Victoria’s WFH bill cleared the lower house. Now Premier Carroll is weighing changes that have business groups and HR leaders at odds.
Victoria’s push to become the first Australian jurisdiction with a legislated right to work from home is facing its first real test, just days after a change of premier.
The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 has already passed the Legislative Assembly and is now before the Legislative Council. Newly installed Premier Ben Carroll confirmed changes to the bill will be considered, following meetings with business leaders who had opposed the reforms championed by his predecessor, Jacinta Allan. “Work from home does work for families, and now it will go through that parliamentary process, and we will consider anything that is sensible,” Carroll said. “Sensible changes will always come up in any debate, and like any other debate, they will be considered.”
As drafted, the bill gives eligible Victorian employees a presumptive right to work from home up to two days a week, unless an employer can show it’s not reasonable. It applies to all employers regardless of size.
The clause under scrutiny
Among the potential amendments reportedly under consideration is scrapping what’s known as a “stacking” clause, which currently lets employees who already have flexible working arrangements in place claim additional work-from-home days on top of those. Also reportedly on the table is removing employer obligations to cover certain costs tied to remote work, along with shared liability for work-from-home injuries.
The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA) had urged Carroll to use the change in leadership as a chance to scrap the bill altogether, rather than simply amend it. COSBOA CEO Skye Cappuccio argued the legislation risked adding costs, compliance obligations and uncertainty for small businesses already managing a complex workplace relations system.
She was careful to frame the group’s position as being about the extra regulatory layer, not opposition to flexibility itself. “Small businesses support flexibility where it works for the employee, the employer and the business,” Cappuccio said.
Her sharper concern was around cost. COSBOA had flagged that employers could be required to cover expenses like hardware, software and secure system access to enable remote work, costs Cappuccio said don’t hit all businesses equally. “These expenses may be manageable for large organisations, but they can have a much greater impact on small businesses operating on tight margins,” she said.
COSBOA also pointed out that flexible work requests are already covered under Australia’s national workplace relations framework, questioning whether a separate Victorian entitlement is necessary at all.
COSBOA wasn’t alone in raising concerns. Business Council chief executive Bran Black had previously voiced opposition too, pointing to existing pathways under the Fair Work Act that already let employees request flexible arrangements.
Not everyone wants the bill softened
The prospect of amendments hasn’t gone down well with everyone. Anna Volkova, Head of People and Culture at HR and payroll platform HiBob, said Carroll’s openness to changes marked “a concerning step backwards for the workforce” that “risks trading progress for a short-term truce with business groups.”
Volkova pointed to specific provisions she believes are now at risk, including allowing employees to negotiate flexible working arrangements, and shifting remote-work costs and injury liabilities back onto employees. “Pulling back from formerly proposed provisions like allowing employees to negotiate flexible working arrangements, and shifting remote-work costs and injury liabilities back onto employees, sends a message that flexibility is negotiable, when both the evidence and the workforce say otherwise,” she said.
She argued the debate has broader consequences beyond the bill itself. “The reality is that office-centric expectations disproportionately hold back women and carers, whose careers too often stall in cultures that reward physical presence over performance,” Volkova said. “Flexibility has moved from a perk to a core expectation. Australians have made clear they value the autonomy they’ve gained, and they’re unwilling to trade it away.”
On the argument that the bill burdens business, Volkova pushed back directly. “Framing these laws as a threat to enterprise misreads where the modern workforce is heading, which is that well-managed hybrid work supports productivity rather than undermining it,” she said.
Her view is that winding the protections back would carry its own economic cost. “Unwinding these protections won’t make Victoria more competitive, it will make it less attractive to the talent that increasingly treats flexibility as non-negotiable,” she said. “For a government seeking a fresh start, the smarter move is to hold the line and focus on implementing flexible work well, not on relitigating whether workers are entitled to it at all.”
What happens next
The bill’s fate now rests with the Legislative Council, where any amendments will need to be negotiated. For small business owners watching this process, the practical questions remain open: what compliance will actually cost, whether cost- and liability-sharing obligations survive in their current form, and whether a size-based exemption makes it into the final version.
Carroll’s early comments suggest the answers are still being worked out, and that neither side pushing him is likely to get everything it wants.
Keep up to date with our stories on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
