Bill Debate: Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work From Home) Bill

BILL DEBATE:

‘EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AMENDMENT (WORK FROM HOME) BILL’.

Wednesday, 29 July 2026.

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:28):

I rise to speak on the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026, and I say at the outset that the Coalition, the Liberal and National parties support the right to work from home. Let me say that very, very clearly: we support the right to work from home, and because we support the right to work from home, we of course will not be opposing the Bill.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: How excited the Government are, because this Government have tried to use a change in law to play raw, brutal politics, and that reflects on them, doesn’t it? I say again: we support the right to work from home, and therefore of course we will not be opposing this Bill.

We will seek to make some Amendments to ensure that some of the issues the Government has overlooked, which the Government has admitted to in the Government Bill briefings, are addressed, because the Government, with the former Premier’s office managing the Bill briefing, admitted to matters in the Bill which it had not either fully thought through or understood the practical implications of.

And worse, the then Premier’s office committed to providing information to the Opposition – the Liberals and Nationals – in relation to questions that we had in that briefing, and have not provided that information. The Government has not provided the detailed information they committed to providing in that Bill briefing, which I think says a lot about some of the implementation issues with the Bill that were raised in the Bill briefing.

As we know, this Bill enables a right to work from home two days a week, and pro rata for employees who work for less than 38 hours, where it is reasonable for them to do so. The Bill commences on 1 September, and also applies to employers with fewer than 15 employees. Simply put, this Bill enables an employee to provide notice to an employer in which they seek to work from home two days a week, and the employer must respond within 21 days based on, effectively, a reasonableness test.

In terms of cost, there is a cost burden placed upon the employer that is uncapped. An independent review is built into the legislation to commence on or after 1 July 2030. So, as we are today at almost the start of August, this Bill is set for commencement in just over four weeks, going through both chambers and also receiving royal assent. We can presume that in under three weeks after royal assent, perhaps two weeks after royal assent, the entire Victorian economy – the entire Victorian business sector and all of its employees – will have this legislative framework placed over it. As we know, the Fair Work Act 2009 federally has its own provisions in this regard, and this legislative instrument will, the Government would say, sit alongside the federal right. Others may say it conflicts with that right, and I will speak about the constitutionality and concerns that have been raised at a separate time.

As I mentioned earlier, under Standing Orders I wish to advise the House of Amendments to the Bill and request that they be circulated. As I said earlier, the Coalition supports the right to work from home and therefore does not oppose the bill. But as I also mentioned, in the Government briefing on the Bill the government confirmed to us in detailed conversation with them that they had not fully thought through certain implications of the Bill. We have sought to address those concerns, to help the Government with the mistakes they perhaps have made, by way of our Amendments. I will take the house through the Amendments that we are proposing, which I understand have been circulated.

Firstly, we accept that this Bill will be implemented – if it is passed – on 1 September, and we in no way are seeking to change the date of 1 September in terms of that implementation. However, what we are proposing is that the Government allow, as the Government has allowed with other policies – for example, the machete ban – a small amount of time between the date of implementation and the first effective, to use simple terms, appeal date for a decision on 1 January. What that would mean is that when you roll out a statewide, economywide measure, you give implementation opportunity to businesses and employees, in terms of understanding what this means, until 1 January before an appeal can be made to a decision of a business. In no way would we stop the rollout occurring, the commencement occurring, but we would allow a small window of time before an appeal could be made to a decision. You have to note that once an employee makes a request there is a three-week period of time before a response is required. If you think through the timelines, it is only reasonable to allow a small amount of time for businesses to roll this out and ensure that it is fully and fairly understood by both employers and employees. That is why we have proposed a 1 January timeline before, effectively, appeals can occur, in the simplest terms.

Secondly, we propose a simple ban on a home office or a home being taken into account for any new land tax obligation. This is a very important one, and it will be very interesting to see what the Government do on this Amendment and to see whether or not they support a ban on new land taxes based on employees moving to work from home, because this debate has occurred for some time. The Government and the former Premier especially debated me on this issue and said they had no secret plan to increase land tax collections because of this Bill. Then very simply I would say to the Government that through this Amendment they have the capacity now to simply ensure that ban is in place in the Bill. If the Government keeps its word in that it is not seeking to increase land tax collection – and I do not believe that is true – it will agree to that Amendment that we will not see an increase in land tax collection because of this Bill. We believe it will. We believe that the Government is looking for every opportunity to increase land tax collection. I take it as a matter of faith that that is what Labor does. So, this Amendment is very simple and will allow the Government to stand by what they have said publicly and not see land tax extended because of this new Bill.

We are also proposing that if an eligible employee’s primary place of employment is in Victoria their request must be for a place in Victoria unless there is agreement between an employee and an employer, for more than one reason. One, it is only fair and reasonable that a Victorian-based piece of legislation should apply in Victoria. But secondly, there are constitutional concerns, which I will get to, that then flow from that if it is not in Victoria. We believe that that is a simple and fair Amendment.

We also are proposing two amendments, which I will speak to a little bit more, which the government – I do not want to put words in their mouth, but in the briefing on this Bill they did seem very unsure about the full application thereof and the impacts. So, we have sought to help with our Amendments, firstly, providing an exemption for company directors under occupational health and safety legislation for incidents while employees work from home, because currently we have a conflict. A director of a company has a director’s duty, through duty-of-care provisions, to look after their employee at work, even when that is at home.

Understandably, that employer does not go into a person’s home, and I do not think anybody is seeking for that to be the case. Therefore, we have a conflict in that directors are responsible for everybody’s workplace at home when they cannot – and I do not think any of us would argue should – be going into people’s private homes. So, it is unreasonable that the director has a liability in that way. We also – similar perhaps to the land tax prohibition – are proposing an Amendment to provide an exemption to WorkCover increases for incidents that occur at home, because if a Government is seeking to legislate in this way, of course you would expect them to, frankly, foot the Bill. They should, frankly, foot the Bill, and it is not reasonable for businesses to be paying for WorkCover increases in that way.

There are two more Amendments that I draw the House’s attention to. Firstly, in relation to the reasonable costs, we propose a reasonable cost of $1000. We think that reasonable costs are understandable, but what is a reasonable cost? I think you will find that whatever judge in whatever court you ask will have a different view on what is reasonable. Every single one of them will have a different view on what is reasonable. Because this is an economy-wide rollout, it is not unfair to put a guide or a cap on what that is, and we are proposing $1000.

For example, in the Government’s Bill briefing, I proposed an instance where an employee is significantly injured, and that unfortunately may happen in an employee’s lifetime. The Government confirmed that there would be obligations on that employer to fit out the person’s private home property to make it fully accessible, which would include, potentially, ramps into the home, assistance with bars et cetera throughout the home – an entire infrastructure upgrade to the family home – and it was confirmed that that would be a reasonable cost. Further, an entire refit of the home office to make it ergonomic or to ensure that it assists that employee with their changed accessibility requirements would also be required. In that instance we are talking potentially about $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. That is just in the example I have given. What would happen where an employee is renting? I am not sure. What would happen where an employee lived in a multilevel building? What happens if the employee lives in a multilevel building where there is no lift? Who would know? But one thing we do know is there would be liability on the directors of that company for that employee.

So, we have proposed a $1000 cap in relation to that reasonable cost, which of course would cover something like a transition to a laptop. Where an employee has a desktop in the office and exercises their right to request to work from home, what we are proposing is that they would have a $1000 cap, which would allow them to move to a laptop. But also, as I said earlier, if they were to exercise the right to request straight away, soon after 1 September, the business would have until 1 January before there was any appeal. In no way are we seeking to amend the 1 September date but rather to give employees and employers time to understand the Bill, make sure that their forms and processes are in place and make sure their staff are fully briefed and informed on what this legislation means.

I might say I asked advice in relation to the Parliament and how the Parliament had viewed this proposed legislation, and they said they had not even considered it yet.

So, the Parliament itself had not even thought through what this would mean. When you think about that – I mean, we are making the laws here. The Parliament itself had not even thought through the implications of this Bill, so it is not unreasonable to assume that not every business in Victoria has fully thought through this proposed reform. As we have, as I said, between the date of royal assent and 1 September some two weeks, I would suspect, for an economy-wide rollout, we think that delay on appeal right is only reasonable.

Finally, I also mention that in the Amendments that we are proposing union right of entry is prohibited. What we are very concerned about is that the Government confirmed to the Opposition, as I said, in the Bill briefing that when it comes to both union right of entry and WorkCover right of entry, there would be full right of entry into the private home. Now, I do not think people fully understand that, and I do not think Victorians are aware of that. I do not think Victorians understand that under this Government’s Bill, it enables, through this legislation, full union entry into family homes. I have not seen that on the Government’s tiles. I have not seen the right-of-entry provisions advertised in any of the Government’s media releases or WorkCover advertised on the Government’s media releases. It has not been. But they confirmed in the briefing that provisions that currently exist, rolled across this new legislation, would enable that.

When you take into account the massive number of people who will be working from home because of this new legislation – and the Government confirmed that they expect a significant increase; they also committed to giving the modelling on the number that would be and have not provided it – and that there will be a significant increase in the number of people working from home, this set of new provisions, when you lay across the current rights of entry and WorkCover entry, I think would be a concern to Victorians. So, we are proposing that unions do not have a right of entry into the family home. I do not think that is unreasonable at all. Other than union members, I do not think any Victorian would think that is reasonable. I think that any reasonable person would say, ‘I don’t think that if I’m signing up to work from home, I should have a union right of entry.’ I say again: it was confirmed by the Department and the then Premier’s office in our briefing on the Bill that provisions that exist in law will apply to the new Bill. I think the Government will have an opportunity to set out their views on these Amendments when they are considered. Because they are textual, we will not be voting on them in detail in this place, but we certainly will be in the other place.

I mentioned constitutionality earlier, and I am concerned in relation to the constitutionality of this Bill, because though this Bill has been written to sit aside the federal laws, there is clearly overlap. That, I think, is where we have concern. You look at people like the Australian Business Lawyers & Advisors, who say:

… it would be surprising if the legislation did not attract close legal scrutiny and potentially constitutional challenge …

I think that is right. Because of the overlap, we are dealing with, effectively, a state government that is trying to use a bill that is not designed for workplace law to enable a new workplace right. The equal opportunity amendment is not primarily a workplace relations bill – it is not – and Victoria has ceded its powers in relation to workplace law. There are significant conflicts when you set two laws next to each other and seek to use the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to impose a workplace law. What the government could have done is they could have tried to pull back their workplace powers – they could have done it that way – but instead they are happy to use a bill which is not designed for workplace law. I suspect we will have significant problems as a result.

Setting aside inconsistencies, because there will be inconsistencies in the application when you have federal laws which allow you a work-from-home right where certain provisions exist, this law allows you an automatic right. It is the opposite – an automatic right. So, we will have two conflicting rights which look at this issue from opposing sides, and that is why we will see constitutional issues. But we will also see constitutional issues in relation to where disputes arise, because where disputes arise you will see certain matters, for example, go to VCAT. VCAT does not have jurisdiction over federal matters. You will see applications go through to VCAT, and VCAT does not have the jurisdictional power to hear that application, so when a matter is before it, you will see, after a delay – and I should actually have said that: all of the disputes that arise in this area, sadly, are currently facing massive, massive delays in our system. Our courts and our VCAT tribunal already have massive delays, and that does not include the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, where already only 42 per cent of complaints are solved within six months. Only 42 per cent that are currently going through are resolved within six months. I do not have the number before me of the disputes before that commission, but I suspect that in an average week in the future we will probably have more disputes through working-at-home appeals than we will in the Commission’s entire year of complaints. I cannot imagine the commission is receiving thousands of complaints a day, but I suspect the number of issues to be addressed through this legislation will be significant. I would not be surprised if we see a doubling or trebling over the next year of the number of matters before it.

But as I said earlier on VCAT, there is a serious issue in VCAT’s jurisdiction, and to push matters through to VCAT where they inherently might deal with a substantial element that falls within the Fair Work Act will immediately move that matter out of VCAT. I suspect we are going to have, and frankly speaking, the legal sector are talking about this at length, and they believe it is, a fundamental flaw in the Bill in terms of that jurisdictional issue. I am aware of course of the Magistrates’ Court’s capacity in relation to this legislation, but not all matters will appear before VCAT with there being a full understanding in the matter of all of the elements as they have first arisen.

You will see, I think, a substantial number of cases appear before VCAT where the detail is not fully there. As it unfolds you will see elements of it clearly fall within the Fair Work Act, which will then cause issues in relation to VCAT even being able to hear it.

The Victorian Congress of Employer Associations have put forward a number of proposed amendments – they put forward nine proposed Amendments. The Coalition has looked at those and thanked them for the work they have done on behalf of a number of significant organisations who represent a vast body of Victorian businesses. We have picked up some of those Amendments. We have in our Amendments drafted others, but we thank them for the work they have done in that regard.

I also want to mention the Law Institute, who always provide incredible advice on legislation before the House, and they have done so here. They have expressed concern in relation to the two powers, both the Victorian and Commonwealth powers. They are:

… concerned that the proposal to guarantee a right to work from home may lead to duplication, confusion for both employers and employees …

They have expressed their concern in relation to that duplication. They have also expressed, as I just said – just to reinforce the point I raised earlier – the lack of capacity of our commissions, courts and tribunals in relation to the delays that already exist and the significant problems there.

May I finish where I started and say that the Coalition supports the right for people to work from home. We support the right for people to work from home. Despite the politicking of the Government, we have always supported that right. We have always supported the right for employers and employees to make those arrangements. Therefore, as a result, we will not be opposing the Bill. But what we have proposed is a series of reasonable Amendments – banning land tax, stopping union right of entry, giving a better understanding of what a reasonable cost is – reasonable things for an economy-wide rollout of this legislation. When those Amendments go to the other place, I hope that the Government supports and works with the Coalition on them.