Working from home now a ‘permanent' feature across Australia
Extensive new data released by market research agency, Roy Morgan, has found a whopping 6.7 million people in Australia work from home at least some of the time.
This figure represents 46 per cent of employed Australians, with the number of people working remotely at least partially rising to 51 per cent for full-time employees.
Roy Morgan interviewed 41,449 employed Australians between July 2024 and June 2025 to uncover just how entrenched flexible working has become.
CEO Michele Levine said the new findings 'clearly show that 'work-from-home' arrangements have become a permanent and distinct feature of Australia's employment sector'.
Uptake is the strongest in capital cities and is more common in industries where the majority of work is desk based, such as finance, communication and public administration.
'Across Australia's largest cities, 60 per cent of people who work in the CBDs 'work from home' at least some of the time, with Sydney CBD leading at nearly 70 per cent of workers,' she said.
'Melbourne CBD and Canberra CBD follow closely with majorities of 65 per cent and 61 per cent respectively.'
Perth, Adelaide and Darwin are the only capital cities where the majority of workers do not WFH at least some of the time, with figures of those who never work remotely ranging from 51 per cent to 58 per cent.
The research also revealed a 'clear link' between higher incomes and the ability to work from home.
Of those earning under $25,000 a year, just 22 to 30 per cent have the ability to work remotely.
As salaries increase, so does the likelihood being able to WFH, increasing to 33-36 per cent in the $30,000 to $49,999 range, 38 per cent for those earning $50,000 to $59,999 and 42 per cent for those in the $60,000 to $69,999 bracket.
A 'notable shift' occurs once earnings exceed $90,000, with more than half (53 per cent) of people able to work from home.
This increases to 56 to 58 per cent between $100,000 and $149,999 and 61 per cent for $150,000 to $199,999.
'At the highest levels, 'work from home' peaks at 64 per cent for those earning $300,000 or more, with only 36% working entirely in-person,' the report states.
'This trend reflects the nature of different roles: lower-income jobs often require physical presence, while higher-income positions are more likely to involve desk-based, or technology-enabled work that can be performed remotely.
'Overall, the findings highlight income as a strong driver of flexible work access, with remote work heavily concentrated in higher salary brackets.'
Another key factor in determining rates of working from home is workplace size.
Solo workers and self-employed people lead the way with the highest WFH rate at 55 per cent, highlighting the flexibility that comes with working for yourself.
Very small workplaces, with two to four employees, also show a high rate of working from home, with 48 per cent.
However, these figures drops to 38 per cent for workplaces with between five and 24 employees, with the report noting this is likely a reflection of the more hands-on, client-facing or operational nature of the roles in these smaller businesses.
From here, as the workforce grows, so does the rate of flexible working arrangements, with workplaces with between 25 and 299 employees having WFH rates ranging from 42 per cent to 45 per cent.
Once workplaces reach 300 or more employees, this is when the WFH rate is at, or near, a majority of the workforce.
This figure is 49 per cent for workplaces with 300 to 499 employees, places with 500 to 999 staff have a rate of 51 per cent and organisations with 1000 or more employees are hit the 52 per cent mark.
'This pattern highlights a tipping point where larger organisations possess the resources and culture necessary to support 'working from home' on a broader scale,' the report states.
'The data also indicates that while the smallest workplaces (solo workers) enjoy the greatest individual flexibility, it is the largest workplaces that lead majority working from work adoption, demonstrating that workplace size drives working from home in fundamentally different ways.'
Ms Levine said gaining an 'in-depth understanding of the nuances surrounding current work from home trends' will be crucial for businesses, employees and policymakers moving forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
18 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?
The Age
18 minutes ago
- The Age
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?
ABC News
18 minutes ago
- ABC News
Off the productivity round table: What won't be discussed this week
Problem and productivity. It's a pairing that has become inseparable in recent times, given our productivity growth is the lowest in half a century. It'll also be a major point of discussion at the Economic Reform Roundtable that kicked off in Canberra this week. For a while, it appeared the entire forum would be devoted to the topic with our best and brightest assembled to nut out a way to address it. But solutions generally can only be found if we truly understand the root cause of the problem. And that's where things go horribly wrong when it comes to any discussion around labour productivity. A seemingly simple concept — the amount of product produced over a given period of time by the same amount of labour — understanding what drives it can be complex and prone to misinterpretation. And that's before you consider the difficulties in even measuring labour productivity, particularly in an economy such as ours where the vast bulk of workers, instead of churning out easily countable widgets, are providing services to other people. Professor Roy Green from the University of Technology points to Australian manufacturing's demise — which now accounts for just 6 per cent of our GDP — as a major contributor to our productivity conundrum. There is, he says, "an almost exact correlation between the decline of manufacturing, the decline of business expenditure on research and development and the decline of productivity growth, now at its lowest level in almost 60 years". And then there are factors that are totally off the agenda. For such a pointy headed topic, finding answers often involve traversing areas that are socially, culturally and politically explosive. In many cases, economists — fearing a community backlash — refuse to even mention some of the more obvious topics that have a legitimate bearing on productivity. That involves two other P-words: population and property. Many business leaders and most politicians confuse productivity with profitability. There's a common misconception that, if only we could keep wages in check, our labour productivity problems could fix themselves. True, there's a link between wages and how much we produce but, even then, it's not completely understood. If lower wages were the key to better productivity, company executives should have penalties imposed for underperformance rather than bonuses for turning up. Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock lamented last week's decision to downgrade its labour productivity forecasts for the nation, a move that sent headline writers into a frenzy. Rising productivity, she said, lifts living standards as it provides the scope for workers to earn higher wages without putting pressure on inflation. But there's a catch. Businesses need to invest in new technology to help workers lift productivity. And they'll only do that if wages are rising, so they can reduce costs and boost profit. So, what comes first? Do higher wages lead to better productivity? Or does better productivity lead to higher wages? Just between us, no-one really knows. Luckly for the RBA governor, she declared it well and truly outside her remit. "All the Reserve Bank can do is make sure we have low and stable inflation, and if we have full employment, both of those things are very stable environments for businesses to think about how they might improve productivity, how they might produce more for the same amount of labour and capital input," she said. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as an automated carwash. You either did it yourself or paid people to do it by hand. When the first auto washing machine opened in Australia in 1968, it sparked what should have been a trend to lay waste to the old style, expensive hand washing. Cheaper and quicker, with minimal labour input, it's a perfect example of a productivity improvement. But in the past 20 years, there's been a resurgence in car hand washing operations. You'll find them everywhere, in shopping centre car parks and on highway corners. Why? Perhaps hand washing delivers a superior finish. But the biggest factor may well be that hand washing comes at a competitive price because labour costs are no longer prohibitive. Regardless of the reason, it's a negative for our productivity numbers. Sydney University academic Salvatore Babones penned an interesting piece in the Australian Financial Review this week, sheeting home the blame for our tardy performance in labour productivity to our surging population growth. Most new arrivals, he points out, are not highly skilled, nor are they permanent. "Massive influxes of low-skilled workers are obvious drivers of trends in labour productivity," he wrote. "But they're not even mentioned in recent Reserve Bank of Australia and Productivity Commission reports." Only around half the 1 million students — who make up about 10 per cent of the workforce — in Australia attend a university. The rest are in courses primarily designed to deliver a working visa. The huge influx has artificially kept GDP numbers elevated. But it's been at the expense of productivity. In those proportions, they act as a cheap source of labour which, when combined with a rigid wage setting system, maintains a lid on wages growth, and dampens the incentive for businesses to invest. "If you flood the labour market with low-skilled immigrants, real wages (adjusted for inflation) will fall, and productivity will decline as labour is used less efficiently," he wrote. "It's that simple." As Babones points out, Australia may look down on other countries that exploit cheap, imported labour. But we do the same, under the guise of education visas. As they hunker down in working groups in the national capital this week, the dominant topic for conversation will be tax. There'll be furious debate about cutting the corporate tax rate and increasing the GST. But there is no guarantee either of those measures will lead to increased business investment or improve productivity. That's because businesses that earn bigger profits don't automatically invest the windfall gains. Most of the time they hand it back to shareholders, or at least a large slab of it. Our productivity may be among the worst in the developed world and our business investment woeful. But there is one area where Australians exceed on the investment front. Our obsession with real estate has resulted in a deluge of cash directed into housing. It's why our real estate is so horrifyingly expensive. According to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, as a nation we are in hock to the tune of $2.3 trillion on property mortgages. And that's expected to rise as interest rates ease. More than 2.26 million Australians own an investment property, largely because of favourable tax policies that deliberately direct investment into real estate. It may be a radical idea but altering some of those tax policies, such as negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, might have two beneficial impacts. It may lead to more affordable housing in the future. And it might result in resources being better allocated to more productive means. Just don't mention it in Canberra this week.
