August 4, 2025 • 19 mins
We want to make sure TDA's content remains relevant and useful. Fill out this 3 minute survey to tell us more about you!
Working from home at least two days a week could become a legal right in Victoria.
The state government has laid out plans to make it an entitlement to public and private sector workers.
Premier Jacinta Allan said it could boost business productivity and help workers with caring responsibilities, but some critics have questioned how it would work, including whether it would even be lawful in Australia.
In today’s deep dive, we’ll take you through Victoria’s working from home push, the reasons behind it, and why the debate is here to stay.
Hosts: Harry Sekulich and Emma Gillespie
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Before we jump into today's deep dive, we have a
really quick ask of you, and it's about ensuring this
podcast can remain as relevant and useful to you as possible.
So to do that, we want to know a little
bit more about who listens to it. We've put a
very short survey in today's show notes and we'd be
so so grateful if you could fill it out. Won't
take more than a minute. And thank you so much
(00:21):
in advance for helping TDA. Now on to today's deep
dive already, and this.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Is the Daily This is the Daily OS.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily ODS. It's Tuesday,
the fifth of August. I'm Harry Sekulch.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Working from home at least two days a week could
become a legal right in Victoria. The state government has
laid out plans to make it an entitlement to public
and private sector workers. Premier de Sina Allen said it
could boost business productivity and help workers with caring responsibilities
that some critics have questioned how it would work, including
(01:07):
whether it would even be lawful in Australia.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
In today's Deep Dive, We are going to take you
through Victoria's push to legislate the right to work from home,
the reasons behind this movement, and why the debate doesn't
seem to be going away.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Harry, We're talking.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
About some legislation that is being tabled in Victoria to
make it a protected law for workers to have two
days a week where they.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Can work from home.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Work from home has been a debate in workplaces around
the country and the world really ever since kind of
COVID erupted and changed the way we think about work
and remote work. It's definitely a debate that we have
seen a lot of scrutiny, a lot of for and against,
but it's the first time this week that we're seeing
it really potentially being discussed as a legal right. What
(01:59):
can you tell us about how this would all work?
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, you're so right. There's always this ebb and flow
from the periphery to the center when it comes to
working from home and how workplaces are kind of dealing
with it. So over the weekend, the Victorian government brought
it right back into the center again and they announced
that it was going to legislate a right to work
from home at least two days a week. Now, to
(02:22):
give it a bit of context, the right would apply
in circumstances where it's considered reasonable, So it wouldn't have
universal coverage. If you think about some workplaces, like nurses
need to be in a hospital, teachers need to be
in a classroom. If there's a fire, fire fighters have
to go and put out the flames. Right, Yeah, So
it wouldn't necessarily have coverage right across the board.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Okay, So reasonable can basically be interpreted in terms of
is your job a job that can be done from home?
Speaker 2 (02:52):
That's right? And I think that's where it's helpful to
think of office work. This is essentially where it's likely
to apply most because the proposal focuses on workers who,
in circumstances where it would be considered reasonable, they wouldn't
have to negotiate working from home two days a week. Basically,
their boss wouldn't be able to deny them this option
(03:14):
under the legislation.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
I think it's important to add as well that this
is a government announcement, but it would apply to both
the public and private sector. So if you worked for
an insurance firm, if you worked for a public agency,
it wouldn't really matter if you do work in an office.
If the circumstances allow for it, you would be covered
by this right. And we're at a very early stage
(03:38):
of this legislation as well. It actually hasn't been drafted yet.
What the government's doing now is it's announced that it
plans to do this, It'll go through a consultation process,
it'll define things like what actually counts as remote work,
and then it plans to legislate this right in twenty
twenty six.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Okay, got it.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
I find it really interesting that we're talking about legislating
this working from home arrangement for Victorians because by now,
you know, we're all well and truly versed in the
post COVID remote work landscape, I suppose, And that means
that a lot of workplaces, a lot of private sector
companies as well, have already kind of rolled out their
own strategies, their own plans. A lot of businesses have
(04:22):
clear cut rules about Okay, yep, you can work x
amount of days or hours from home, but you have
to be in the office for this many face to
face days or they've completely kind of ruled out working
from home. So why is there a need to bring
it into law.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Why now, Yeah, it's definitely not a niche thing to
work from home. The Australian Bureau Statistics data actually shows
it's about thirty six percent of people in Australia work
from home at least once a week.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
So if it is kind of common, why would you
need legislation? Well, basically, it would give workers quite a
powerful tool to say, you can't deny me the option
to work from home. It's actually illegal to deny me
that right. It would also make working from home rules
a bit more consistent in Victoria. It wouldn't vary by
(05:10):
an award, it wouldn't vary by workplace. It would just
remove the need for there to be any sort of
dialogue between an employer and employee as currently exists in
the workplace laws. And if you think about some workplaces,
some big employers in Australia, the Big four banks, require
their workers to work in the office at least half
of a given month. They caature it by a month.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
That's interesting because I was thinking about, you know, if
you are a national company, if you're an Australia wide employer,
how this legislation would potentially work for you if you've
got some staff in Victoria on a different set of
rules than everywhere else in the country. But if it's
a fifty to fifty thing, then the two day a
week legislation wouldn't really impact that. But it is certainly interesting.
(05:52):
Kind of on the other side of I feel like
we've seen a bit of a I don't want to
say an overcorrection, but I think companies have anecdotally become
more conservative.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
About working from home in recent years.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
I definitely want to get into the reasons why some
businesses oppose this idea, but unions have been raising the
concerns about employers denying their staff the right to work
from home. In fact, the Australian Services Union which joined
the Victorian government in announcing this measure, they have a
(06:24):
dedicated campaign to helping workers understand flexible working rights. So
when the Victorian Premier, just Into Allen was asked about
why they needed to be a legally enshrined right, I
thought it was quite interesting that she mentioned people with
caring responsibilities and young families. Here's a little bit of
what she had to say.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
It works for families, particularly for women, for single months,
for people with caring responsibilities, and there's plenty of men
too who face those pressures and challenges of those caring
and family responsibilities.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Okay, so just to recap quickly, Harry Victoria's labor government,
led by premierers Into Allen, has announced a plan to
legislate the right to work from home two days a
week for reasonable workers or in circumstances where your job
permits that. What has the opposition had to say about this?
Have we heard from them?
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Yeah? So I also think it's significant that Victoria's going
to an election next year and the government plans to
legislate it next year as well. So it's reasonable to
ask if the opposition gets into power, will they just
scrap this right altogether? And so the Opposition leader Brad
Batton was asked about this over the weekend. He said,
there are still a few questions and a few loose
(07:35):
ends to tie up when it comes to legislating or
working from home right, but otherwise the state coalition generally
supports the measure. I think the opportunity to have that
discussion and there's negotiations between employers and employers is really
important and hybrid working is part of the future.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
That's really interesting because I think I'm sure we're going
to talk about this, but that is the Victorian Coalition's position,
which sounds a little bit different from the Federal coalitions
position just a few months ago.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Yeah. Remember in the federal election, we had this massive
debate about working from home because the then leader of
the Federal Coalition, Peter Dutton, had announced this policy to
require all Australian public sector workers to work in the
office five days a week. Now, he later scrapped those plans.
There was a lot of pushback to it. He apologized
(08:24):
and he actually admitted that the Coalition got it roll
on that one. So this is an issue that he's
looming large over the coalition and I think Brad Baton
definitely has that in mind when he's consulting on these
changes and looking at whether he would adopt that policy
as well. He doesn't seem to want to go there.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Okay, So it seems like the Victorian Coalition has learned
from the potential missteps of the Federal Coalition and aren't
looking to kind of repeat that debate that we had
at a federal level.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
I think that's fair to say he was pretty quick
to sort of water that down saying oh, look, we
just won't tinker with it if it comes into effects
lets okay, and generally supports the idea of a hybrid
work model.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
So, Harry, what is the argument against working from home?
Why have we seen a bit of a movement here
led by politicians and businesses in some sectors pushing back
against it, saying no, we don't want you working from home.
We want you in the office five days a week.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
I think you can categorize it into two main sets
of arguments. The first one comes to this idea of
a two tiered workforce, those who can work from home
and those who can't. So if you think about a hospital,
for instance, nurses can't work from home, they have to
directly help patients. But if you think about some of
the administrative staff at a hospital, they could work from home. Okay,
(09:43):
just on a logistical basis. How that would work case
by case? Obviously we won't get into that. But I
think some of the questions here are that's one entitlement
for one section of the workforce, but then that leaves
the others out.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
So it's a question of is it fair to split
those workforces maybe into a hierarchy of you can and
you can't.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
That's right. And just into Alan was asked about this
and she kind of brushed off this suggestion, saying that
this is already occurring in the workplace. I go back
to that figure from the ABS, thirty six percent of
people in Australia already working from.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
Home, more than one in three.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
That's right. And so some officers might require you to
come into the office more frequently, just based on the
nature of work. Think about us, Emma, we're here in
the studio today recording a podcast. It's harder to do
that from home. It just also wouldn't sound as good
or whatever the case may be. But that's just us
in that unique circumstance. Some other jobs require you to travel,
(10:39):
so you know, there's a whole host of different workplace arrangements.
So it wouldn't necessarily create a second tier when there's
already hybrid work across the board. Just into Alan's argument,
should hasten to add.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
And I think there are a lot of workers who can't,
for whatever reason, work from home, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that they don't want other people to have the
freedom or the flexibility. You know, us for example, we
love being here and being on the mic to do
the podcast.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
That doesn't mean that I don't want other people to
be able to work from home and enjoy the luxuries
that we can't.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Yeah, the envy of other people's riots.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
It also means though, like you know, I know that
we have a really great internet connection here to do
this stuff, and sometimes at home it's not always as.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Reliable or crash and burn.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Yeah, Alie barrass myself on a zoom call, I'll get
frozen in an awkward position.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
That's a stress of working from home exactly.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
So that's one area that's been argued. The second main
argument that's been put forward is the economic impact. So
if you think about the CBD in whatever state you
might be in in Australia, if you have office workers
going in less regularly, well that's less business for cafes,
(11:55):
for restaurants who would otherwise see these workers come in
more frequently, and so there's a bit less economic activity
if you like. That's the broader argument. Once again, just
Sinta Allen was asked about this. She said that financially,
for individual workers, they'll end up better off if they
(12:15):
have a right to work from home because they won't
have to spend on commuting so getting public transport or
parking in the CBD, which we know can be really expensive.
And also they won't have to fuel up as much
and their hip pocket will improve, so in turn they
might actually end up spending more money going out and
(12:36):
buying dinner or going out to launch or something.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
There's also I think an economic argument for the rural
urban spread that we've seen in the last few years.
Of course, there's more vacant spaces in office CBDs, but
more people are moving to the regions. There's been a
huge spike in the property economy in kind of regional
and rural communities that sit outside of those major CBDs,
(12:59):
where workers otherwise wouldn't have been able to imagine themselves
relocating to and keeping their job. But now they are
living in these kinds of areas where maybe it's a
one or a two hour drive from the office, but
they make that commitment to be there once or twice
a week.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
And the commuter belt for our main cities is just
getting wider and wider and wider and more and more expensive,
so people are actually opting to live a little bit
further out of the city, so they don't have to
commute into work five days a week necessarily, but might
only have to do it three or four days a week.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
And what about the productivity argument? Is their concern that
working from home is bad for productivity?
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Good for productivity? What's been said there?
Speaker 2 (13:39):
The government has said that productivity won't suffer as a result.
In fact, they've pointed to some studies that already show
that workers tend to be a little bit more productive,
get a bit more out of their day when they're
able to work from home and have those hybrid arrangements
in place. So livestin there's always going to be a
bit of back and forth. There will be some people
that disagree, some people that agree.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Yep, there's the whole social argument, face to face interactions
versus the isolation of working from home. So much that
has been discussed and will continue to be discussed, Harry.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
But have we heard.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
From businesses themselves. It obviously will be on them to
adjust to this change. If Victoria legislates the right to
work from home? What are business group saying?
Speaker 2 (14:21):
So they're pretty concerned about the legislation and how it
would work in effect, because as you said, they would
have to adjust to these changes. And we've heard from
the Victorian head of the Australian Industry Group, Tim Piper.
He released a statement over the weekend calling the measure
quote political theater. In other words, might seem popular but
doesn't achieve much in his view. He added what works
(14:44):
for one company may not suit another. Flexible work should
be driven by the needs of individual businesses. Piper also
raised what I think is a really important issue and
you touched on it briefly before, and I want to
come back to it because it does have broader national implication.
The way that work is governed in Australia is overseen
(15:05):
by what's known as a Fair Work Commission, which is
our workplace referee right across the country. Yep, there's no
right to work from home, as clear as that in
the national legislation. Okay, but if Victoria decides to bring
this in, it could create actually a bit of a
constitutional issue.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Right because you're saying that the Fair Work Commission is
the national regulator for workplace disputes or workers' rights, and
if we have a state saying this is a set
of rules that might contradict their set of rules that
could create problems.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Yeah, And the way that our constitution works as well
is that if there is a conflict directly between the
state and federal law, the federal law trumps the state law. Interesting,
so it might actually not end up having the legislative
effect that the government wants it too, which is that
you would get this legal right two days a week
(16:02):
if there's no federal legislation to back it in.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Has labor, either at the state or national level commented
on what that might mean if this is all kind
of going to be overridden by a lack of legislation federally,
Does that mean that the Albanesi government's going to look
at something like this.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
We don't know if the government at a federal level
is going to look into it. In fact, the Workplace
Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth has been asked and I've been
in touch with her team. There's no plans at this stage,
and they aren't exactly willing to comment on it either
because they just might not see it as appropriate given
that it is a Victorian issue. The state government said
(16:42):
that that's why it's going through consultation right now, because
it wants to look at these potential challenges that could
come out of their legislation, and so they want to
anticipate that there might be a high court challenge down
the track if say, there is a conflict at a
state and federal level. But I think I think you
actually touched on something that was even more basic. We
(17:04):
have national companies in Australia, yeah, that employ people in
every city in every state. If one state has rights
that other states don't get, you might actually see a
little bit of that grievance trickle through the workforce. And
so that causes a few issues when it comes to
these national companies trying to just you know, create a
(17:26):
good workplace for everyone. But then Victoria can anyone working
in Victoria can basically just say, look, I've got a right.
Don't really care about my state interstate colleagues, yeah, but
this is my legal right to have a two day
a week working from home.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Entitlement fascinating, And then of course it could go the
other way where national companies say, well, if Victorian employees
can have two days a week from home, all employees can.
And then if you've got all these big sectors and
big names and brands doing that, then maybe there will
be an imperative for the Fair Work Commission to undergo
a bit of an.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Overhaul, well exactly. And I think ultimately the fact that
we're ending on some of these thornia prickly issues with
this potential legislation just shows that this debate is so
far from over. We're going to be talking about it again.
We are going to keep it in the center, not
in approphery, and I think that it'll just be so
fascinating to see how this consultation plays out, what the
(18:23):
legislation actually looks like when it comes into being.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Yeah, very fascinating stuff.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
As you mentioned, Harry, we're expecting legislation to be tabled
next year, is that right?
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Yep? Twenty twenty six before the election in Victoria next year.
So we'll be keeping a close eye on it. I
will be asking Cintra Allen's team for more details as
they come to hand and bring them to our audience
here at the Daily Offs.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
So so interesting, Harry. Thank you as always for taking
us through a pretty complicated one in really simple terms.
Oh thanks Selah, and thank you for listening to today's
episode or if you're watching over on YouTube, Hi, thank you.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Don't forget to subscribe.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
We will be back a little bit later on today
with your evening news headlines, but until then, have a
good day.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bungelung Calkatin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
s right island and nations. We pay our respects to
the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Before we jump into today's deep dive, we have a
really quick ask of you, and it's about ensuring this
podcast can remain as relevant and useful to you as possible.
So to do that, we want to know a little
bit more about who listens to it. We've put a
very short survey in today's show notes and we'd be
so so grateful if you could fill it out. Won't
take more than a minute. And thank you so much
(00:21):
in advance for helping TDA. Now on to today's deep
dive already, and this.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Is the Daily This is the Daily OS.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily ODS. It's Tuesday,
the fifth of August. I'm Harry Sekulch.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Working from home at least two days a week could
become a legal right in Victoria. The state government has
laid out plans to make it an entitlement to public
and private sector workers. Premier de Sina Allen said it
could boost business productivity and help workers with caring responsibilities
that some critics have questioned how it would work, including
(01:07):
whether it would even be lawful in Australia.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
In today's Deep Dive, We are going to take you
through Victoria's push to legislate the right to work from home,
the reasons behind this movement, and why the debate doesn't
seem to be going away.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Harry, We're talking.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
About some legislation that is being tabled in Victoria to
make it a protected law for workers to have two
days a week where they.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Can work from home.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Work from home has been a debate in workplaces around
the country and the world really ever since kind of
COVID erupted and changed the way we think about work
and remote work. It's definitely a debate that we have
seen a lot of scrutiny, a lot of for and against,
but it's the first time this week that we're seeing
it really potentially being discussed as a legal right. What
(01:59):
can you tell us about how this would all work?
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, you're so right. There's always this ebb and flow
from the periphery to the center when it comes to
working from home and how workplaces are kind of dealing
with it. So over the weekend, the Victorian government brought
it right back into the center again and they announced
that it was going to legislate a right to work
from home at least two days a week. Now, to
(02:22):
give it a bit of context, the right would apply
in circumstances where it's considered reasonable, So it wouldn't have
universal coverage. If you think about some workplaces, like nurses
need to be in a hospital, teachers need to be
in a classroom. If there's a fire, fire fighters have
to go and put out the flames. Right, Yeah, So
it wouldn't necessarily have coverage right across the board.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Okay, So reasonable can basically be interpreted in terms of
is your job a job that can be done from home?
Speaker 2 (02:52):
That's right? And I think that's where it's helpful to
think of office work. This is essentially where it's likely
to apply most because the proposal focuses on workers who,
in circumstances where it would be considered reasonable, they wouldn't
have to negotiate working from home two days a week. Basically,
their boss wouldn't be able to deny them this option
(03:14):
under the legislation.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
I think it's important to add as well that this
is a government announcement, but it would apply to both
the public and private sector. So if you worked for
an insurance firm, if you worked for a public agency,
it wouldn't really matter if you do work in an office.
If the circumstances allow for it, you would be covered
by this right. And we're at a very early stage
(03:38):
of this legislation as well. It actually hasn't been drafted yet.
What the government's doing now is it's announced that it
plans to do this, It'll go through a consultation process,
it'll define things like what actually counts as remote work,
and then it plans to legislate this right in twenty
twenty six.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Okay, got it.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
I find it really interesting that we're talking about legislating
this working from home arrangement for Victorians because by now,
you know, we're all well and truly versed in the
post COVID remote work landscape, I suppose, And that means
that a lot of workplaces, a lot of private sector
companies as well, have already kind of rolled out their
own strategies, their own plans. A lot of businesses have
(04:22):
clear cut rules about Okay, yep, you can work x
amount of days or hours from home, but you have
to be in the office for this many face to
face days or they've completely kind of ruled out working
from home. So why is there a need to bring
it into law.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Why now, Yeah, it's definitely not a niche thing to
work from home. The Australian Bureau Statistics data actually shows
it's about thirty six percent of people in Australia work
from home at least once a week.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
So if it is kind of common, why would you
need legislation? Well, basically, it would give workers quite a
powerful tool to say, you can't deny me the option
to work from home. It's actually illegal to deny me
that right. It would also make working from home rules
a bit more consistent in Victoria. It wouldn't vary by
(05:10):
an award, it wouldn't vary by workplace. It would just
remove the need for there to be any sort of
dialogue between an employer and employee as currently exists in
the workplace laws. And if you think about some workplaces,
some big employers in Australia, the Big four banks, require
their workers to work in the office at least half
of a given month. They caature it by a month.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
That's interesting because I was thinking about, you know, if
you are a national company, if you're an Australia wide employer,
how this legislation would potentially work for you if you've
got some staff in Victoria on a different set of
rules than everywhere else in the country. But if it's
a fifty to fifty thing, then the two day a
week legislation wouldn't really impact that. But it is certainly interesting.
(05:52):
Kind of on the other side of I feel like
we've seen a bit of a I don't want to
say an overcorrection, but I think companies have anecdotally become
more conservative.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
About working from home in recent years.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
I definitely want to get into the reasons why some
businesses oppose this idea, but unions have been raising the
concerns about employers denying their staff the right to work
from home. In fact, the Australian Services Union which joined
the Victorian government in announcing this measure, they have a
(06:24):
dedicated campaign to helping workers understand flexible working rights. So
when the Victorian Premier, just Into Allen was asked about
why they needed to be a legally enshrined right, I
thought it was quite interesting that she mentioned people with
caring responsibilities and young families. Here's a little bit of
what she had to say.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
It works for families, particularly for women, for single months,
for people with caring responsibilities, and there's plenty of men
too who face those pressures and challenges of those caring
and family responsibilities.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Okay, so just to recap quickly, Harry Victoria's labor government,
led by premierers Into Allen, has announced a plan to
legislate the right to work from home two days a
week for reasonable workers or in circumstances where your job
permits that. What has the opposition had to say about this?
Have we heard from them?
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Yeah? So I also think it's significant that Victoria's going
to an election next year and the government plans to
legislate it next year as well. So it's reasonable to
ask if the opposition gets into power, will they just
scrap this right altogether? And so the Opposition leader Brad
Batton was asked about this over the weekend. He said,
there are still a few questions and a few loose
(07:35):
ends to tie up when it comes to legislating or
working from home right, but otherwise the state coalition generally
supports the measure. I think the opportunity to have that
discussion and there's negotiations between employers and employers is really
important and hybrid working is part of the future.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
That's really interesting because I think I'm sure we're going
to talk about this, but that is the Victorian Coalition's position,
which sounds a little bit different from the Federal coalitions
position just a few months ago.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Yeah. Remember in the federal election, we had this massive
debate about working from home because the then leader of
the Federal Coalition, Peter Dutton, had announced this policy to
require all Australian public sector workers to work in the
office five days a week. Now, he later scrapped those plans.
There was a lot of pushback to it. He apologized
(08:24):
and he actually admitted that the Coalition got it roll
on that one. So this is an issue that he's
looming large over the coalition and I think Brad Baton
definitely has that in mind when he's consulting on these
changes and looking at whether he would adopt that policy
as well. He doesn't seem to want to go there.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Okay, So it seems like the Victorian Coalition has learned
from the potential missteps of the Federal Coalition and aren't
looking to kind of repeat that debate that we had
at a federal level.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
I think that's fair to say he was pretty quick
to sort of water that down saying oh, look, we
just won't tinker with it if it comes into effects
lets okay, and generally supports the idea of a hybrid
work model.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
So, Harry, what is the argument against working from home?
Why have we seen a bit of a movement here
led by politicians and businesses in some sectors pushing back
against it, saying no, we don't want you working from home.
We want you in the office five days a week.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
I think you can categorize it into two main sets
of arguments. The first one comes to this idea of
a two tiered workforce, those who can work from home
and those who can't. So if you think about a hospital,
for instance, nurses can't work from home, they have to
directly help patients. But if you think about some of
the administrative staff at a hospital, they could work from home. Okay,
(09:43):
just on a logistical basis. How that would work case
by case? Obviously we won't get into that. But I
think some of the questions here are that's one entitlement
for one section of the workforce, but then that leaves
the others out.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
So it's a question of is it fair to split
those workforces maybe into a hierarchy of you can and
you can't.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
That's right. And just into Alan was asked about this
and she kind of brushed off this suggestion, saying that
this is already occurring in the workplace. I go back
to that figure from the ABS, thirty six percent of
people in Australia already working from.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
Home, more than one in three.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
That's right. And so some officers might require you to
come into the office more frequently, just based on the
nature of work. Think about us, Emma, we're here in
the studio today recording a podcast. It's harder to do
that from home. It just also wouldn't sound as good
or whatever the case may be. But that's just us
in that unique circumstance. Some other jobs require you to travel,
(10:39):
so you know, there's a whole host of different workplace arrangements.
So it wouldn't necessarily create a second tier when there's
already hybrid work across the board. Just into Alan's argument,
should hasten to add.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
And I think there are a lot of workers who can't,
for whatever reason, work from home, but that doesn't necessarily
mean that they don't want other people to have the
freedom or the flexibility. You know, us for example, we
love being here and being on the mic to do
the podcast.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
That doesn't mean that I don't want other people to
be able to work from home and enjoy the luxuries
that we can't.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Yeah, the envy of other people's riots.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
It also means though, like you know, I know that
we have a really great internet connection here to do
this stuff, and sometimes at home it's not always as.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Reliable or crash and burn.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Yeah, Alie barrass myself on a zoom call, I'll get
frozen in an awkward position.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
That's a stress of working from home exactly.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
So that's one area that's been argued. The second main
argument that's been put forward is the economic impact. So
if you think about the CBD in whatever state you
might be in in Australia, if you have office workers
going in less regularly, well that's less business for cafes,
(11:55):
for restaurants who would otherwise see these workers come in
more frequently, and so there's a bit less economic activity
if you like. That's the broader argument. Once again, just
Sinta Allen was asked about this. She said that financially,
for individual workers, they'll end up better off if they
(12:15):
have a right to work from home because they won't
have to spend on commuting so getting public transport or
parking in the CBD, which we know can be really expensive.
And also they won't have to fuel up as much
and their hip pocket will improve, so in turn they
might actually end up spending more money going out and
(12:36):
buying dinner or going out to launch or something.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
There's also I think an economic argument for the rural
urban spread that we've seen in the last few years.
Of course, there's more vacant spaces in office CBDs, but
more people are moving to the regions. There's been a
huge spike in the property economy in kind of regional
and rural communities that sit outside of those major CBDs,
(12:59):
where workers otherwise wouldn't have been able to imagine themselves
relocating to and keeping their job. But now they are
living in these kinds of areas where maybe it's a
one or a two hour drive from the office, but
they make that commitment to be there once or twice
a week.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
And the commuter belt for our main cities is just
getting wider and wider and wider and more and more expensive,
so people are actually opting to live a little bit
further out of the city, so they don't have to
commute into work five days a week necessarily, but might
only have to do it three or four days a week.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
And what about the productivity argument? Is their concern that
working from home is bad for productivity?
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Good for productivity? What's been said there?
Speaker 2 (13:39):
The government has said that productivity won't suffer as a result.
In fact, they've pointed to some studies that already show
that workers tend to be a little bit more productive,
get a bit more out of their day when they're
able to work from home and have those hybrid arrangements
in place. So livestin there's always going to be a
bit of back and forth. There will be some people
that disagree, some people that agree.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Yep, there's the whole social argument, face to face interactions
versus the isolation of working from home. So much that
has been discussed and will continue to be discussed, Harry.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
But have we heard.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
From businesses themselves. It obviously will be on them to
adjust to this change. If Victoria legislates the right to
work from home? What are business group saying?
Speaker 2 (14:21):
So they're pretty concerned about the legislation and how it
would work in effect, because as you said, they would
have to adjust to these changes. And we've heard from
the Victorian head of the Australian Industry Group, Tim Piper.
He released a statement over the weekend calling the measure
quote political theater. In other words, might seem popular but
doesn't achieve much in his view. He added what works
(14:44):
for one company may not suit another. Flexible work should
be driven by the needs of individual businesses. Piper also
raised what I think is a really important issue and
you touched on it briefly before, and I want to
come back to it because it does have broader national implication.
The way that work is governed in Australia is overseen
(15:05):
by what's known as a Fair Work Commission, which is
our workplace referee right across the country. Yep, there's no
right to work from home, as clear as that in
the national legislation. Okay, but if Victoria decides to bring
this in, it could create actually a bit of a
constitutional issue.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Right because you're saying that the Fair Work Commission is
the national regulator for workplace disputes or workers' rights, and
if we have a state saying this is a set
of rules that might contradict their set of rules that
could create problems.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Yeah, And the way that our constitution works as well
is that if there is a conflict directly between the
state and federal law, the federal law trumps the state law. Interesting,
so it might actually not end up having the legislative
effect that the government wants it too, which is that
you would get this legal right two days a week
(16:02):
if there's no federal legislation to back it in.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Has labor, either at the state or national level commented
on what that might mean if this is all kind
of going to be overridden by a lack of legislation federally,
Does that mean that the Albanesi government's going to look
at something like this.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
We don't know if the government at a federal level
is going to look into it. In fact, the Workplace
Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth has been asked and I've been
in touch with her team. There's no plans at this stage,
and they aren't exactly willing to comment on it either
because they just might not see it as appropriate given
that it is a Victorian issue. The state government said
(16:42):
that that's why it's going through consultation right now, because
it wants to look at these potential challenges that could
come out of their legislation, and so they want to
anticipate that there might be a high court challenge down
the track if say, there is a conflict at a
state and federal level. But I think I think you
actually touched on something that was even more basic. We
(17:04):
have national companies in Australia, yeah, that employ people in
every city in every state. If one state has rights
that other states don't get, you might actually see a
little bit of that grievance trickle through the workforce. And
so that causes a few issues when it comes to
these national companies trying to just you know, create a
(17:26):
good workplace for everyone. But then Victoria can anyone working
in Victoria can basically just say, look, I've got a right.
Don't really care about my state interstate colleagues, yeah, but
this is my legal right to have a two day
a week working from home.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Entitlement fascinating, And then of course it could go the
other way where national companies say, well, if Victorian employees
can have two days a week from home, all employees can.
And then if you've got all these big sectors and
big names and brands doing that, then maybe there will
be an imperative for the Fair Work Commission to undergo
a bit of an.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Overhaul, well exactly. And I think ultimately the fact that
we're ending on some of these thornia prickly issues with
this potential legislation just shows that this debate is so
far from over. We're going to be talking about it again.
We are going to keep it in the center, not
in approphery, and I think that it'll just be so
fascinating to see how this consultation plays out, what the
(18:23):
legislation actually looks like when it comes into being.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Yeah, very fascinating stuff.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
As you mentioned, Harry, we're expecting legislation to be tabled
next year, is that right?
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Yep? Twenty twenty six before the election in Victoria next year.
So we'll be keeping a close eye on it. I
will be asking Cintra Allen's team for more details as
they come to hand and bring them to our audience
here at the Daily Offs.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
So so interesting, Harry. Thank you as always for taking
us through a pretty complicated one in really simple terms.
Oh thanks Selah, and thank you for listening to today's
episode or if you're watching over on YouTube, Hi, thank you.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Don't forget to subscribe.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
We will be back a little bit later on today
with your evening news headlines, but until then, have a
good day.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bungelung Calkatin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
s right island and nations. We pay our respects to
the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!