The Senate is currently considering a new Bill that would enshrine a legal right to work from home. But the available evidence raises questions about whether new regulation is necessary.

Last week, the Victorian government announced plans to enshrine a legal right for employees who can work remotely to work from home two days a week.

The legislation will be introduced to Parliament in July, with the changes expected to take effect from September this year. 

This move reflects a broader policy debate across Australia about whether working from home should be protected through legislation.

The debate around working from home has matured considerably since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. What started as an emergency response has evolved into a fundamental shift in how many office-based Australians work. 

Hybrid models are now embedded across large parts of the economy, and organisations have invested significant time and effort in establishing models that support their employees’ wellbeing, productivity and collaboration.

The legal landscape around flexible work has also evolved to reflect this new reality. Legislation introduced in June 2023 gave certain employees the right to request flexible working arrangements and challenge refusals through the FWC, including carers, employees over 55 and those living with a disability. 

That said, there is currently no overall legal right to work from home.

A Bill put forward by the Greens in November last year proposes to change that. If passed, the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025 will enshrine a right for all employees in Australia to request to work from home for up to two days per week. 

Under the legislation, an employer could refuse a work-from-home request only if the proposed arrangement would make it impractical or impossible for the employee to perform the inherent requirements of their role.

While the federal Bill has attracted support from bodies including Diversity Council Australia and think tank Per Capita, others have questioned whether the legislation is necessary. 

In a submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry pointed out that working from home is already happening and stated that “there is no reason to legislate a one-size-fits-all approach.”

The Australian HR Institute (AHRI) has also submitted a response to the Bill based on our own research and consultations with members. Our evidence shows that there is no need for further prescriptive regulation, and that employers are best placed to make these decisions. Here’s why.

Research shows flexibility is already widespread

One of the key questions for policymakers is whether there is a systemic problem that requires legislative intervention. If employers were broadly resisting flexible work, the case for intervention would be stronger – however, AHRI’s research suggests otherwise.

In fact, our 2025 national research on hybrid and flexible working showed hybrid work in Australia has entered a period of stabilisation. 

Almost half of organisations mandate attendance at the office or physical workspace two or three days per week. Only 18 per cent of employers require four or five days of in-office attendance or do not offer hybrid working at all.

That suggests Australia’s hybrid work landscape is evolving through workplace practice and negotiation rather than legal mandates, meaning there is no need for further prescriptive regulation.

AHRI’s take on expanding specific work-from-home rights

While AHRI is supportive of the benefits of hybrid and flexible working arrangements, introducing a legislated right to work from home could risk making it harder, not easier, for employers and employees to reach mutually beneficial arrangements. 

Effective hybrid working depends on balancing multiple variables: the requirements of the role, team interdependencies, customer needs, supervision and development considerations, organisational culture, and established ways of working. These factors are complex and require understanding of the specific organisational context. Employers are best placed to make these decisions. 

The current “reasonable business grounds” framework recognises that these factors are context-specific. Replacing it with a test tied narrowly to the “inherent requirements” of the role risks oversimplifying and narrowing what is truly a complex organisational judgment.

The narrower test would likely increase the risk of disputes and limit employers’ ability to determine how work is best performed.

It’s also important to acknowledge that working from home is not possible for all roles and does not suit all organisations. 

Expanding statutory rights in this area may inadvertently raise expectations among employees whose roles cannot be performed remotely, potentially exacerbating tensions within workplaces between those who can and cannot work from home.

“If employers were broadly resisting flexible work, the case for intervention would be stronger – however, AHRI’s research suggests otherwise.”

A call for more constructive and manageable reform

The Committee should also consider the cumulative effect of recent reforms.

On top of the 2023 changes to flexible work entitlements, employers have faced a great deal of rapid legislative change in recent years, and many would welcome a period of regulatory stability to consolidate and refine their current practices.

On this basis, in our submission to the Senate, AHRI did not support granting the Fair Work Commission additional powers to review refusals of flexible working requests or to make binding determinations in relation to work-from-home entitlements. The existing framework already provides meaningful avenues for review.

However, we believe there is merit in considering the extension of the general right to request flexible working arrangements to all employees from 2027 under the current business grounds framework. This sentiment is backed by employers, with 48 per cent supporting the right to request flexible working to all employees and 30 per cent saying they would support it but want it to be introduced in two years’ time, according to AHRI’s 2025 Employment Regulation report.

Currently, the right to submit a request under the National Employment Standards is limited to specified groups. Extending this right universally would simplify the framework and send a clear signal that flexibility is a mainstream feature of modern employment, not an exception to the rule.

A universal right to request flexibility is broader than working from home. AHRI’s research shows almost all organisations offer some form of flexible working arrangement beyond hybrid work, and around two-thirds provide alternatives – such as job sharing or flexible start and finish times – to employees who cannot work remotely.

However, ABS data shows only around a third of Australian employees report having an agreement to work flexible hours, and this proportion has remained relatively flat. Extending the right to request could increase awareness and support greater take-up, particularly in sectors or roles where flexibility is possible but under-utilised.

There will be administrative costs associated with processing a higher volume of requests. However, international evidence, including analysis from the UK, indicates that such costs are likely to be modest and may be offset by benefits such as reduced absenteeism and improved retention.

A universal right to request flexibility is also likely to be easier for employees and candidates to understand than a series of highly specific entitlements.

The objective of these reforms should not be to mandate uniformity, but to enable constructive, good-faith dialogue at the workplace level. 

Our findings suggest Australia’s hybrid work landscape is largely working very well – 45 per cent of organisations report that hybrid working has had a positive effect on productivity. Therefore, reform should strengthen that foundation, not inadvertently undermine it. 

Productive and inclusive workplaces are those where managers and employees can agree on how work is best performed, including where and when it is undertaken, delivering the flexibility both employees and employers need and the productivity improvements the Australian economy so desperately needs.

Gain the tools to optimise job design amid rapid organisational change and evolving ways of working with this course from AHRI.