can mean less money spent on petrol, less wear and tear on the family car and, most importantly, more time back in their day. We should not underestimate the significance of that time. Many Victorians, whether they are city based or regionally based, will save on average an hour to an hour and a half each way. That is 3 hours in a day. My colleague Ms Purcell was just talking about her own personal daily timeline – a great example. Saving this time might mean being able to do a school drop-off or a school pick-up or more family time, time for exercise or involvement in the local community.

Working from home can also allow people to live in regional communities while accessing employment opportunities that might previously have required them to relocate or commute long distances. That is a clunky way of saying that some people can stay living in their regional community and still gain employment in Melbourne or in other regional communities and quite satisfactorily do that because they are working from home. This matters for our regional towns and cities. If someone can live in Warrnambool, Portland or Hamilton, for instance, or another regional community while working for an employer based somewhere else in Victoria, they can build their career without necessarily leaving that regional community.

Likewise, the opposite is the case as well. Technical experts from Melbourne, usually, can do work in regional communities, or communities at great distance, whilst still remaining based in Melbourne. They might use our capped fares, quite affordably taking a train to another regional city to provide their technical expertise one or two days a week, and continue to do so on days 3, 4 and 5 from Melbourne. It is win–win for regional communities, no matter which way you look at it. Their wages are then spent in local shops and local businesses, and their children attend local schools as well. They join our sporting clubs and community organisations. The benefits of greater workplace flexibility can extend beyond the individual worker and their family.

Working from home provides sorely needed productivity benefits in the Australian economy. This legislation is not about telling employers how to run their business or pretending every workplace is the same; it is about establishing a fair and reasonable process. The bill demonstrates that the government has listened to the feedback received since the bill was first introduced. We have adjusted commencement arrangements, brought forward the statutory review and provided greater clarity around part-time workers, reasonableness, changed circumstances, notices and costs. Ultimately, this reform is about something very practical: giving working Victorians greater flexibility, more certainty and more control over how they balance their work and the rest of their lives.

I might finish up there, other than to say I think it is an extremely positive combination to have capped fares for regional communities and a work-from-home framework as well in place. It provides workers and students an enormous opportunity to make the world a smaller place and to do so more affordably as well. I really look forward to this bill being implemented and seeing the changes and opportunities that it provides not just for regional communities but also for the whole state of Victoria.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:31): I am afraid I erred in failing to distribute some amendments, so I seek leave of the chamber to distribute those amendments now.

Leave granted.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

President, I rise today to speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work From Home) Bill 2026.

I would like to thank the Minister for Industrial Relations in the other place for his work on this issue, and his work to ensure that our industrial relations laws are up to date and are giving workers the protections they need in modern workplaces, rather than the workplaces of the past.

I would also like to acknowledge the work that the Premier has done to make sure that employers have been brought on board to consult with government regarding this legislation.

President, in most industries, the workplaces of the 21st century are not the same as the workplaces of the 20th century.

Industries across all sectors of the economy: manufacturing, construction, finance, and many others, have all been transformed.

Technological advancement in industries should be a good thing, and it should be mutually beneficial towards both businesses and their workers.

This type of advancement is one of the main mechanisms in which we achieve higher productivity in our economy.

According to conventional economic wisdom, higher productivity should mean higher rates of business revenue and in turn, greater capacity for wage increases for working people.

I do not think that it is an unreasonable request or suggestion that this type of progress should also benefit workers.

It is important to remember that if the progression of technology only benefits those at the top and works against the interests of workers and ordinary people, then they can expect the social license and public enthusiasm for technological advances will be very thin indeed.

One such development over recent years which has been of an enormous benefit to everyday workers has been the ability for workers in certain jobs to work remotely, facilitated by 21st century technology.

The ability to work from home allows workers to save time on their commutes, thereby reducing traffic and public transport congestion.

The second-order benefits of working from home can impact in a positive way all economic actors, including those in jobs that are unable to adapt to remote work models.

In a time of high petrol prices caused by global conflicts, remote work allows workers to save money on commute costs, whilst also reducing the demand, and in turn the prices of petrol across the economy.

Given that, I think it is fair to say that expanding the scope of remote work where possible will have net-positive impacts for Victorians both directly and indirectly.

The group of people who, arguably, find the most benefit from work from home would, of course, be working parents.

Balancing a career with raising a family has never been easy, but for many families, the ability for one parent to work remotely in recent years has made things easier.

Remote and flexible working arrangements make it easier for parents to return to work after having a child, and to stay in work while raising a child.

This is important for our economy and good for business because we need capable, skilled, experienced people to be able to stay in the workforce while they are raising a family.

It is also important for the families themselves because, for so many households, having a second income is simply not optional, it is not an additional luxury, it is how they pay the bills each month.

Additionally, for workers who are in a position where, without the ability to work remotely, they would be forced to make decisions between prioritising family and prioritising their careers, work from home helps them prioritise both.

These are the sorts of decisions which are made by everyday Victorians who are stuck between competing priorities.

Without this sort of legislation to prevent employers from taking away their right to work remotely, these decisions could be made more difficult for families when the tools which they use to navigate between both are taken away.

Now, Victorians understand that life is about making decisions and choosing what to prioritise; that the world is a difficult place, and that nothing is free.

But this is not the same as somebody tossing up between the priorities of whether to go to Paris or to New York on their next holiday.

We consider the goal of making Victoria the best place it can possibly be to work and the best place it can possibly be to raise a family to be core duties of the state government.

Protecting the right to work from home goes directly to both of these priorities.

Helping Victorians to develop and pursue fulfilling, productive careers is good for them as individuals, but it is also good for the economy.

When people see the path to a secure and fulfilling future to be developing their skills and working hard in their jobs, businesses are more productive and public services run more efficiently.

This has greatly positive effects across the economy.

A happier and more productive workforce, I would argue, is something we should consistently strive for.

It is good for society, and it is good for the economy.

And there can be little doubt that expanding access to remote work allows for both greater productivity and greater job satisfaction to take place.

An example of a different policy which supports Victorians to pursue productive and fulfilling careers would be what we have done with Free TAFE.

The state government subsidises TAFE courses in areas with high demand for skilled workers, because having a skill shortage can hold back an economy, make it harder for businesses to open, to run, and to grow; and can prevent anything from being built.

Likewise, we consider making Victoria the best place it can be to raise a family to also be the core business of government.

This goes directly to what we value as a society, the importance we place on family, and our collective determination to leave things better for the next generation.

Giving parents more time to spend with their families means they can be more active and more involved in the lives of their kids.

One of the key issues which this bill goes to is the issue of balance, and the recognition that, for those working parents who struggle to find balance, when we can give them new rights at work to support them, we should.

Because, frankly, this government does not believe that work-life balance should be a dirty word or something to be sneered at.

We do not believe wanting to spend less time commuting and more time with one’s family to be a reliable indicator of a lack of ambition or capability.

It is at the core of what it means to be human, and those who wish to prioritise that should not be looked down upon.

We also do not believe that working from home should be a bargaining chip leveraged against wage rises and other workplace conditions during negotiations.

It should not be a privilege which can be revoked out of pettiness, at the whims of the supervisor.

Workers are not wrong to be asking for the right to work from home, they are not lazy for it either.

They are asking to be treated fairly, to have their wishes respected, and to be able to save time and money in a way that will help them to balance their work responsibilities with their personal responsibilities.

Of course, we understand that work from home does not work for every workplace or every job, and this bill includes provisions giving employers the ability to refuse work from home requests if they have reasonable grounds to do so.

Additionally, we understand that work from home isn’t right for every employee, and we want to work as much as possible with the business community to make sure that these reforms work.

For example, younger workers at the start of their career may choose to prioritise going into the office every day to help them develop their relationships with coworkers and supervisors to help build their professional network.

Other employees may feel as though they can work more effectively in an office environment than in a home environment.

I would like to make very clear that absolutely nobody will be forced, compelled, or obligated to work from home by the content of this bill being passed into law.

This is because this bill is ultimately about choice, giving workers the right to make these decisions for themselves, giving them more control over their own working lives.

I would usually like to think that, at least in principle, giving workers more control over their own lives would be something that all of us in this place could support.

That is what this latest advancement in technology has provided us, it would be a shame to not take advantage of it.

I would urge members of the opposition and the crossbench to think about how this bill will affect their constituents, those people who get up every day, commuting long distances to get to work.

To think about the frustration caused by sitting in traffic or at a tram, train, or bus stop, panicking as to whether or not you are going to be able to get to work on time.

We in this place should not be standing in the way of making their lives just a little bit easier.

I will now outline some of the key provisions of the bill and how they will benefit Victorian workers.

The purpose of this bill is to enshrine in law the right to work from home two days a week for workers who can reasonably complete their duties remotely.

This bill does not require that an employee be facing some special or difficult circumstance which requires them to work from home, it allows them to work from home for two days a week as a matter of personal choice.

I am of the belief that giving people personal choice and control over their lives is one of the best ways to make them feel respected and included in a workplace and in society more broadly.

This is the intention of the bill, though it includes caveats which recognise that work from home is not always appropriate for every job and every workplace.

Whether or not work from home is appropriate for any given worker is something which comes down, in this bill, to the requirements of the job itself.

This bill recognises that many workplaces simply could not accommodate a work from home request.

Jobs which require physical activity at the worksite, jobs which require operating specific equipment which can’t be taken home, or jobs which require interacting with the public in person, are just some of the examples which the bill gives of jobs which could not be reasonably done from home.

This bill has been very specifically drafted and amended in a way which would not allow workers in key frontline roles which depend on them being present on the site to work from home.

Jobs which have responsibilities for security and safety, or for supervision have inherent requirements which would require a worker to be on-site, and would not be eligible to work from home under this bill.

Additionally, employers will be given the ability to determine which days a worker may be able to work from home, subject to reasonableness grounds.

If the work of an employee varies day to day, or if the requirements and intensity of work are different on different days of the week, then these factors can be considered by the employer in deciding which days an employee can work from home.

The bill also sets out the appropriate process through which an employee can make a request to work from home.

The worker must make the request in writing, and the employer must provide a response within 21 days; in situations where the request has been denied, the employer must provide reasons as to why the worker’s role cannot reasonably be performed remotely.

If the employee believes that this decision is unreasonable, they will be able to lodge a complaint to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, or to make an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Where VCAT determines that an employer has unreasonably refused a request, it will be able to order the employer to allow the employee to work from home.

At the end of the day, this bill is being brought forward for the benefit of those workers who can benefit from work from home because we already know that it can save them time and money and make their lives just that little bit easier.

Giving people the choice to decide for themselves whether or not they want to work from home is also about showing Victorian workers the respect that says that we believe that they are capable of making these judgements about their own lives for themselves.

It is also about recognising that when technology improves, workers should also be able to benefit from these improvements and these advancements.

At the same time, the Carroll Labor government is listening to the business community and what they need to make these laws work.

We have made sensible amendments to the original bill passed in the other place to make these laws work for business as well as for workers.

For instance President, Small businesses will not be subject to these laws until 2028 and the burdern to challenge a workers right to work from home will shift to be more leniant to business, whilst still backing in the workers.

These changes, among others, represent small but meaningful amendments that I believe will strengthen these laws in the long run.

President, We would not have had this debate twenty years ago, because most of the workplaces where work from home is possible today have changed in that time.

It is appropriate that we update our laws to reflect the changing times and to protect the rights which matter to workers today.

As technology advances, and the ways that we work evolve, it is critical that workplace protections and regulations advance and evolve alongside it.

That is what this bill does.

It is important that we not only stay on top of those changes through the work that we do in this chamber and in this parliament.

But that we also protect workers and ensure that workers’ rights keep up when those changes occur.

That is why I think this bill is so important, and it is why I am supporting it and why I encourage all of my colleagues here to support this bill.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

I rise to make a contribution to the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026.

We all know that working from home is not a new concept.

It was the COVID-19 pandemic that fundamentally changed the scale and perception of working from home.

During lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, working from home was no longer a privilege available to a small number of workers.

It became an essential part of keeping our economy moving.

Businesses continued to operate. Employees continued to work.

Working from home can create genuine opportunities for people who have historically faced barriers to participating in the workforce.

For a parent or carer, working from home can make it easier to balance employment with caring responsibilities.

Greater flexibility can make it easier for parents and carers to manage school drop-offs, appointments and other responsibilities without paying for additional services.

For some, it means the difference between being employed and not being in paid work at all.

For many families, paying for help – with home and family responsibilities – is simply not an option.

Victorians are now spending 16% more to live, than they did in 2021.

At a time when the cost of living continues to rise, we must do everything we can to ease the pressure on household budgets.

The money saved on commuting, petrol, public transport and childcare can make a real difference to household budgets and help ease the financial pressure facing working families.

For a person with disability, it can remove physical barriers associated with commuting, inaccessible workplaces or environments that are difficult to navigate and may limit the types of opportunities available to them.

For carers, work from home arrangements are essential.

Most unpaid carers are women, and every carer advocacy body will tell you that one of the best things we can do for carers is to keep them in paid employment.

Both for their financial wellbeing and, for their mental and emotional health.

Then there’s distance.

For someone living in regional or outer suburban Victoria, working from home can remove hours of commuting every week and provide employment opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach to them.

And for many workers, simply removing the requirement to spend hours travelling to and from work can mean more time with their families, more time in their communities, more time exercising, cooking and taking care of themselves and, generally, a better quality of life.

Working from home isn’t just about where we work. It is about how we live and whether we can help Victorians achieve work-life balance.

Working from home often gives people back time, reduces household expenses, supports families and carers and is gendered.

Studies have shown that women bear the brunt of unpaid domestic and caring responsibilities and it is women who usually give up work or reduce their work hours to make family life sustainable.

This debate is not simply about whether people prefer to work from home.

It should be about equal opportunity, and this is the core of what our Equal Opportunity Act is.

With this, it would be remiss of me not to talk about discrimination.

We have an opportunity through this Bill to give Victorians greater choice and flexibility in how they work, but I think it also gives us an opportunity to step back and ask a much bigger question:

What forms of discrimination are preventing people from having a genuine opportunity to participate in work?

My Party and I have advocated strongly around medication-based discrimination, particularly where people are excluded from employment or treated differently because they use prescribed medication, rather than because there is any evidence that they are unsafe or unable to perform their job.

If we are serious about equal opportunity, we need to consider the barriers that people face in accessing and remaining in employment.

A person should not have to choose between managing a health condition with medication prescribed by their doctor and maintaining their livelihood.

Where a medication is lawfully prescribed, the starting point should be whether the person can safely and effectively perform the inherent requirements of their role, not assumptions or stigma about the medication they take.

My Party and I have advocated strongly around medication-based discrimination.

If we are serious about creating equal opportunities for everyone, then I truly feel that this must extend to all medications.

Victorians should not be excluded from employment from employment or opportunities simply because they take a prescribed a medication.

LCV’s amendments are very simple:

“where a person with a disability is taking medication that has been lawfully prescribed by a registered health professional, they should not be unfairly penalised for doing so.”

If a person needs a medication as part of managing their disability, that medication should be recognised as part of the circumstances of their disability under equal opportunity law.

This is important because discrimination does not always happen because of the disability itself.

Sometimes it happens because of medication or treatment that a person chooses.

I have drawn attention to this issue many times with regards to the discriminatory treatment of people prescribed medicinal cannabis who have been removed from employment, stood down from duties, or not being able to continue a treatment that provides them a better quality of life.

Not because of impairment or misconduct, but purely because of the medication that they have been prescribed by a doctor.

The Amendment to this Bill that Legalise Cannabis Party is proposing, is very simple – to ensure that a person with a disability who is taking medication for a disability or receiving medical treatment for a disability cannot be discriminated against for doing so.

This is about ending discrimination against people who have a medical condition and are simply accessing the treatment or taking the medication prescribed to them.

This proposed amendment reflects the recommendation made by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner in the December 2023 inquiry into workplace drug testing:

That there is currently no explicit protections against unlawful discrimination for people who take prescribed medication or undergo medical treatment.

The status quo is not good enough.

It is not fair.

People should not have to choose between accessing the treatment they need and being treated fairly at work, in employment, or in their everyday lives.

If we believe Victorians should have the choice to work from home, then surely we should also give them the right to take a prescribed medication to manage their health.

Equal opportunity means giving people the opportunity to participate based on their ability, while making reasonable adjustments where necessary, not excluding people because of stigma or assumptions about their medical treatment.

A prescription should not become a reason for discrimination.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

Labor knows that working from home works, and that’s why we’re enshrining a legal right for Victorian workers to work from home two days a week in the Equal Opportunity Act.

Legislating a right to work from home gives Victorian workers a choice on how they want to work so they can spend more time with the people who matter most to them.

In preparing this bill we consulted with more than 37,000 Victorians, and 75% valued the right to work from home as ‘extremely important’.

In that same survey, 3,200 Victorians said they didn’t feel as though they could ask their current employer to work from home – that is why Victorians need us to pass this legislation today.

Operation of the Bill

Today, the government also brings forward several house amendments to this bill.

These amendments reflect feedback that the government has listened to from a range of stakeholders, making clarifications where required and strengthening areas of the bill.

This Bill will protect employees from unreasonable refusals of work from home request by granting Victorian workers who are able to perform their duties from home the right to do so two days per week.

A right that can be knocked back for any reason isn’t much of a right. That’s why this Bill sets out what is reasonable.

These amendments before us today strengthen that test by requiring genuine, specific consideration of operational need, rather than vague or reasons being used to knock back a worker’s request.

In determining whether it is reasonable for an employee to work from home, consideration will be given to a range of factors, including:

- Whether the requirements of the role can be performed remotely;

- Whether the role requires use of workplace-based equipment;

- Whether the role requires in-person interaction with clients, customers, or members of the public;

- Whether working from home would have a material impact on the operational needs of the employer – including in health and safety, productivity, training, confidentiality, or data protection; and

- Whether it would impose an excessive financial cost on the employer.

The bill establishes a clear pathway for dispute resolution; the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission will have the power to offer conciliation services between an employer and employee to reach a mutually-agreeable solution – or the employee will be able to make an application to VCAT to have the matter determined.

Workers will have the right to work from home no matter how or where they are currently employed.

No matter if you work full-time, part-time, or as a regular casual – if you are reasonably able to, you will have a right to work from home.

Benefits

Those who oppose this bill say the economy will suffer if we pass this legislation.

But the truth is working from home works for everyone – for employees, for families, for businesses, and for the economy.

It works for workers, who save three hours a week on average that would otherwise be spent commuting – and this includes saving time for workers who aren’t working from home by reducing congestion.

It works for families, who get to spend more time to together.

It means a parent who works can drop off and pick up their kids from school, and it saves them an average of $110 per week – that’s $5,300 per year.

It works for businesses, many of which already allow their employees to work from home and reap the benefits from an increase in productivity.

28,000 workers surveyed said they got more done at home – almost 20% more than someone working full-time in an office.

And it works for the economy.

Working from home allows people who may not be able to work from an office full-time to re-enter the workforce.

We saw this through the Covid-19 pandemic, when working from home became a necessity, participation in the workforce increased by 4.4%.

The reality is that we now live and work in a world where the internet means we can connect with each other, work together, and achieve more no matter where anyone is.

In such a world, working from home makes sense, and is fast becoming a normal and valued part of contemporary working life, resulting in better outcomes for employees and employers alike.

One in three Australians already work from home from a regular basis. In fact many of them already work at least two days from home – the only difference is we are making sure that everyone who can reasonably work from home can do so, by legislating this right in law.

On the night of the 2021 census, over 40% of workers in my electorate said they worked from home, a figure significantly higher than the statewide figure of 25.74%.

Constituents in the Southern Metropolitan Region frequently tell me how they are benefitting from working at home.

From being able to take the family dog for a walk in their lunchbreak, to being able to buy their morning coffee from their favourite local coffee shop, or saving petrol by not having to drive into the office every day.

Being able to work from home has changed so many lives for the better.

It allows thousands of Victorians to balance their work life and their family life.

Summing Up

But without a legal right to work from home, workers are vulnerable to having the opportunity denied to them or taken away from them even where they reasonably can work from home.

That’s just not fair.

This legislation strikes a balance that allows businesses to continue to operate in a productive manner, while ensuring that workers can work from home where it is reasonable to do so.

We’re seeing more and more companies making the decision to stop giving employees the opportunity to work from home, even where it is in their best interests to continue doing so.

That is why we are enshrining the right to work from home in law, because only this Labor Government is on the side of workers.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (15:31): I have a few words on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026. The bill effectively exists because of Victorian workers: the parent juggling school pick-ups, the person managing a chronic health condition, the worker who loses hours of their life to traffic every single day. I think Ms Purcell touched on it a bit too as someone who lives regionally: the regional job opportunities are a massive benefit. From a local member perspective, on the day that we announced this, on my way to the state conference I stopped at the cafe in Kilmore and gave the owner the news of what was about to be announced. It was a scoop. The owner of the cafe was just thrilled in terms of the ability to ensure that more locals who travel from Kilmore every day would be able to work from home and be patrons at his cafe. He saw it as good for the local community of Kilmore. There are lots of stories like this all around the state, not only of people that will be able to access a job that they otherwise may have faced barriers to get. The consequential benefits are many, including for the cafe owner that I referenced.

For years a lot of the people that have been wanting to work from home only could if it came down to their luck: the goodwill of a manager, the culture of a workplace and whether they felt confident enough to ask. This bill proposes putting a genuine enforceable right in the hands of Victorian workers: a right to request to work from home and a right to have that request properly and reasonably considered. As I have touched on, we know that working from home offers significant benefits for employees, families and the broader economy. It reflects the community’s expectations about flexible work and helps create more inclusive 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. We know what working from home means for Victorian families, because there is data that actually supports this. More than a third of Victorian workers now work from home regularly. For professionals the figure is three in five. On average working from home returns $110 a week to Victorian households; that is more than $5300 a year. It removes more than 3 hours a week that Victorians would otherwise spend commuting, and workforce participation in this state is now 4.4 per cent higher than it was before the pandemic.

We know working from home has changed so many lives for the better, and while of course not everyone can work from home and not everyone wants to work from home, everyone can still benefit. But without legislation, working from home is only ever a favour granted by an employer. An employer can offer it today and pull it back tomorrow, and workers have no say in that. We know it is happening. We are constantly hearing unions report to government cases of workers who have been denied reasonable requests to work from home. We can see in other jurisdictions where this trend leads: a push to end work-from-home arrangements altogether and force workers back into the office full time, regardless of their circumstances.

Since we introduced this bill we have listened carefully to feedback from a range of people and as a consequence have made some changes. There have been many conversations with business leaders, and I thank them for their engagement. It was a responsibility that was about to be mine in terms of consultation with the business community, and I had initial conversations with a number of them. I think there have been representations in the chamber today – Australian Industry Group, for example. Tim Piper said to me, ‘We don’t oppose the bill. We just have some significant concerns and would like to see some reasonable amendments.’ That is an indication that I know Tim and many others have been engaged on with government, particularly the Premier’s office, which has resulted in a number of amendments that I seek to table now.

The bill and the proposed amendments, as I have indicated, are about one thing: they are about giving Victorian workers real, reliable control over how and where to do their work best. It has been shaped by the people who will use it, it closes the gaps that would otherwise be used against them and it will make a genuine difference to the daily lives of working Victorians and their families. I acknowledge there are a lot of amendments to work through. The committee stage will be an opportunity to do that. I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on amendment: