Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:08): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 and respond to a couple of the things that the minister previously speaking said, in particular starting with an attack on the opposition about scare campaigns and then proceeding to fill the rest of his 9 minutes with entirely a scare campaign.
This legislation is a reflection of the changing circumstances we all find ourselves in, particularly since the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020. I think most of us had not considered or thought of work from home much before then, but with changing technology and with the circumstances we found ourselves in, in lockdown in the COVID era, it had a far greater take-up. I remember those early days, that first month or so, of lockdown. It was actually quite a pleasant experience initially, for me at least, being home with my family. I was certainly inundated, and my workload went up dramatically in terms of people seeking advice and information on the lockdown arrangements. But it being pleasant did not last very long, and we all could not wait to be able to get out again. But since then there certainly has been a growing trend of people seeking to work from home. I remember during the first few weeks of lockdown my colleague the member for Berwick actually talking about Zoom, and I had no idea what Zoom was. Now, sadly, we are all far too familiar with it, or with Teams or any of those. But these new technologies over the last decade or so have certainly allowed working from home to flourish for those who can do it.
I think probably the jury is out on whether it is better for productivity or not. I think you could probably go and find any evidence either way from economists and workplace relations specialists as to whether it is better for productivity or worse, and certainly it is a different view for different workers as well. Some people I speak to say, ‘I get so much more done when I’m at home.’ I get others who say, ‘I just get distracted and I don’t work that well.’ But the reality is it has become a circumstance that many employers and employees are happy to accommodate.
This legislation amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to establish a statutory right for employees to work from home for up to two days a week or a pro-rata period for employees working fewer than 38 hours where it is reasonable for them to do so. There is a question mark as to the constitutional validity of this, and certainly many commentators, employer groups and others have raised whether it is constitutionally valid for the government to introduce this legislation or to enact this legislation. That will be a matter for the courts to decide.
The bill will commence on 1 September this year and will apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees from 1 July 2027. As the member for Brighton has foreshadowed, we have a number of amendments, and one of those is not to the commencement date but to the date at which employees will be able to make a claim. That simply pushes that date back to 1 January 2027, which will give employers time to understand the implications of the legislation, to put in place their policies and to work through with their employees how it will work. As the member for Brighton indicated, even the Parliament itself has not been able to consider the detail and how it will work. I am sure all of us are interested in whether this will apply prospectively or not to our electorate offices.
The legislation requires that an employee must give written notice identifying the proposed days and times, unless it is not practicable to do so, and any agreed location other than their private residence. There is no minimum notice period prescribed in the legislation. However, the employer must respond in writing within 21 days. That I guess highlights one of the issues that many people have raised as a concern, that these arrangements really should be between an employer and an employee.
The employer must allow the proposed arrangements unless it is not reasonable. Whilst there are legal definitions of ‘reasonable’, that will certainly be open to interpretation. Where the proposal is not reasonable, the employer must allow an equivalent period on different days or at different times or any lesser period that is considered reasonable. Any alternative arrangement or refusal must include reasons, and an alternative arrangement must specify the permitted days and times. A complete refusal is available only when no period of home-based work is reasonable. There are circumstances where that is obvious, I am sure: whether you are a nurse, a teacher, a police officer, a barista in a cafe or a truck driver – all of those. There are so many positions of course where it will not be either practicable or reasonable for people to work from home.
Nonetheless the matters that may be considered reasonable in the bill are limited to the inherent requirements of the role, including the need for workplace attendance, equipment or in-person interaction; the impact on the employer, including a likely significant decrease in productivity or efficiency; an adverse safety impact; significant confidentiality or data protection issues; excessive financial costs; or impractical changes to working arrangements or hiring and other prescribed matters. Regard must also be had to legal requirements relating to safety, security, welfare and/or supervision.
The bill requires an employer to allow an employee to work from home and that they must pay any reasonable costs necessary to enable the arrangement. That expressly includes essential hardware and software and secure access to information systems. This is an issue where the opposition would like to tighten that arrangement and see the definition of ‘reasonable employer cost’ limited to $1000. We think that is fair. When I mention, for example, things like essential hardware and software and secure access to information systems in particular, those could be quite significant costs for an employer, depending on what the employee is actually doing, so we think it is reasonable also to ensure that employers are not up for significant costs in this.
In addition, we have indicated that our amendments, which we will move in the other place, would be to provide exemptions to company directors with respect to OH&S legislation, for instance, where employees are working from home, because quite simply the company directors will not have access to that person’s home and will not have the opportunity to ensure it is a safe location, so we think that is only fair. Likewise, when it comes to WorkCover increases following any incident occurring whilst working at home, it is not fair, given the inability of an employer to impact the home arrangement, for them to then suffer the consequences if, unfortunately, an employee is injured whilst working from home.
We are also looking at amendments to limit the right of employees whose primary place of residence is in Victoria, with work-from-home locations limited to agreed premises in Victoria unless agreed by both parties. Of course there will be circumstances where that can be agreed. And, as the member for Brighton indicated, we have an amendment to prohibit land tax being applied to employees who utilise the bill to work from home. The government minister indicated that is not the intention. Well, we have seen instances where this has been less than clear that have been reported publicly already, so we think it is important to be able to clarify that.
This is a bill that addresses what has become a growing issue, that more and more people work from home. The Nationals and Liberals do not oppose the prospect of people working from home when it is reasonable for them to do so. Indeed we support it. We support that where it is an improvement to their working lives, an improvement to the productivity of the business and an improvement to many other external aspects like having less traffic on the roads and the potential for it to support more local businesses in the suburbs and country towns. So we will not be opposing this legislation, despite what those opposite say. They are seeking desperately to find that we have an alternative view. We are certainly not opposing this legislation, but we will move amendments that we think make it far more reasonable.