New legislation in Victoria, Australia, mandating a right to work from home for many employees, is poised to influence employment practices across the nation. The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026, championed by Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan, is set to grant eligible workers the ability to request remote work arrangements, potentially extending similar entitlements to employees in other Australian states.

Victoria’s Work-From-Home Legislation Explained

The Victorian law, slated for implementation in stages, will grant employees the right to work from home for up to two days per week. This right will apply to large businesses starting September 1, with smaller businesses following suit on July 1, 2027. Crucially, the legislation is inclusive, covering not only full-time staff but also part-time and casual employees, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.

Under the new Victorian framework, employers will face a higher threshold for rejecting work-from-home requests. Instead of simply citing ‘reasonable business grounds’—a standard that currently allows for easier refusal under federal law—Victorian businesses must demonstrate that remote work would significantly and detrimentally impact key operational aspects. These include customer outcomes, overall productivity, and essential business relationships.

Potential National Impact and Legal Precedent

Employment law experts suggest that Victoria’s proactive stance on work-from-home rights could establish a significant precedent, empowering employees in other states to seek comparable arrangements. Trent Sebbens, a partner at Ashurst, noted that businesses operating across multiple Australian states might find it increasingly challenging to deny remote work requests elsewhere if they have already accommodated them in Victoria.

“You might have a circumstance in which an employer will find it challenging to mount a reasonable business grounds refusal in another state if they haven’t been able to reject the flexible two-day work-from-home notice in Victoria,” Sebbens explained. This suggests that a disparity in remote work policies between states could lead to legal disputes and pressure on employers to standardize their approach.

Brad Popple, a partner at Kingston Reid, echoed this sentiment, stating that the existence of successful remote work arrangements in Victoria could be leveraged by employees in other jurisdictions. “As a practical matter, I think it’s highly likely that the existence of those factual examples [of equivalent employees working from home in Victoria] will be referred to and relied upon,” Popple commented. This reliance on Victorian case law could become a powerful tool for employees seeking flexibility regardless of their state’s specific legislation.

Challenges for Multi-State Employers and Jurisdictional Questions

While the Victorian law aims to standardize remote work rights within the state, its extraterritorial reach and enforcement present complex questions, particularly for businesses headquartered or operating significantly outside Victoria. Tamsin Lawrence, associate director at Australian Business Lawyers & Advisors, raised concerns about the practical application of Victorian law to businesses based overseas or in other states.

“Can VCAT [Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal] come in and give a slap on the wrist to an employer, for example, who’s in America?” Lawrence questioned. “That in itself is a question of can Victorian law do that?” She highlighted the ambiguity surrounding when the conduct of a non-Victorian business would be considered a breach of these new working-from-home rights, suggesting potential jurisdictional hurdles.

The existing federal Fair Work Act already provides a mechanism for employees nationwide to request flexible working arrangements. However, employers often have more leeway to reject such requests by demonstrating reasonable business grounds. Victoria’s new law tightens these grounds, making it more difficult for employers to refuse a remote work request, thereby shifting the balance of power slightly more towards the employee.

Industry Reactions and Concerns

The introduction of Victoria’s work-from-home legislation has drawn varied reactions from the business community. Michael Schneider, CEO of Bunnings, expressed concerns that the law could lead to “structural inequity” within the workforce. He pointed out that many roles, particularly those involving physical presence in stores, distribution centers, or manufacturing facilities, cannot be performed remotely.

“We’ve got a whole lot of teams who have to go to work to perform their duties, our floor teams, our distribution teams, our manufacturing teams and they do amazing work all the time,” Schneider stated in a radio interview. “But all of a sudden, we’ve got a situation where our support teams are under this proposed legislation where they have a legal right to work from home a couple of days a week.” He emphasized a belief in fairness, suggesting that policies should be equitable for all employees, regardless of their role.

This sentiment underscores a broader debate about the practicalities of implementing standardized remote work policies across diverse industries and job functions. While the Victorian law aims to enhance employee flexibility, its broader implications for national employment law and business operations are still unfolding.

Conclusion: A Shifting Landscape for Remote Work

Victoria’s move to legislate a right to work from home represents a significant development in Australian employment law. By increasing the burden on employers to justify denials of remote work requests, the state is setting a new benchmark. The potential for this legislation to influence practices in other states suggests a future where flexible work arrangements may become more standardized across the country, though challenges related to enforcement and industry-specific applicability remain.