Victoria’s New Work From Home Laws

Bad Policy, Real Consequences, and What Smart Businesses Are Doing Now

The Victorian Government introduced the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 into Parliament on 16 June 2026. Thanks Jacinta. If it passes, Victorian workers whose roles can reasonably be done remotely will have a legal right to work from home two days a week. We just got more details around what this is going to look like in real terms. Today’s update is hot off the press.

As expected, it reinforces that the intent of this is that this is not a right to ask. It’s framed as a right to do it.

Let’s call it what it is

This is an election-year play. Labor is trailing in the polls, the November 2026 state election is looming, and a headline about protecting workers’ right to work from home plays well with everyday workers and the suburban vote.

The problem is that good politics often makes bad law. And this one has the hallmarks of policy written for a press release, not an actual workplace.

The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council of Australia, the Property Council, and the Australian Industry Group have all come out swinging against it. The Victorian Congress of Employer Associations is calling for the bill to be withdrawn entirely. These are not fringe voices. These are the groups that understand what it actually costs to run a business in this state.

Victoria already has the lowest business conditions on the mainland. Adding a new legally enforceable workplace obligation, with a dispute pathway that sits outside the Fair Work system, is not the right move at the wrong time. It is just the wrong move. Period.

But unfortunately, even though the Bill sucks, it may well pass anyway. And if it does, the businesses that have done nothing will be the ones scrambling in September.

What this law actually does

In plain English…

Who is covered: All employees whose roles can reasonably be performed from home. That includes full-time, part-time, and regular casual workers. Probationary employees, apprentices, trainees, and interns are excluded.

How many days: Two days per week for full-time employees. Part-time and casual workers will get a pro-rata entitlement. The method for calculating pro-rata entitlements has not been released yet.

Who it applies to: Every Victorian business, regardless of size. There is no small business exemption. The government estimates the laws will affect up to 1.3 million Victorians employed by small businesses.

When it kicks in: 1 September 2026 for businesses with 15 or more employees. 1 July 2027 for businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

What employees have to do: Submit a written request specifying which days they intend to work from home. Employers must respond within 21 days.

What employers have to cover: Reasonable costs associated with working from home, including essential equipment such as hardware and software, and secure access to the employer’s systems.

How disputes are handled: This is where it gets interesting. Because the Victorian Government cannot amend the Fair Work Act (a federal law), it has tucked this right into the Equal Opportunity Act instead. That means disputes go to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission for conciliation, and then to VCAT if unresolved. Not the Fair Work Commission. VCAT. Yikes.

Why this matters more than people realise

We have spoken about this before but we need to say it again. The dispute pathway is the part of this law that deserves the most attention.

Under the current federal framework, employees with certain personal circumstances can request flexible working arrangements, and employers can decline on reasonable business grounds. There is a process, it is reasonably familiar, and it sits inside the Fair Work system.

This new law is framed as an equal opportunity issue. That means refusing a work-from-home request without solid documented reasoning could start to look like discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act. That is a materially higher bar than what employers are used to.

It also means a completely different dispute forum, with different procedural rules and different remedies. VCAT has the power to order an employer to allow working from home arrangements. If you have not documented why a role requires on-site attendance, it will be very difficult to defend.

There is also a live constitutional question hanging over this. Legal commentators and employer groups expect a challenge on the basis that the law may conflict with federal industrial relations law. That challenge may or may not succeed. In the meantime, the law is on track to commence in September. You buckle up.

What smart businesses are doing right now

You do not have to wait for Royal Assent to start preparing. In fact, the businesses that wait are the ones that end up reactive.

Here is what we recommend.

1. Audit your roles. Go through your workforce and identify which roles can genuinely not be performed from home, and why. Think about inherent requirements: on-site equipment, customer-facing obligations, supervision needs, safety requirements. Write it down, and date it.
2. Update your position descriptions. If a role requires regular on-site attendance, that should be stated clearly in the position description and in your job advertisements. This creates a documented record before any request is ever made.
3. Check your employment contracts. Contracts should specify the place of work clearly. If your contracts refer to hybrid or flexible arrangements, you may have already locked in more than you intended.
4. Build a WFH policy. You are going to need one. It should set out how requests are submitted, how they are assessed, the criteria used to determine reasonableness, and the process if a request is declined. It needs to be defensible, not just a document that lives in a drawer.
5. Train your managers. The biggest exposure in these situations is managers who handle requests inconsistently or without documentation. One manager approving what another declines, without a clear rationale, is a VCAT case waiting to happen.
6. Document everything. Under a discrimination-framework dispute, the burden shifts to you to justify a refusal. That means your records need to exist before a dispute, not be constructed after one.

But what about my barista? My retail assistant? My customer service rep?

This is the question every small business owner is going to ask. And it is a fair one.

The law only applies to roles that can reasonably be performed from home. That is the key phrase, and it is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this legislation. Roles that require physical presence, on-site equipment, or direct customer interaction are not covered. But that does not mean employees will not ask. They will.

Here are a number of scenarios you are likely to face, and how to handle them.

Scenario 1: The café or restaurant worker

Sarah works four days a week as a floor supervisor at your café. She submits a written request to work from home two days a week.

Why it does not apply: Hospitality roles are inherently on-site. Supervising staff, operating equipment, serving customers, and managing food safety cannot be done remotely. The inherent requirements of the role require physical attendance every shift.

How to decline: Respond in writing within 21 days. State clearly that the role cannot reasonably be performed from home because it requires direct customer service, use of on-site equipment, and on-floor supervision. Reference the position description if it already captures this. Keep a copy on file.

The risk if you do nothing: No documented role assessment, no written response, and a manager who verbally brushes it off is a VCAT claim waiting to happen, even for a role that clearly cannot be done from home.

Scenario 2: The retail assistant

Tom works full-time on the shop floor at your homewares store. He asks to work from home on Mondays and Thursdays to handle admin tasks he says he could do remotely.

Why it is more complicated: Tom is partially right. Some tasks, like responding to emails or processing online orders, could technically be done off-site. But if his substantive role is customer-facing retail, the inherent requirements of the position still require attendance. You are not obliged to redesign his role to accommodate a WFH arrangement.

How to decline: Document that the primary purpose of Tom’s role is on-floor retail, that customer interaction is an inherent requirement, and that restructuring his duties to create remote-compatible days would require changes that are not practical. Be specific. Vague refusals are harder to defend than documented operational reasoning.

Scenario 3: The customer service officer

Priya works in your in-house customer service team handling phone and email enquiries. She requests two days working from home.

Why this one is harder to refuse: Unlike hospitality or retail, parts of Priya’s role genuinely can be performed remotely. If your team already uses cloud-based systems and she can access everything she needs from home, a blanket refusal will be difficult to justify.

What you can do: If there are genuine operational reasons, document them. Does the team need to collaborate in person? Are there supervision requirements? Security concerns with remote system access? Is there a measurable productivity impact? If the answer to all of those is no, you may need to allow it and manage the arrangement carefully rather than refuse it outright.

This is exactly why having a proper WFH policy matters. It gives you a consistent framework for assessing requests, rather than making it up on the fly for each individual.

Scenario 4: The hire controller at a plant and equipment business

Jason is a hire controller at your equipment hire business. He manages bookings, coordinates deliveries, and liaises with operators and customers by phone. He requests two days working from home.

Why this one is genuinely grey: Jason does not operate machinery. His work is largely phone and computer-based, which means a straight refusal based on “it’s a hands-on role” will not hold up. The question is whether the operational requirements of the business make remote work genuinely unworkable.

How to build your case: Think about what actually happens on a busy day. Does Jason need to walk the yard to check equipment availability? Does he coordinate directly with drivers and operators who need a physical point of contact? Does he handle last-minute breakdowns or emergency redeployments that require him to be on-site and across what is physically there? If yes, document all of it. The argument is not that he uses a computer, it is that the role requires real-time, on-site situational awareness that cannot be replicated from a home office.

The risk: If Jason mostly works the phones and his systems are cloud-based, and you cannot point to specific operational reasons for on-site attendance, you will struggle to refuse. Get ahead of it now by reviewing what the role actually requires day to day, and reflect that clearly in the position description.

Scenario 5: The admin assistant

Mel works three days a week as an admin assistant for your business. She handles invoicing, scheduling, email, and filing. She requests to work from home on two of her three days.

Why this is one of the hardest to refuse: Almost everything Mel does can be done with a laptop and an internet connection. If your systems are cloud-based, there is no technical barrier. A refusal here needs to be grounded in something more than preference or habit.

Where you might have a legitimate case: Is there a genuine need for Mel to receive and process physical mail or documents? Does she handle cash or banking? Is she the first point of contact for clients or visitors walking in? Does she support other staff who need her physically present to function? If any of those are true, document them specifically.

The harder truth: For a lot of small businesses, the honest answer is that Mel’s role can be done from home, at least partially. If that is the case, the smarter move is to get a solid WFH policy in place that sets clear expectations around availability, response times, and how the arrangement will be reviewed, rather than refusing and finding yourself at VCAT defending a position you cannot back up.

Scenario 6: The childcare educator

Bec works full-time at your early childhood centre. She requests two days working from home, suggesting she could do planning, documentation, and parent communication remotely.

Why the refusal is straightforward but still needs to be documented: Childcare is a licensed, regulated environment. Educator-to-child ratios are a legal requirement. Bec cannot fulfil her role, or contribute to her ratio, from home. Her physical presence is not just operationally necessary, it is a regulatory obligation.

How to decline: Reference the regulatory framework directly. The National Quality Standard and ratio requirements under the Education and Care Services National Law mean the inherent requirements of the role cannot be met remotely. Put it in writing, keep it on file, and make sure your position descriptions already reflect this.

Worth noting: Bec may be entitled to request flexible working arrangements under the Fair Work Act if she has caring responsibilities. That is a separate process with different rules. Do not conflate the two.

Scenario 7: The sales rep who works in the field

Dan is a field sales rep who visits clients, attends trade shows, and meets prospects across Melbourne. He requests two WFH days a week to do quotes, follow-ups, and CRM work from home.

Why this one can go either way: Dan’s client-facing days are clearly on-site. But his admin work genuinely can be done remotely, and if he is already working independently in the field, the argument that he needs to be in the office for those tasks is thin.

The smarter approach: Rather than refusing outright, think about what you actually need from Dan on those days. If the business needs him available for inbound leads, attending internal meetings, or collaborating with the team, document those requirements and build them into the policy. A blanket refusal for a field-based role where the admin is already done on a laptop in a car park is not going to be easy to defend.

The pattern across all of these is the same: the question is never just “can this technically be done from home.” It is “what does the role actually require, have we documented it, and can we defend that in writing.” That is the work that needs to happen now.

The bottom line for HR consultants

If you have Victorian clients, this is a conversation you need to be having now. Most of them will not have read the bill. Many will assume it does not apply to them, or will not pass, or will get sorted out in the courts.

All of those are reasonable hopes. None of them is a strategy.

The businesses that come out of this in the best shape will be the ones that have their roles audited, their policies in place, and their managers briefed well before September. That work needs to start now, and it is exactly the kind of work your clients need support with.

We can help

If you are a Victorian business owner trying to work out what this actually means for your operation, or an HR consultant advising clients through it, we are here.

Our membership and retainer options give you direct access to our HR Gurus team for exactly this kind of rapid-response compliance support. We will help you audit your roles, review your contracts, build a policy that holds up, and brief your managers.

The law may be bad policy. Your response to it does not have to be.

Explore our membership options or speak to a Guru today.

This blog is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 was introduced to the Victorian Parliament on 16 June 2026 and is subject to parliamentary process. Employers should seek specific advice about their individual circumstances.