Victoria’s proposed WFH bill would require employers to cover reasonable costs of enabling remote work.
Victoria’s proposed work from home legislation has drawn a pointed response from the nation’s peak small business body, with COSBOA warning that the bill adds another layer of regulation at a time when small businesses are already carrying a significant compliance load.
The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 proposes a presumptive entitlement for eligible Victorian employees to work from home for up to two days per week. Employers would be required to demonstrate that the arrangement is not reasonable in order to refuse it, and would be required to cover reasonable costs associated with enabling remote work, including hardware, software, and secure access to employer systems.
COSBOA CEO Skye Cappuccio said the organisation is not opposed to flexible work, and many small businesses already provide it. “Small businesses support flexibility where it works for both employees and employers. Many have been successfully managing flexible work arrangements for years.” The concern, she said, is what the proposed bill adds on top of what already exists. “Our concern is that this proposal adds another layer of regulation and compliance at a time when small businesses are already dealing with increasing workplace obligations, rising costs and significant economic pressure.”
The cost concern
The cost obligation embedded in the bill is COSBOA’s most immediate practical concern. Under the proposed legislation, employers would be required to pay any reasonable costs necessary to enable an employee to work from home, covering essential equipment such as hardware and software as well as secure access to the employer’s information systems.
Cappuccio said those costs land very differently on a small business than on a large organisation. “Hardware, software, cybersecurity, secure system access and ongoing support all come at a cost. These expenses may be manageable for large organisations, but they can have a much greater impact on a small business already operating on tight margins.”
For a small business with two or three employees working remotely two days a week, the aggregate cost of equipping, securing, and supporting those arrangements could represent a meaningful impost on already tight operating budgets. For businesses in sectors where remote work is not the norm, those costs would be new rather than incremental.
Duplication of federal law
COSBOA’s second concern is structural. Australia’s national workplace relations framework under the Fair Work Act already provides employees with pathways to request flexible working arrangements, including working from home. A separate Victorian entitlement creates a parallel regime with its own obligations and its own dispute resolution process.
Cappuccio said that duplication adds complexity without adding clarity. “Small businesses need clear, consistent and practical workplace laws. Creating a separate Victorian entitlement and dispute process risks adding further complexity and duplication to an already highly regulated system.”
The concern mirrors arguments COSBOA raised earlier this year about similar Victorian Government proposals, where the organisation warned that state-based workplace regulation running alongside federal frameworks creates confusion and compliance burden for small business owners who often do not have in-house HR or legal teams to navigate competing obligations.
One size does not fit all
Cappuccio also pushed back against the bill’s uniform approach to what is and is not a reasonable remote work arrangement. The operational realities of a retailer, a manufacturer, a healthcare provider, a hospitality business, a trade supplier, and a professional services firm are not the same. A presumptive entitlement to two days of remote work per week applies very differently across those contexts.
“Every small business is different. The operational needs of a retailer, manufacturer, healthcare provider, hospitality business, trade supplier or professional services firm are not the same, and workplace arrangements should reflect those realities,” she said. A one-size model, she argued, does not reflect how small businesses actually operate or what their customers and operations require.
What COSBOA wants
COSBOA said any changes to workplace flexibility arrangements should take careful account of the cumulative compliance burden being placed on small businesses and the practical realities of running one. Cappuccio’s framing of what small businesses need from workplace law is direct. “Small businesses want to focus on serving customers, creating jobs and growing their businesses. They need workplace laws that are simple, practical and proportionate.”
The organisation said it will continue engaging with members, stakeholders, and the Victorian Government as the bill progresses through parliament. The legislation remains subject to amendment, and COSBOA’s engagement suggests the small business sector will be an active voice in shaping what the final version looks like.
Keep up to date with our stories on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
