Victoriaâs proposed work-from-home law is quickly becoming one of Australiaâs most closely watched workplace reforms, not only because of the money workers could save but also because of the wider debate it has triggered about fairness in modern workplaces.
The state government has introduced legislation that would give eligible employees the right to work from home two days a week. Supporters argue the policy could save workers thousands of dollars annually while improving work-life balance. Critics, including Bunnings managing director Mike Schneider, warn it could create a divide between office employees and frontline workers who have no option but to be physically present.
If approved, the proposal would make Victoria the first state in Australia to legislate a work-from-home right, potentially influencing workplace policies across the country.
How Much Could Workers Save?
The Victorian government estimates employees working remotely two days each week could save around $110 weekly through reduced commuting, parking, fuel, public transport and other work-related expenses.
Over a year, those savings could reach approximately $5,308. The government also says workers may gain back more than three hours every week that would otherwise be spent travelling to and from work.
Premier Jacinta Allan has positioned the proposal as a way to help parents, carers and workers balance professional responsibilities with family life while supporting broader workforce participation.
What The Proposed Law Would Change
Unlike many current hybrid work arrangements that rely on agreements between employers and staff, the Victorian proposal would establish a formal legal right for eligible employees to work remotely for up to two days a week.
The legislation would apply to businesses of all sizes and cover many part-time and regular casual workers in addition to full-time employees.
If passed, employers would need legitimate reasons to refuse or limit a work-from-home request. Factors such as productivity, supervision requirements, customer service obligations, workplace safety and professional development would be considered when assessing requests.
The reform would be incorporated into Victoriaâs Equal Opportunity Act, creating a legal framework for resolving disputes.
Why Bunnings Is Concerned
While remote work has become common in corporate environments since the pandemic, Schneider argues the proposed law overlooks a major reality of the labour market: many jobs simply cannot be performed from home.
Bunnings employs about 14,000 workers across Victoria, with the majority working in stores, warehouses, distribution centres and manufacturing facilities.
According to Schneider, granting a protected workplace benefit to office-based employees while frontline workers remain tied to physical workplaces risks creating what he described as a “two-class workforce.”
The concern extends beyond Bunnings. Retailers, logistics operators, manufacturers and service providers all face similar challenges where a significant portion of their workforce must remain on-site.
Employers fear this could eventually affect morale, retention and recruitment, particularly if workers compare conditions across different roles within the same organisation.
The Cost Question Facing Employers
One of the most significant aspects of the proposal involves employer responsibilities.
Businesses may be required to pay reasonable costs associated with remote work, including computer equipment, software, secure network access and other tools needed for employees to perform their duties from home.
While many large employers already provide such resources, legal experts have noted that disagreements could arise over what expenses are considered necessary and reasonable.
Businesses also face the possibility of compensation claims if workers believe their work-from-home requests have been unfairly rejected.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has criticised the proposal, arguing that many employers already manage flexible work arrangements effectively without additional regulation.
Could Frontline Workers Seek Additional Benefits?
The debate has also highlighted a potential consequence that extends beyond office workers.
Police and ambulance unions have reportedly raised concerns that employees who cannot work remotely may seek alternative benefits if work-from-home rights become legally protected for other workers.
That could include demands for greater scheduling flexibility, additional leave arrangements or higher compensation to offset workplace benefits unavailable to frontline staff.
The issue reflects a broader challenge facing governments and employers as flexible work becomes increasingly valued alongside salary and career opportunities.
The importance of workplace benefits has grown in recent years, particularly as rising living costs and changing employee expectations reshape the labour market. Discussions around flexibility are occurring alongside debates over pay, including Australiaâs latest minimum wage increase, which has put earnings and working conditions under greater scrutiny.
Read More
What Happens Next?
If the legislation passes parliament, the new work-from-home right would take effect from September 1.
Small businesses with fewer than 15 employees would receive additional time to comply, with requirements delayed until July 1, 2027.
Disputes would first be handled through the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission before potentially progressing to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The outcome will be closely watched by employers, unions and policymakers across Australia. Whether the proposal becomes a model for future workplace reforms or a cautionary example may depend on how successfully Victoria balances flexibility for some workers with fairness for those whose jobs cannot leave the workplace.
For official guidance on workplace rights and employer obligations, visit the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Make Swikblog your go-to source on Google for reliable updates, smart insights, and daily trends.
