Victoria’s Working from Home Legislation Requires a Proper Examination

Exploring the impacts of WFH and what it really means 

Victoria’s Premier has made her support for Labor’s proposed working-from-home (WFH) legislation unequivocally clear. She presents it as a necessary and progressive right—one that should be formally protected to help families reduce living costs, minimise commuting and increase overall workforce participation. “Good for families, good for productivity, and good for the economy,” she asserts.

While these arguments are compelling on the surface, the broader consequences of such far-reaching legislation have weighed on my mind since it was first proposed. My contemplations lean to my children, their generation and those to follow. The central question I find myself returning to: if enacted and entrenched, what unintended consequences might this policy create for the State of Victoria?

“if enacted and entrenched, what unintended consequences might this policy create for the State of Victoria?”

The benefits promoted by the Premier are clearly articulated. Working from home is said to save families money, “giving Australians back on average $110 a week, or $5,308 annually.” Jacinta says it reduces traffic congestion; Victorians will reclaim more than three hours each week, time previously spent tracking to and from an office. It is also credited with lifting workforce participation, now reportedly 4.4 per cent higher than pre-pandemic levels—an increase attributed, at least in part, to the flexibility of remote work. Yet, in reviewing the available material, I have found little evidence of serious consideration being given to the long-term social implications of these changes, or to the likelihood of unintended consequences emerging over time.

In many respects, writing this editorial for the Bowens Builders Bulletin provides an opportunity to reflect more deliberately. How will our society adapt? Which behaviours we now regard as reasonable might, in a decade or two, appear misguided or unsustainable? While I would like to believe my starting position is neutral, I must acknowledge my perspective is shaped—consciously or otherwise—by my role as a company owner and manager. Even so, the questions remain legitimate and deserve examination.

In the near term, many businesses will find they are not ready for the adjustments, and some will underestimate the degree to which employees embrace their newly enshrined rights. A friend of mine, for example, remains confident his team of fifty will continue to work on-site five days a week, simply because this has always been the expectation. I suspect he is in for a rude awakening. Where roles can reasonably be performed remotely, employees will have a legal entitlement to do so. Many employers will need to rapidly recalibrate their understanding of what they can and cannot mandate.

“In the near term, many businesses will find they are not ready for the adjustments, and some will underestimate the degree to which employees embrace their newly enshrined rights.”

Looking further ahead, let’s imagine a world well beyond the implementation of September’s legislation. Parents are established in well-equipped home offices, closely monitoring their children as they leave for school in the morning and always available when they return in the afternoon. This becomes not only common but expected—replicated across entire neighbourhoods. My concern:  when it is time for the kids to finish school and contemplate a career of their own, how do they reasonably explore the option of working in a profession requiring a five day a week physical presence? Already in 2026, industries such as policing, nursing, teaching and the building trades face recruitment challenges. What happens after a decade or more of entrenched remote work expectations? Will young people disregard these professions because they cannot offer the flexibility their parents enjoy?

In simple terms, will the passing of the new laws create an inequitable or tiered environment for Victoria’s workers? The WFH people versus those required at a workplace for all of their 38 hours?

Another consideration is the potential acceleration of offshore employment. If a role can be performed remotely within Australia, what prevents it from being performed overseas? Cities such as Mumbai, Ho Chi Minh City and Manila already provide access to large, capable workforces at a significantly lower cost. While some roles will always require a local presence, many will not. When the possibility of transferring work offshore is realised, it is not difficult to envisage an increased migration of jobs beyond our state’s border. I have no doubt a new industry focussed on linking Victorian businesses with overseas offices will emerge – quickly.

“Another consideration is the potential acceleration of offshore employment. If a role can be performed remotely within Australia, what prevents it from being performed overseas?”

Is an unintended consequence going to be a need for more part-timers? The reduction of full-time employment has been a concern of employee advocacy groups for several years already. Could legislated flexibility intensify this trend? Employers may increasingly rely on part-time arrangements to maintain coverage across the working week, particularly if full-time employees exercise their right to work remotely for a significant portion of it.

What about losing Victorian jobs interstate? Will employers with a national footprint, who wish for their staff to work five days a week at their corporate office, preference non-Victorian locations? 

Are we inviting unnecessary arguments over the appropriate definition of WFH jobs, or whether the required volume or quality of work will be done? Have all scenarios been properly tested? Are our Members of Parliament examining the obvious disputes now, prior to passing any new laws? It feels like this legislation is already creating fertile ground for disagreements between employers and employees over what individuals can and cannot achieve across the working day. Why wait for disputes likely to upset all parties, deal with them now.

Not all implications are structural; some are more personal and behavioural. Eating, exercising, socialising, isolation, engaging in situations we like to avoid but make us better? If working from home becomes the dominant model, are we fully considering all of the subtle, cumulative effects on personal habits, health and wellbeing?

“If working from home becomes the dominant model, are we fully considering all of the subtle, cumulative effects on personal habits, health and wellbeing?”

Finally, there is the question of political resolve. Are concerns such as these being under-explored because they are politically inconvenient? It is difficult to ignore the likelihood some opposition remains muted; not for lack of concern, but for fear of electoral consequences. Working-from-home legislation is, after all, popular with voters. In a closely contested political environment, it represents a highly attractive inducement for those heading to the ballot box.

None of this is to dismiss the tangible and immediate benefits of working from home. Rather, it is to suggest reform of this magnitude warrants a more comprehensive and balanced debate. In this, our post Covid world, WFH has become a mutually aligned, discretionary relationship between employers and their staff – supporting flexibility, while assuring the required business outcomes of productivity and economic growth.  If we are to reshape the way we work, we must do so with a clear understanding of not only the short-term gains, but also the long-term consequences likely to shape our society for generations.