Victorian workers expecting a new legal right to work from home two days a week from September will have to wait longer after Premier Ben Carroll delayed the proposed reforms until July 1, 2027.
The legislation had been heading towards a September 1, 2026 start for most workplaces. Small businesses with fewer than 15 employees were already due to receive until July 2027 to implement the proposed changes.
Carroll has not scrapped the policy. He says he continues to support working from home but wants more time to consult businesses and consider changes following strong opposition from employer groups.
For workers, the immediate point is clear: the proposed two-day statutory WFH right will not start on September 1. Existing hybrid arrangements negotiated with employers are separate and are not automatically cancelled by the delay.
Who could get two work-from-home days?
The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026, introduced under former premier Jacinta Allan, was designed to give eligible employees a right to work remotely for two days each week where it is reasonable for their job to be performed from home.
It would not give every Victorian worker an automatic two days at home. Full-time employees working at least 38 hours a week could qualify for two days, while eligible part-time and regular casual workers could receive a pro-rata entitlement.
Some workers, including those in certain probation, apprenticeship, traineeship, internship, graduate and work-experience arrangements, may not qualify under the proposed framework.
Our earlier guide explains how Victoria’s proposed WFH rights could apply to casual and part-time workers and why eligibility matters before assuming the two-day rule applies.
Can an employer refuse a WFH request?
Yes. The proposal does not simply allow an employee to decide to stay home. Working remotely must be reasonable for the particular job and workplace.
Under the proposed process, an eligible worker would give their employer written notice identifying the days and times they want to work remotely. The employer would have 21 days to respond.
Physical attendance, customer service, specialised equipment, productivity, supervision, safety and operational requirements could affect whether a WFH arrangement is reasonable.
The proposal could also allow another location besides the employee’s main home to be nominated, subject to applicable requirements and agreement. That raises additional considerations around privacy, confidential information, secure systems and workplace safety.
What happens if an employer says no?
The proposed legislation includes a formal dispute pathway, making it different from an ordinary company hybrid-work policy.
A disputed decision could go to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission for conciliation and potentially to VCAT if it remained unresolved. The proposed right would sit within Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act.
The Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office explanation of the proposed WFH laws provides official information on eligibility, employee notices and employer obligations.
These remain proposed provisions, however. Carroll’s additional consultation means parts of the legislation could change before July 2027.
Why WFH costs and fairness matter
The former government promoted WFH partly as a cost-of-living measure, estimating workers could save about $110 a week, or $5,308 a year through reduced commuting and related costs.
Those savings also highlight a difficult question: what about Victorians whose jobs cannot be performed remotely?
Retail, hospitality, construction, manufacturing, healthcare, warehouse and other frontline employees generally need to be physically present. Our analysis of Victoria’s $5,308 WFH savings estimate and concerns over a “two-class” workforce looks at why that divide has become part of the debate.
Read More
Why businesses oppose the legislation
Major employer organisations have welcomed Carroll’s delay but some want the bill scrapped altogether.
Their concerns include compliance costs, productivity, occupational health and safety, liability for injuries at home, equipment expenses and the administrative burden of assessing employee notices. Business groups also argue flexible working arrangements are already widely negotiated between employers and employees.
Proposed amendments have also raised questions about employer liability when someone is injured while working remotely and whether unions should be restricted from entering private homes in circumstances similar to existing workplace-entry rules.
Is Victoria’s WFH law cancelled?
No. The government has announced a delay, not the cancellation of the proposal. Carroll has maintained support for flexible work while leaving the door open to amendments following further consultation with businesses.
Workers who already have remote or hybrid arrangements should not assume the delay removes them. Existing employment contracts, enterprise agreements, company policies and individually negotiated arrangements remain separate from the proposed Victorian entitlement.
Between now and July 1, 2027, workers should watch for changes to eligibility, employer refusal grounds, the 21-day response process, casual and part-time entitlements, WFH costs, safety obligations and dispute procedures.
The key uncertainty is no longer simply when the reform will start. It is what the final version will look like after almost another year of consultation and political debate.
Make Swikblog your go-to source on Google for reliable updates, smart insights, and daily trends.
