Peninsula Australia’s Gazelle Kalk says Victoria’s WFH bill lacks the detail that makes existing flexible work rights manageable for small employers.
As Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 sits before the upper house, and with Premier Ben Carroll reportedly reconsidering aspects of it, including a possible small business exemption, the debate so far has largely focused on cost and principle: should the bill exist, and who should pay for it.
Gazelle Kalk, Associate Director of Content and Training at employment relations advisory firm Peninsula Australia, argues there’s a more practical problem sitting underneath that debate: how the bill is actually built.
“The Victorian Government’s decision to reconsider aspects of its proposed work-from-home legislation, including potential exemptions for small businesses, presents an important opportunity to ensure the laws are practical and proportionate for employers of different sizes,” Kalk said. “The commitment to further consultation with business stakeholders will be important in understanding the real-world impact of the proposed changes on Victorian employers.”
Kalk’s central point is that small businesses aren’t resisting flexible work itself. “The challenge for small businesses is not flexibility itself, but ensuring any new workplace entitlement takes into account the realities of running a business with limited resources,” she said.
What already exists, and what’s missing
Victoria already has a mechanism for employees to request flexible work, including working from home, under the Fair Work Act. Kalk argues the issue is that the new state bill doesn’t carry over the structure that makes those existing rights workable.
“Workplace rights already exist that allow employees to make flexible requests which include working from home, however, these rights under the Fair Work Act typically have strict criteria the employee must satisfy,” Kalk said. “This proposed legislation lacks that detail and thus adds additional obligations, administrative processes and potential costs that may affect smaller employers differently from larger organisations for what would previously be an informal request.”
The resourcing gap
For Kalk, the practical impact comes down to who has the resources to manage a more formal process. “Small businesses often do not have dedicated HR teams or extensive resources to manage complex workplace frameworks,” she said. “Requirements around responding to requests, assessing reasonableness, funding equipment or technology, and navigating potential disputes can create significant compliance challenges for employers already operating under pressure.”
A case against one-size-fits-all
Kalk’s broader argument is that a single, uniform framework may not suit Victoria’s range of industries and workplaces. “Any framework should recognise that different industries, workplaces and job roles have different needs, and a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable,” she said.
Her conclusion points toward what she sees as the more useful outcome from Carroll’s consultation process, not scrapping flexible work rights, but designing them with more precision. “Ultimately, the most effective flexible work arrangements are those that support both employee expectations and business outcomes,” Kalk said. “Legislation should provide clarity and certainty while allowing employers and employees to reach arrangements that work for their particular workplace.”
Keep up to date with our stories on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
