Victoria’s historic work from home laws have unexpectedly stalled. Will they survive?

Why have the laws stalled?

On Thursday morning, the Victorian premier, Ben Carroll announced several amendments to the bill, which the Coalition shadow attorney general, James Newbury, said the opposition would support

But the Coalition joined forces with a group of crossbenchers to support a motion, put forward by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP Jeff Bourman, to refer the laws to a parliamentary committee for examination

The motion was carried 18 votes to 17, with the support of two Legalise Cannabis MPs, Libertarian David Limbrick, Moira Deeming, who announced she had joined the Family First party on Thursday, One Nation’s Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell and Adem Somyurek – an ex Labor MP who made his first appearance at parliament this year to vote for the inquiry

The committee will report back by 20 October but with parliament’s final sitting day before the November state election being 24 September, the motion effectively means the bill will not go to a vote before Victorians do

Newbury said he supported the legislation going to a review because the business community “hasn’t had enough time to fully think through” the amendments put forward by Carroll

What was the reaction?

Carroll was furious. He accused the Liberals of “pretending to support” the work from home laws only to “team up with One Nation” to vote them down. He said the opposition leader, Jess Wilson, had shown her “true colours” and was “just like Peter Dutton”

The Greens, though, blamed the government. They the bill should have been debated weeks ago but instead the government “delayed” and “hollowed out” the laws “to appease bosses and corporations”

“We’re calling for parliament to be recalled so we can get this done before the election,” Greens MP Aiv Puglielli said

The Animal Justice party MP Georgie Purcell, who abstained from the vote, also said it was the government’s fault, as it provided MPs with amendments the night before the vote, which she said was not enough time to consider them

Carroll said he would not recall parliament. His language suggests he is gearing up for work from home to be an election issue

Business groups, though, will be thrilled. The Property Council’s Cath Evans said “parliament has seen sense” and “made the right call” to refer it to a committee

On Tuesday, Evans had announced the Property Council had obtained legal advice from constitutional law specialists, Nick Wood SC and Leigh Howard, which found the bill was inconsistent with the federal Fair Work Act and would be rendered invalid under section 109 of the constitution. This section states that when a state law is inconsistent with a federal law, it becomes invalid

That same day, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and others had urged the government to abandon the bill and said the no changes could fix “a fundamentally flawed law that will risk Victoria’s economy and send jobs interstate”

How does the bill work?

The bill establishes a statutory right for employees to work from home for up to two days weekly, provided it is “reasonably” feasible, under the Equal Opportunity Act

This right applies to all Victorian employees, including on a pro-rata basis for part-timers and casuals, and all businesses, regardless of size

Initially, Allan proposed the bill take effect on 1 September, with a delayed start for small businesses on 1 July 2027

But when Carroll took over the Labor leadership in July, one of his first moves as premier was to pause debate in the upper house to allow for consultation with business leaders – and said it wouldn’t commence until 1 July 2027

How has the bill changed?

Carroll earlier on Thursday said the amendments to the bill “strike the right balance” between providing flexibility for workers and reducing impact on businesses. They include:

• A further delay for small businesses to 1 January 2028

• Limiting the costs an employer must pay to staff to enable them to work from home to “essential equipment”

• Giving employers the ability to revoke the right to work from home for worker if “circumstances change and they’re no longer eligible, or it’s no longer reasonable for them to keep working from home”

• Changing its scope so that employers can refuse a request if it would have a “material impact” on efficiency and productivity – rather than a “significant adverse impact”

• Ensuring the legislated right to work from home will not stack on existing agreements between workplaces and employees