SA Greens push for mandatory work-from-home day amid fierce opposition
MLC Robert Simms announced on Thursday the South Australian Greens were drafting a Bill to guarantee public sector staff could work from home (WFH) one day a week if it was 'reasonable', saying it would 'set a benchmark for the private sector'.
His call comes after Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan announced plans to legislate WFH protections for workers who could 'reasonably' carry out their duties from home.
Ms Allan said the reform, which would make Victoria the first state to enshrine WFH legislation, was about recognising modern work patterns and protecting employees from having flexible arrangements arbitrarily revoked.
'It's working now, but we know that we need to protect it,' Ms Allan said on Today.
'We need to protect it for workers but also make it really clear for employers as well who are already doing this that working from home should be a right, not a request.'
In SA, however, the move has been greeted largely with disapproval.
Earlier this week, SA Premier Peter Malinauskas told ABC Radio that he would not support the proposed legislation.
'To mandate things, I think, runs the risk of having unintended consequences,' he said.
'And occasionally I think employers should have the ability to say, 'Look, we're paying you to do a particular task and this is where I need you to perform those tasks'.'
Mr Simms claimed more staff working from home would negate travel time, cut traffic congestion and boost productivity, along with saving workers and families vital dollars.
However, the SA Business Chamber has rejected the plan, saying legislation could drive a wedge between workers and hamper investment.
Chamber chief executive Andrew Kay claimed current arrangements were working 'perfectly well where employers and employees negotiated WFH arrangements'.
'Enshrining WFH rights has the potential to drive a wedge in the workplace between the haves and the have nots,' he said.
Legal experts revealed the Labor-Allan government's push to legislate WFH rights in the private sector were logistically almost impossible.
Stacks Law Firm special counsel Geoff Baldwin said a large number of workers in Victoria were already eligible to request flexible working arrangements, and any new legislation would be at risk of being 'struck down', as it would presumably be inconsistent with existing Commonwealth laws.
'It's hard to see what (the) Victorian (government) might do which would have any appreciable impact on the Victorian workforce as a whole,' he said.
A SA government spokesperson added that 'the state government opposes any Peter Dutton-style attempts to ban working from home'.
'Working from home arrangements where practical are important in a modern workplace,' they said.
'These arrangements tend to work best where it is mutually agreed between employees and employers, which is why mandating such a practice through legislation is not being contemplated by the state government.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
14 minutes ago
- ABC News
Australian coffee in demand as global supply tightens
The spike in price of coffee around the world means consumers are likely to pay more for their morning flat white, but it could prove a boom time for Australian growers. For the first time, the usually more expensive Queensland-grown beans are suddenly competitive on price as worldwide supply remains tight. Crops from the world's largest coffee producer Brazil, have been hit by drought, reducing supply and driving up costs for roasters and consumers. Brazil's coffee exports have already dropped 28 per cent in a year, according to analysis by Rabobank with projections showing it's likely to drop further. For Cairns coffee roaster Oliver James, imported green coffee beans that were about $6 per kilogram five years ago now cost more than $20. One of Australia's main coffee-growing regions is located inland of the north Queensland coast in the Atherton Tablelands and Mareeba, and has traditionally sold at a premium. But with international prices soaring, roasters can buy North Queensland beans for less than $10 extra per kilogram. Mr James said it meant he could finally source green coffee beans from nearby farms. "The international options have increased so much that Australian coffee has become comparatively affordable and value for money, which is a big shift in the options for buying beans," he said. Candy MacLaughlin grows coffee near Mareeba and also has an onsite cafe. She said the shift in the market was giving farmers like herself the opportunity to work with Queensland roasters like Mr James. And Ms MacLaughlin said he was not the only one giving her coffee more attention. "There's less coffee being produced in the world and so typical supply and demand kind of forces are putting pressure on that, and it's making Australian coffee more affordable," she said. "I've also seen that coffee [in] the supermarkets is becoming more in line with what I charge for coffee. Mr James blends beans from different places to create his roasts, but said he was now using more Australian beans. "I can justify spending that little bit extra, that premium, which is only a tiny percentage, to buy more Australian coffee," he said. Mr James said there were about eight roasters in Cairns, and the ability for growers, roasters and sellers to help each other was exciting. "There's a beautiful position in Cairns for us roasters to really support our farmers, and our farmers to support our roasters," he said. Ms MacLaughlin said it was hard for growers to keep up. "When I look at some of the graphs and data out there, the world demand for coffee is continuing to increase, but not at the same rate at which coffee is being grown, so there's an ever-increasing gap," she said. "Unless we fix that from growing more, then there's always going to be a greater demand for coffee than there is [available]."
ABC News
14 minutes ago
- ABC News
Australian authors challenge Productivity Commission's proposed copyright law exemption for AI
Australian authors are furious over a recent Productivity Commission (PC) interim report that says AI could deliver a $116 billion boost to Australia's economy over the next 10 years. The centrepiece of the report was a proposal to implement a text and data mining (TDM) exception to the Copyright Act, which would permit tech companies to use copyrighted work to train AI. In July, former Atlassian CEO Scott Farquhar made a similar suggestion in his address to the National Press Club, arguing that a TDM exception could "unlock billions of dollars of investment in Australia". However, the PC report, Harnessing data and digital technology, has attracted strong criticism from the writing industry. Lucy Hayward, CEO of the Australian Society of Authors (ASA), said the proposal gave "a free pass" to multinational tech companies, such as Google, Meta and OpenAI, to continue using unauthorised copyrighted material to train their AI models. "Why should we create a situation where billion-dollar tech companies can profit off authors' work, but not the creators who made the work? It's an entirely absurd proposition," Hayward told ABC Arts. While the government has yet to deliver a formal response to the interim report, Arts Minister Tony Burke stated that the unauthorised use of copyrighted material for commercial purposes constituted theft. "We have copyright laws," the minister said in a speech at the 2025 BookUp conference In Sydney. Tech companies have already used unauthorised copyrighted material to train AI platforms. In March, The Atlantic published a tool that made it possible to search the LibGen database, an online trove of pirated books and academic papers that Meta used to train its generative AI language model. It followed similar revelations in 2023 that a database of pirated material known as Books3 had been used to train Meta's AI model Llama, Bloomberg's BloombergGPT and EleutherAI's GPT-J. The work of countless Australian authors appeared in the pirated databases, including Charlotte Wood, Tim Winton, Helen Garner and Richard Flanagan. A TDM exception would allow this type of use of copyrighted material without compensating the author or seeking their consent. Commissioner Stephen King, one of the report's authors, told ABC RN Breakfast that "not everyone will be a winner". "There will be people who will lose their jobs because of this technology and those people need to be looked after." Danielle Clode, the author of non-fiction titles including Koala (2022) and Killers in Eden (2011), fears writers are among those set to lose the most under the proposal. She said the report demonstrated the Productivity Commission's lack of understanding about how the arts sector operated. "The economic framework they're working with is completely unsuitable for creative industries," she said. Copyright fees are a valuable source of income for authors, who are among the lowest-paid arts workers in Australia, earning just $18,200 on average each year. "In Australia, we have a very fair and well-regulated copyright system which gives clarity to everybody who uses it," said Clode, who is also a board member of the ASA and the Copyright Agency. Wenona Byrne, the inaugural director of Writing Australia, said any watering down of copyright laws was a concern for the sector. "We think the copyright law is fit for purpose. It has sustained the industry since 1968 and has accommodated a lot of technological change in that time," she said. "We already know that writers earn very little from their creative work … We believe it's fair for writers who have spent the time creating these works, and in some cases, that's decades, to earn an income from their use." Byrne believes there will always be a readership for Australian stories, but acknowledges writing is not a sustainable career for many authors who hold down multiple jobs to pay the bills. A TDM exception would reduce authors' ability to earn income from their work and expose them to further economic precarity, she warned. "It would also disincentivise them to create the work in the first place," she said. "We need a rich culture; we need our contemporary Australian society to be reflected in a variety of works for the page and the stage. Anything that comes to disincentivise that creation is a problem for society as a whole." Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT pose another, more existential, threat to authors. "If it's the case that you're able to train these large language models on Australian content, does it mean that it's possible to produce content drawing on all of that material that then replaces work by Australian authors and then they're no longer able to produce work that earns them money?" asked Alice Grundy, a visiting fellow at ANU and the managing editor at Australia Institute Press. Grundy believes the forecast $116 billion over 10 years is not worth the harm the proposal would cause the arts industry. "That's not that much money across the whole economy," she said. She also queries the benefit of a policy that delivers benefits offshore to multinational companies over Australian artists and authors. "At what point do you say productivity is not worth as much to us as maintaining our culture, as continuing to foster our writers, our artists, our other creators?" Grundy said. "At what point do … we say that work is less important to us than some extra dollars in the economy?" Kate Kruimink, whose novel Heartsease won the 2025 Tasmanian Literary Awards Premier's Prize for Fiction, found two of her three books in the LibGen database. She said the unauthorised use of her work had not hurt her economically — yet. She suspects that will change. "The end result … is going to be that there will be a glut of AI-generated creative works on the market. "There are always going to be people who care about the human connection and who don't want the AI-created work, especially if it's being created and trained unethically. But at the same time, I think it's going to be so much harder to survive as a creative worker." Kruimink also questions the Productivity Commission's understanding of the concept of productivity. "It's not about the productivity of creative workers," she said. Geelong writer Rhett Davis, who recently published his second novel, Arborescence, said he would be reluctant to allow his work to be used to train AI when the outcome was a tool that could simulate his writing. "It seems like a strange kind of deal for me, regardless of how much they pay." He believes compensation for authors should be a basic requirement for the use of their work. "It shouldn't just be taken for free," he said. "If you're going to use something, there needs to be an agreement to pay for it. It's a pretty basic copyright principle. That is how we continue to make a living as artists." He is not alone in his view. According to a 2025 study by Macquarie University, 79 per cent of authors would refuse permission for their work to be used to train AI. Kruimink is another author who, given the choice, would "opt out" from allowing her work to train generative AI, a technology she considers "unethical". She believes generative AI undermines the meaning of creative work. "What is creative work for? It's a deeply human endeavour, and to me it's based on the principle of human exchange. The meaning of the work — my writing, for example — is not only in its consumption, it's also in its creation. If you try to cut that exchange in half, I think you remove the soul of what it is." ASA CEO Lucy Hayward pushed back against claims that copyright was a barrier to investment and innovation. "That's absolutely not the case. We know that tech and AI are booming in Australia," she said. "We're in the top five global destinations for data centres; we're a world leader in quantum computing, Amazon has just invested $20 billion in data centre infrastructure in Australia, so it's not the case that Australian copyright law, which is robust and protects creators, is hindering any kind of innovation and investment." Hayward believes the PC report overlooks the economic opportunities licensing arrangements could offer. "Instead of considering ways to legitimise this theft, why aren't we exploring ways to protect [authors'] rights and ensure that generative AI brings an opportunity to Australian creators and is not simply extracting the value of their content?" Local creatives — who contribute to the $60 billion arts industry — should not be cut out of the picture, she argues. "How can we ensure that Australian authors and illustrators who are producing Australian content for Australian audiences can enjoy the financial benefits of the AI boom when their work is vital to the development of this technology? "Do we really want to give away their intellectual property to multinational tech giants for free so they can continue to enrich themselves and continue extracting value from the Australian economy? "Or do we want to find a sensible kind of middle ground where we have generative AI tools — they're not going away; there's going to be adoption of AI tools in the workplace — but authors can be reasonably compensated for their vital contribution to the development of the tools?" Kimberlee Weatherall, a law professor at the University of Sydney and co-director of the Centre for AI, Trust and Governance, told RN Breakfast that AI developers in Australia were constrained by an uncertain regulatory environment. "If you want to do it legitimately and responsibly, there are very real challenges trying to identify who to license from," she said. "It may be simply impossible to identify all the copyright owners and get licences from them all; there's no central system for doing so, and if you want to develop AI here in Australia, even if you want to do it purely for research purposes, it's not entirely clear you could do that legitimately under copyright law." It was a situation in which "everyone loses", she said. "In an ideal world, we would try to do something very different; we would try to find a way to compromise between these different interests so that you could have local AI development responsibly with some kind of way to recognise the interests of creators." The ASA is calling for the government to reject the PC's proposal and instead implement a licensing system to compensate copyright holders for the use of their work. The organisation also wants to see the introduction of new legislation to regulate the use of AI. Writing Australia's Wenona Byrne said authors should be included in any consultation about AI regulation. "We'd like to see the tech companies working with Australian creatives — that's fundamental," she said. "We know that the work of Australian writers is of very high value and using it without their consent or remuneration is akin to theft of their copyright material. "We want to look at different ways that generative AI can compensate original creators for their work, whether that's through licensing models or royalty schemes that would see the fair and equitable treatment of the creators." The issue of AI — including the proposed TDM exemption — will be on the agenda at the first Writing Australia council meeting, scheduled for late August. "The writing industry is a $2 billion industry in Australia; it's one that we are rightly proud of, and anything that would diminish the potential for that industry to thrive is something [we] would be very concerned about."
ABC News
44 minutes ago
- ABC News
Former Liberal MP Andrew Laming wins a High Court appeal over fines for three Facebook posts
Former Queensland Liberal MP Andrew Laming has won his High Court appeal against a $40,000 fine over three Facebook posts. He was accused of not properly identifying himself as a political candidate upon posting in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election. Andrew Laming was the LNP member for Bowman when he made the Facebook posts on a page he administered titled "Redland Hospital: Let's fight for fair funding". The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) went after Mr Laming for failing to provide the correct authorisation required of political candidates in political communication. Under Australian electoral laws, MPs are required to give details, including their name and location, on any material that is aimed at influencing votes. Mr Laming admitted the posts lacked the required authorisation, but contested whether some of them fell into the category of political communication. The original Federal Court judgment found some of the posts were clearly written by Mr Laming, having been signed by him, including a letter to a journalist, but others did not identify him as the writer or publisher. The judgment noted it was evident from the post "that Mr Laming was pretending it was posted by someone else", even referring to himself in the third person. In the end, the case was narrowed down to three posts and Mr Laming was fined $20,000. But the AEC appealed and the fine was doubled to $40,000. That was to reflect the fact that the posts had been viewed 28 times. Mr Laming took it to the High Court, describing the reasoning as counterintuitive, saying he only made the omission once on each post. The AEC said the purpose of the law was to deter breaches and protect the rights of voters to make an informed choice. The commission told the High Court that on Mr Laming's reasoning, any anonymous political publication would only result in a single contravention, no matter how harmful or wide-reaching it may be. But today the High Court ruled a line in the sand, saying there was a contravention each time the posts were published, not each time they were viewed. Mr Laming quit politics before the 2022 election after a series of unrelated controversies.
