Working from Home in Victoria: Commencement Delayed to July 2027
Kenneth Hong, Tin-Lok Shea · 19 August 2026
On 28 July 2026, Ben Carroll was sworn in as the 50th Premier of Victoria, following the resignation of Jacinta Allan, who had championed the work from home policy. Within days, and after meeting business groups, the new Premier confirmed that the Government would consider "sensible changes" to the Bill as it moves through Parliament. A Victorian State election follows on 28 November 2026.
On 11 August 2026, Premier Carroll confirmed that the commencement of the EO Bill will be delayed from 1 September 2026 to 1 July 2027 for all employers, following sustained pressure from Victorian business groups. Parliamentary debate on the Bill, which passed the Legislative Assembly on 30 July 2026 and was due for debate in the Legislative Council, has been paused to allow further consultation and potential amendments. The Premier has indicated that the Bill will still be passed before the Victorian State election on 28 November 2026. This is a welcome development for employers. The delay gives businesses significantly more time to prepare, and the prospect of amendments means the final legislation may be more workable than the Bill as introduced. This article sets out the current position, what the Bill requires, what may change, and what employers should be doing now.
What is being introduced?
The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 (Vic) (EO Bill) has been introduced to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act) by giving full-time employees a statutory right to work from home up to two days a week, with a pro-rata entitlement for part-time employees and casual employees engaged on a regular and systematic basis (with the method of calculation to be set out in the regulations).
When will the new right commence?
The commencement dates under the EO Bill, as now amended by the Government, are:
- 1 July 2027 (for all employers with 15 or more employees).
- 1 July 2027 (unchanged) (for businesses with fewer than 15 employees, as originally proposed).
The EO Bill differs from the flexible working arrangement provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Under the FW Act, an eligible employee may request a flexible working arrangement, which the employer may refuse on reasonable business grounds. Under the EO Bill, the employee instead notifies the employer of their intention to exercise the right, and the employer must allow it unless it is not reasonable to do so.
Which employees are eligible?
Employees who work at least 38 hours per week (i.e. full-time employees) will have the right to work from home 2 days a week, provided it is reasonable to do so. Part-time employees, and casual employees engaged on a regular and systematic basis, will have a pro-rata entitlement.
However, the following employees will not be eligible to work from home:
- an employee on probation;
- an employee undertaking an apprenticeship, traineeship, internship, graduate program, work experience program or similar program;
- a casual employee not employed on a regular and systematic basis;
- an employee who is entitled to request a flexible working arrangement under section 65 of the FW Act in the relevant circumstances (who must instead follow the process under the FW Act);
- an employee who is a 'regulated worker' or 'regulated business' under the FW Act;
- an employee who is a party to a services contract under the FW Act; or
- a prescribed employee under the EO Act.
What about businesses or employees outside of Victoria?
Currently, the EO Bill and the right to work from home apply to employees in Victoria only.
The EO Act generally governs conduct and employment occurring in Victoria, therefore the entitlement will likely be based on the physical location of the employee, and not where the business is officially based. However, neither the EO Bill nor its Explanatory Memorandum establishes a clear geographic boundary, leaving it unclear if "home" could encompass interstate or international locations.
While the EO Bill applies to Victoria only, it may mark the beginning of a broader shift, with other states and territories potentially legislating a similar right.
What is the process?
Employees
An eligible employee must submit a work from home notice (WFH Notice) to their employer. The WFH Notice must:
- be in writing;
- specify the days and any specific times the employee intends to work from home; and
- identify the place they intend to work from, if it is somewhere other than their home.
However, an eligible employee is not required to include specific days or times in their WFH Notice if it is not practicable for them to do so.
Employers
Upon receiving a WFH Notice from an eligible employee, the employer must:
- issue a written response within 21 days of receiving the WFH Notice;
- state whether the employer considers the requested work from home arrangement to be reasonable or unreasonable; and
- if the request is considered unreasonable, state the reasons why it is not reasonable for the employee to work from home and either:
- allow a WFH arrangement for an equivalent or lesser period, specifying the days and times the employee may work from home; or
- clearly state that they will not allow the employee to work from home.
When can an employer refuse?
Employers must allow eligible employees to work from home unless it is not reasonable to allow the employee to work from home as it would:
- cause the employee to be unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of their role because their role requires in-person attendance, equipment that is only available on site, or interaction with members of the public, clients or customers;
- be likely to cause a significant decrease in productivity or efficiency for the employer;
- have an adverse impact on a person's safety;
- have a significant adverse impact on supervision, training or professional development of the employer's employees;
- have a significant adverse impact on the capacity to build relationships between the employee and stakeholders, clients or customers;
- have a significant adverse impact on customer service outcomes or on confidentiality or data protection;
- impose excessive financial costs on the employer;
- require changes to the working arrangements of an employee or other employees that are impractical; or
- require the employer to recruit additional employees, which is impractical.
Who bears the costs?
The EO Bill imposes a positive obligation on employers to pay all necessary and reasonable expenses to enable eligible employees to work from home. This includes essential equipment such as computer hardware and software, and secure access to the business's information systems.
Dispute resolution
Disputes between employees and employers in relation to this working from home right may be brought to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission who will conciliate the dispute.
Should conciliation fail, the matter may then proceed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which may order that the employer permit the employee to work from home, if reasonable.
Further, a failure to comply with notification obligations can constitute a contravention of the EO Act (once amended), which may also empower VCAT to order the employer to comply with the provision or allow the employee to work from home for a specified period.
What has changed and what may still change
The delay confirms that the Government is open to amendment. Premier Carroll has spoken directly with the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group about the changes. Victoria's peak employer bodies have proposed a package of amendments, and the Opposition has also put forward its own. The matters most likely to be debated include:
- a hard cap of two days per week, so that the new right cannot be "stacked" on top of entitlements under existing awards, enterprise agreements or workplace arrangements;
- the scope of employer cost obligations, which remain one of the most contentious elements of the Bill;
- broader grounds for refusal, and an express ability to review, pause or revoke an arrangement where performance, business or seasonal circumstances change;
- a clearer definition of the employer costs that must be met, and clearer allocation of liability for injuries sustained while working from home; and
- clearer treatment of occupational health and safety obligations for the home workplace, and of employees whose primary place of work is outside Victoria.
The delay to 1 July 2027 gives employers significantly more breathing room. The Government has indicated that the Bill will still be passed before the 28 November 2026 election, but the later commencement date means there will be a meaningful period between Royal Assent and the start of obligations. Employers should use this time to prepare but draft their policy and contractual changes so that they can be adjusted once the final form of the legislation is known.
Practical takeaways for employers
We recommend the following:
- Update your position descriptions: If a role requires on-site attendance, customer-facing obligations, supervision needs, safety requirements and so on, these should be stated clearly in the position description and in your job advertisements. This creates a documented record before any request is ever made.
- Check your employment contracts: Contracts should specify the place of work clearly. If your contracts refer to hybrid or flexible arrangements, you may have already locked in more than you intended. Amend any employment contract templates to avoid this moving forward.
- Amend your WFH policy: Your WFH policy should now set out how notices are submitted, how they are assessed, the criteria used to determine reasonableness, and the process if the notice is declined. It needs to be defensible, not just a document that lives in a drawer.
- Train your managers: The biggest exposure in these situations is managers who handle requests inconsistently or without documentation. Training managers on the mandatory processes and requirements is essential.
- Document everything: The burden is on the employer to justify a refusal of a work from home notice. That means your records need to exist before a dispute arises, not be constructed after one.
- Update IT, Cybersecurity and OHS: Confidential business information must remain secure when accessed remotely. Review your systems for secure remote access and data protection and address your occupational health and safety obligations in respect of the home workplace.
Assistance with preparation
H&H Lawyers has assisted many multinational corporations and their Australian subsidiaries and foreign branches with employment compliance, including reviewing employment contracts, preparing workplace policies and training managers.
For assistance with working from home obligations, please contact us.
Key Contacts

Kenneth Hong
Managing Partner

Tin-Lok Shea
Partner
Related Insights
View MoreCommercial & Corporate,Corporate Governance,Corporate Advisory, M&A,Competition & Consumer Laws,Franchising
07 August 2026
Future-Proofing Australia’s Automotive Laws: Dr Jenny Buchan’s Review of the Australian Consumer Law and Franchising Code
UNSW Emeritus Professor Dr Jenny Buchan, Senior Advisor at H & H Lawyers, has completed a comprehensive review of the operation of the Australian Consumer Law and the Franchising Code of Conduct in Australia's new car market commissioned by the Australian Automotive Dealer Association. The Root and Branch Review of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and the Franchising Code of Conduct (Code) as they apply to Buyers of New Cars (Consumers), Manufacturers (Franchisor/OEMs) and New Car Dealers (Franchisees), examines how Australia's consumer protection and franchising laws operate across the relationships between consumers, car manufacturers and franchised dealers. Commissioned by the Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA), the Issues Paper constitutes Stage 1 of a broader project examining the legal and practical challenges experienced in the new car sector.
Workplace & Employment Litigation,Employment Contracts, Policies & Procedures, and Award Interpretations,Employment Disputes
29 May 2026
Modern Slavery Reporting Requirements For Australian Subsidiaries and Foreign Entities in Australia
As we approach mid-year, many Australian subsidiaries of multinational corporations and foreign entities registered in Australia should be preparing their modern slavery statements. This article examines the reporting obligations under Australian laws, including the critical issue of revenue consolidation that often catches foreign-owned entities by surprise. The Reporting Obligation Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (the “Act”) requires entities to submit annual modern slavery statements if they meet the revenue threshold.
Employment Contracts, Policies & Procedures, and Award Interpretations
09 January 2023
Key changes to Australian employment law
On 6 December 2022, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs Better Pay) Act 2022 received Royal Assent, amending the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The key amendments to the Fair Work Act are as follows: 1. Casual Conversion – currently in effect 2.
Workplace & Employment Litigation,Employment Contracts, Policies & Procedures, and Award Interpretations,Employment Disputes
04 April 2022
High Court Clarifies Definition of Casual Employee
As one of the most significant decisions by the High Court in 2021, the High Court has determined the meaning of a casual employee in Workpac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2021] HCA 23. Mr Rossato was employed as a production worker by Workpac’s labour-hire company under a series of six contracts, or assignments, to perform work for one of Workpac’s clients. While Mr Rossato was required to work regular and full-time hours according to a fixed pattern of work, Workpac treated Mr Rossato as a casual employee, such that Mr Rossato was not paid the leave or public holiday entitlements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) and the enterprise agreement. The Court confirmed that the question of whether a person is a casual employee is to be determined by considering the express terms of a written employment contract, and not on the basis of any subsequent conduct of either party. To this extent, the court held any such commitment to further work must be contained in an enforceable agreement to be recognised. The High Court held that a casual employee is an employee who has no “firm advance commitment as to the duration of the employee’s employment or the days (or hours) the employee will work” and provides no reciprocal commitment to the employer.
Employment Contracts, Policies & Procedures, and Award Interpretations
30 March 2021
Modern Slavery Reporting Requirements
In Australia, the Modern Slavery Act 2018 commenced operation on 1 January 2019, creating reporting obligations for certain entities. The term modern slavery is used to describe situations where coercion, threats or deception are used to exploit victims and undermine or deprive them of their freedom. It describes serious exploitation and not substandard working conditions or the underpayment of workers.
Employment Contracts, Policies & Procedures, and Award Interpretations
24 June 2020
Casual vs Permanent
On 20 May 2020, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato. The case centres around labour hire firm WorkPac, which employed Robert Rossato as a mine worker at two Queensland mines owned by Glencore. Mr Rossato was a casual employee, on rolling contracts, over a three-and-a-half-year period.