Jacinta Allan work from home law: All your questions answered
Under the Australian-first legislation, Victorian workers who can reasonably do their job from home would have the right to do so at least two days a week.
However, fuming business figures and puzzled legal experts were quick to point out that the plan was not so clean cut.
More than a third of Australian workers – including 60 per cent of professionals – regularly work from home.
But will most of us actually be legally protected to work from home two days a week or is this just a political manoeuvre to win votes?
Under the proposal, who would be legally protected to work from home two days a week?
Workers in both the private and public sector who can reasonably work from home. If you can work from home now, you would likely have the right to work from home two days per week.
When would this actually come into place?
The Premier has pledged to introduce legislation to parliament next year, prior to the November state election. However, she has not given an exact time frame.
This sounds great! But is this actually work?
Legally, maybe not.
Victoria, like other states, handed its powers over private sector workplace regulation to the federal jurisdiction decades ago.
Under s109 of the Constitution, if a state law is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, the Commonwealth law prevails and the state law is invalid.
The Fair Work Act also overrides state laws that regulate conditions of employment.
State laws enshrining work-from-home two days a week could therefore face a series of legal challenges and even be considered unconstitutional in the event the laws attempt to legislate in territory ruled by the Commonwealth.
My EBA doesn't expire for years and doesn't include a clause outlining two days a week from home. Will I still be able to WFH two days a week?
Generally EBAs (Enterprise Bargaining Agreement) are under the Fair Work Act, which can override state laws.
If your EBA does not specifically outline that you are able to work from home two days per week, the right will not be automatically afforded to you.
What if my employer refuses?
We're going to need to wait on more detail to understand what the outcomes could be.
However, it could depend on a number of circumstances.
Private sector businesses are generally covered by the Fair Work Act, which overrides state employment laws. This will need to be tested in the High Court.
Jacinta Allan has flagged that the Equal Opportunity Act – which protects workers from discrimination and harassment – could be used to cover some workers.
What are legal experts saying?
Legal experts have raised serious concerns about whether this will actually pass court challenges.
University of Melbourne's John Howe, who specialises in labour relations, says there was a potential constitutional hurdle.
'There'll obviously be an implementation challenge for companies that are operating across states that have an inconsistent approach,' he said.
'There's the question of what Victoria does to enforce it … what apparatuses is Victoria going to use to try and monitor compliance?
'There'll be people who are opposed to it, employers who are opposed to it who bring the challenge.'
Professor Howe, however, says there could be circumstances where employers who dismiss or disregard the new legislation are taken to court on discrimination grounds.
'There might be an argument that if you were declining to provide the (option to) work from home that you might be discriminating against workers who have legitimate reasons,' he said.
'There certainly might be areas where you could claim not recognising the right would be discriminatory.'
Why has the government announced this?
It's popular!
Working from home part of the week is the norm post Covid and working families, particularly working mums, have structured their lives around the flexibility of three days in the office, two at home.
It also forces the opposition into a corner. Support it, well they're giving Labor a tick of approval while turning on their business voter base.
Oppose it and they risk losing the demographic they desperately need – women.
What has the Premier said?
Premier Jacinta Allan says the plan is all about working families, giving parents more time to be with their kids while also allowing them to save money by skipping the commute to the office.
'My Labor government will make working from home a right, not a request,' Ms Allan said.
'We will not stand by while workers, especially women, single mums, carers, get punished for needing balance in their lives.'
She, however, has also picked a fight with private sector bosses, accusing them of refusing to allow employees to work from home to maintain 'power'.
'This isn't about whether the work gets done, it gets done.
How have business leaders responded?
Australian Industry Group head Tim Piper called the plan 'pure political theatre designed to wedge the state opposition'.
'The proposal is a serious government overreach that undermines business autonomy and further jeopardises economic confidence in the state,' he said.
Australian Restaurant and Cafe Association chief executive Wes Lambert argued the proposal would only divide workplaces.
'This announcement today simply defies reality and only demonstrates the lack of understanding the current government has on how our economy works,' he said.
Victorian Chamber of Commerce chief executive Paul Guerra warned it could force more businesses to flee interstate.
'If Victoria moves away from the legislated national system, businesses will move interstate and jobs will be lost,' he said.
What has the Opposition said?
State Opposition Leader Brad Battin knows it's not popular to restrict work from home arrangements.
He, like all Australians, watched this play out on the national stage at the May election when his then federal counterpart, Peter Dutton, was forced to backflip on his policy to force public servants back into the office full time.
He knows he's been cornered and is therefore being cautious.
'We support measures that help Victorians enjoy a better work-life balance, and will review any legislation closely, to ensure it supports flexibility, productivity, and personal choice,' he said on Saturday.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Perth Now
42 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Clamps on AI could mire Australia in productivity mud
Australia is urged to hold off imposing guardrails on high-risk artificial intelligence as the technology could offer a solution to the nation's withered productivity. AI has been touted as a tool that could transform the global economy and is expected to add more than $116 billion to Australia's economic activity over the next decade, according to the Productivity Commission's interim report. While the independent advisory body to the federal government acknowledged the risks that accompany AI, it also warns "poorly designed" regulation could stifle its adoption and development as well as limit its benefits, fuelling calls for the government to only introduce technology-specific regulations as a last resort. "Adding economy-wide regulations that specifically target AI could see Australia fall behind the curve, limiting a potentially enormous growth opportunity," Commissioner Stephen King said. "Like any new technology, AI comes with risks, but we can address many of these risks by refining and amending the rules and frameworks we already have in place." The federal government's consultations on AI found Australia's regulatory system was not fit to respond to the risks it posed, prompting the Commonwealth to seek responses on 10 proposed, mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI, which are aimed at reducing the likelihood of harms from its development and deployment. AI can amplify biases, contribute to misinformation and disinformation, spread extremist content and create other new risks, the government's report found. Others have also raised concerns about the significant amount of water and energy needed to run generative AI. But the Productivity Commission believes the suggested guardrails should only be applied when harms cannot be mitigated by existing regulatory frameworks or in cases where "technology-neutral" regulation is not possible. Until the government has completed reviews into the gaps posed by AI to existing regulatory structures, "steps to mandate the guardrails should be paused". AI is expected to be a key concern at Treasurer Jim Chalmers' economic roundtable on productivity, which convenes later in August. "The impact of AI on our economy is uncertain, but there are good reasons to be optimistic," he said. "We can deploy artificial intelligence in a way consistent with our values if we treat it as an enabler not an enemy, by listening to and empowering workers to adapt and augment their work."

9 News
4 hours ago
- 9 News
Australia regulator says YouTube, others 'turning a blind eye' to child abuse material
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Australia 's internet watchdog has said the world's biggest social media firms are still "turning a blind eye" to online child sex abuse material on their platforms, and said YouTube in particular had been unresponsive to its enquiries. In a report released on Wednesday, the eSafety Commissioner said YouTube , along with Apple , failed to track the number of user reports it received of child sex abuse appearing on their platforms and also could not say how long it took them to respond to such reports. The Australian government decided last week to include YouTube in its world-first social media ban for teenagers, following eSafety's advice to overturn its planned exemption for the Alphabet-owned Google's GOOGL.O video-sharing site. Australia's internet watchdog has said the world's biggest social media firms are still "turning a blind eye" to online child sex abuse material on their platforms, with YouTube in particular, unresponsive to its enquiries (SOPA Images/LightRocket via Gett) "When left to their own devices, these companies aren't prioritising the protection of children and are seemingly turning a blind eye to crimes occurring on their services," eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said in a statement. "No other consumer-facing industry would be given the licence to operate by enabling such heinous crimes against children on their premises, or services." Google has said previously that abuse material has no place on its platforms and that it uses a range of industry-standard techniques to identify and remove such material. Meta - owner of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, three of the biggest platforms with more than 3 billion users worldwide - says it prohibits graphic videos. Google has said before that its anti-abuse measures include hash-matching technology and artificial intelligence. (Smith Collection/Getty) The eSafety Commissioner, an office set up to protect internet users, has mandated Apple, Discord, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Skype, Snap and WhatsApp to report on the measures they take to address child exploitation and abuse material in Australia. The report on their responses so far found a "range of safety deficiencies on their services which increases the risk that child sexual exploitation and abuse material and activity appear on the services". Safety gaps included failures to detect and prevent livestreaming of the material or block links to known child abuse material, as well as inadequate reporting mechanisms. It said platforms were also not using "hash-matching" technology on all parts of their services to identify images of child sexual abuse by checking them against a database. The Australian regulator said some providers had not made improvements to address these safety gaps on their services despite it putting them on notice in previous years. (Getty) Google has said before that its anti-abuse measures include hash-matching technology and artificial intelligence. The Australian regulator said some providers had not made improvements to address these safety gaps on their services despite it putting them on notice in previous years. "In the case of Apple services and Google's YouTube, they didn't even answer our questions about how many user reports they received about child sexual abuse on their services or details of how many trust and safety personnel Apple and Google have on-staff," Inman Grant said. national Australia social media youtube CONTACT US Property News: Rubbish-strewn house overtaken by mould asks $1.2 million.


7NEWS
4 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Kmart dragged into landmark legal case over alleged links to Uyghur forced labor in China
In an Australian legal first, Uyghur community leaders have launched Federal Court action demanding transparency from retail giant Kmart over its potential links to forced labour in China. The Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA) has filed a motion demanding Kmart hand over internal documents related to two of its clothing suppliers allegedly involved in forced Uyghur labour in the Xinjiang region. Both suppliers are listed in Kmart's 2024 and 2025 factory disclosures, AUTWA said. The legal action, led by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and supported by the Human Rights Law Centre, aims to test whether Kmart's ethical sourcing claims hold up under scrutiny. Speaking outside the court in Melbourne on Tuesday, AUTWA President Ramila Chanisheff said the case marks a historic milestone. 'We just filed a document into the Federal Court asking for records from Kmart about two supply chains that could be linked to Uyghur forced labor,' she told 'It is the first of its kind in Australia to bring a case against an Australian retailer, and it's not just a small retailer, it's actually a major. 'We want to make sure that the products that are made in China and sold in Kmart are not linked to forced labour.' Kmart publicly markets itself as an ethical business. 'We aim to provide great products at the lowest prices for our customers while respecting human rights,' the retailer states on its website. Kmart said it is continually working to improve its ethical sourcing standards and processes, and is collaborating with suppliers, NGOs, trade unions, and government representatives to help improve working conditions in the regions where it sources its products. The court action now centres around whether the company may have breached Australian Consumer Law by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct about the sourcing of its products. AUTWA is seeking access to documents that could demonstrate what Kmart knew — or should have known — about the origins of products made in factories with ties to Xinjiang, where widespread human rights abuses, including state-sponsored forced labour, have been well-documented. 'If it's found that Kmart's products are linked to forced labour, they must divest from those supply chains, not just in Xinjiang, but across China, where Uyghur people are often trafficked into mainland labour camps,' Chanisheff said. The goal is not only to hold Kmart accountable, but to put other industries on notice, she added. 'Australians deserve to make informed choices.' Retailers on notice Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis, who is leading the case, said the legal action aims to hold Kmart accountable for its ethical sourcing claims. She said the company must be transparent about its supply chain practices, especially given the known risks of forced labour in Xinjiang. 'Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights — but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang,' Kanis said. 'Documents will be sought from Kmart to determine whether it engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct about this issue.' She added the Federal Court will be asked to compel Kmart to provide evidence of what due diligence it has conducted on suppliers with links to the region. Associate legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre Freya Dinshaw said the case underscores significant weaknesses in Australia's approach to modern slavery. 'The alarm bells have been ringing for a long time in relation to the risk of forced labour in the Chinese garment sector, and Australian retailers have been on notice,' she said. 'This court case is about Kmart coming clean on whether it is really doing everything it claims to be doing to ensure that its products are slavery free.' Dinshaw argued it should not be up to the public to force companies into transparency through legal action and called for stronger laws that require businesses to investigate and prevent forced labour. She also noted that, unlike countries such as the US and Canada, Australia has not banned the importation of goods made with forced labour, allowing them to reach store shelves unchecked. What happens next? The Federal Court will consider AUTWA's request in the coming weeks. If successful, the outcome could pave the way for further legal action against Kmart or other major retailers. 'Kmart, and all companies, must ensure they are not profiting from forced labour in China.,' Chanisheff said. The case is expected to fuel growing public pressure on retailers to lift the veil on their offshore operations.