
'Lawyers' picnic' looms over right to work from home
The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation in 2026 to create a right for employees to work from home two days a week.
The laws are yet to be drafted but the right is slated to apply to all Victorian public and private sector workers who can reasonably do their job from home.
Carve-outs in the Fair Work Act allowed for protections under state anti-discrimination laws, employment lawyer Daniel Victory said.
But how wide the state Labor government cast the net could open the proposed laws to legal challenge, particularly from the private sector.
"The broader they make the right the greater the possibility of a challenge," Mr Victory told AAP.
Employers trying to "squeeze" staff to return to the workplace after the COVID-19 pandemic was a major "bone of contention", Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer of employment and industrial law in Melbourne said.
He described working from home as a "fact of life" and said enshrining it as a right would help make it a "cultural norm" for businesses to reflect.
Industrial relations laws are set by the federal government and regulated by the Fair Work Commission.
Section 109 of the constitution dictates that if a state law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails.
Joellen Riley Munton, an expert in labour law at the University of Technology Sydney, noted the commission assessed working-from-home clauses in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements.
"It would be a very easy thing for someone who objects to the state law to just say 'I only have to abide by the federal laws'," Professor Munton told AAP.
"That will be the obstacle for the effectiveness of any Victorian law."
Former Fair Work Commission vice president Graeme Watson agreed the proposed right, if as general as initially described, was headed for a clash with federal laws.
If Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act was chosen as the vehicle to legislate the right, he said the laws would have to establish what discrimination they were guarding against.
"Then you're proceeding into a bit of maze," the King & Wood Mallesons strategic counsel told AAP.
"It's either going to be clearly invalid or likely unworkable, but probably both."
Mr Watson said arbitration existed for disputes over flexible work arrangements and argued a need to change that remedy had not been demonstrated.
He compared the proposal to Victoria's wage theft laws, which were subject to High Court challenge before their repeal after the Albanese government instituted federal legislation.
"This is a lawyers' picnic," Mr Watson said.
"Why are you creating all this work for lawyers?"
She defended her claim Liberals across the country were "drawing up plans to abolish work-from-home and force workers back to the office".
Opposition Leader Brad Battin denied it was a touchy subject internally after Peter Dutton backflipped on ending working from home for public servants during the Liberals' disastrous 2025 federal election campaign.
The state Liberal leader is waiting to see the detailed legislation before the party decides its stance.
Senior federal minister Tanya Plibersek said the Albanese government wasn't going to give its Labor colleagues' plan a "tick or a cross" when asked if it would step in to overrule the state.
An Australian-first plan to legislate the right to work from home could become a "lawyers' picnic", experts warn.
The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation in 2026 to create a right for employees to work from home two days a week.
The laws are yet to be drafted but the right is slated to apply to all Victorian public and private sector workers who can reasonably do their job from home.
Carve-outs in the Fair Work Act allowed for protections under state anti-discrimination laws, employment lawyer Daniel Victory said.
But how wide the state Labor government cast the net could open the proposed laws to legal challenge, particularly from the private sector.
"The broader they make the right the greater the possibility of a challenge," Mr Victory told AAP.
Employers trying to "squeeze" staff to return to the workplace after the COVID-19 pandemic was a major "bone of contention", Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer of employment and industrial law in Melbourne said.
He described working from home as a "fact of life" and said enshrining it as a right would help make it a "cultural norm" for businesses to reflect.
Industrial relations laws are set by the federal government and regulated by the Fair Work Commission.
Section 109 of the constitution dictates that if a state law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails.
Joellen Riley Munton, an expert in labour law at the University of Technology Sydney, noted the commission assessed working-from-home clauses in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements.
"It would be a very easy thing for someone who objects to the state law to just say 'I only have to abide by the federal laws'," Professor Munton told AAP.
"That will be the obstacle for the effectiveness of any Victorian law."
Former Fair Work Commission vice president Graeme Watson agreed the proposed right, if as general as initially described, was headed for a clash with federal laws.
If Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act was chosen as the vehicle to legislate the right, he said the laws would have to establish what discrimination they were guarding against.
"Then you're proceeding into a bit of maze," the King & Wood Mallesons strategic counsel told AAP.
"It's either going to be clearly invalid or likely unworkable, but probably both."
Mr Watson said arbitration existed for disputes over flexible work arrangements and argued a need to change that remedy had not been demonstrated.
He compared the proposal to Victoria's wage theft laws, which were subject to High Court challenge before their repeal after the Albanese government instituted federal legislation.
"This is a lawyers' picnic," Mr Watson said.
"Why are you creating all this work for lawyers?"
She defended her claim Liberals across the country were "drawing up plans to abolish work-from-home and force workers back to the office".
Opposition Leader Brad Battin denied it was a touchy subject internally after Peter Dutton backflipped on ending working from home for public servants during the Liberals' disastrous 2025 federal election campaign.
The state Liberal leader is waiting to see the detailed legislation before the party decides its stance.
Senior federal minister Tanya Plibersek said the Albanese government wasn't going to give its Labor colleagues' plan a "tick or a cross" when asked if it would step in to overrule the state.
An Australian-first plan to legislate the right to work from home could become a "lawyers' picnic", experts warn.
The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation in 2026 to create a right for employees to work from home two days a week.
The laws are yet to be drafted but the right is slated to apply to all Victorian public and private sector workers who can reasonably do their job from home.
Carve-outs in the Fair Work Act allowed for protections under state anti-discrimination laws, employment lawyer Daniel Victory said.
But how wide the state Labor government cast the net could open the proposed laws to legal challenge, particularly from the private sector.
"The broader they make the right the greater the possibility of a challenge," Mr Victory told AAP.
Employers trying to "squeeze" staff to return to the workplace after the COVID-19 pandemic was a major "bone of contention", Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer of employment and industrial law in Melbourne said.
He described working from home as a "fact of life" and said enshrining it as a right would help make it a "cultural norm" for businesses to reflect.
Industrial relations laws are set by the federal government and regulated by the Fair Work Commission.
Section 109 of the constitution dictates that if a state law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails.
Joellen Riley Munton, an expert in labour law at the University of Technology Sydney, noted the commission assessed working-from-home clauses in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements.
"It would be a very easy thing for someone who objects to the state law to just say 'I only have to abide by the federal laws'," Professor Munton told AAP.
"That will be the obstacle for the effectiveness of any Victorian law."
Former Fair Work Commission vice president Graeme Watson agreed the proposed right, if as general as initially described, was headed for a clash with federal laws.
If Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act was chosen as the vehicle to legislate the right, he said the laws would have to establish what discrimination they were guarding against.
"Then you're proceeding into a bit of maze," the King & Wood Mallesons strategic counsel told AAP.
"It's either going to be clearly invalid or likely unworkable, but probably both."
Mr Watson said arbitration existed for disputes over flexible work arrangements and argued a need to change that remedy had not been demonstrated.
He compared the proposal to Victoria's wage theft laws, which were subject to High Court challenge before their repeal after the Albanese government instituted federal legislation.
"This is a lawyers' picnic," Mr Watson said.
"Why are you creating all this work for lawyers?"
She defended her claim Liberals across the country were "drawing up plans to abolish work-from-home and force workers back to the office".
Opposition Leader Brad Battin denied it was a touchy subject internally after Peter Dutton backflipped on ending working from home for public servants during the Liberals' disastrous 2025 federal election campaign.
The state Liberal leader is waiting to see the detailed legislation before the party decides its stance.
Senior federal minister Tanya Plibersek said the Albanese government wasn't going to give its Labor colleagues' plan a "tick or a cross" when asked if it would step in to overrule the state.
An Australian-first plan to legislate the right to work from home could become a "lawyers' picnic", experts warn.
The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation in 2026 to create a right for employees to work from home two days a week.
The laws are yet to be drafted but the right is slated to apply to all Victorian public and private sector workers who can reasonably do their job from home.
Carve-outs in the Fair Work Act allowed for protections under state anti-discrimination laws, employment lawyer Daniel Victory said.
But how wide the state Labor government cast the net could open the proposed laws to legal challenge, particularly from the private sector.
"The broader they make the right the greater the possibility of a challenge," Mr Victory told AAP.
Employers trying to "squeeze" staff to return to the workplace after the COVID-19 pandemic was a major "bone of contention", Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer of employment and industrial law in Melbourne said.
He described working from home as a "fact of life" and said enshrining it as a right would help make it a "cultural norm" for businesses to reflect.
Industrial relations laws are set by the federal government and regulated by the Fair Work Commission.
Section 109 of the constitution dictates that if a state law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails.
Joellen Riley Munton, an expert in labour law at the University of Technology Sydney, noted the commission assessed working-from-home clauses in awards and enterprise bargaining agreements.
"It would be a very easy thing for someone who objects to the state law to just say 'I only have to abide by the federal laws'," Professor Munton told AAP.
"That will be the obstacle for the effectiveness of any Victorian law."
Former Fair Work Commission vice president Graeme Watson agreed the proposed right, if as general as initially described, was headed for a clash with federal laws.
If Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act was chosen as the vehicle to legislate the right, he said the laws would have to establish what discrimination they were guarding against.
"Then you're proceeding into a bit of maze," the King & Wood Mallesons strategic counsel told AAP.
"It's either going to be clearly invalid or likely unworkable, but probably both."
Mr Watson said arbitration existed for disputes over flexible work arrangements and argued a need to change that remedy had not been demonstrated.
He compared the proposal to Victoria's wage theft laws, which were subject to High Court challenge before their repeal after the Albanese government instituted federal legislation.
"This is a lawyers' picnic," Mr Watson said.
"Why are you creating all this work for lawyers?"
She defended her claim Liberals across the country were "drawing up plans to abolish work-from-home and force workers back to the office".
Opposition Leader Brad Battin denied it was a touchy subject internally after Peter Dutton backflipped on ending working from home for public servants during the Liberals' disastrous 2025 federal election campaign.
The state Liberal leader is waiting to see the detailed legislation before the party decides its stance.
Senior federal minister Tanya Plibersek said the Albanese government wasn't going to give its Labor colleagues' plan a "tick or a cross" when asked if it would step in to overrule the state.
Hashtags

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

News.com.au
17 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Kiama MP Gareth Ward to fight expulsion attempt by Labor government in Supreme Court
Convicted rapist and sitting MP Gareth Ward will return before the Supreme Court in Sydney's CBD today as he fights attempts by the Labor-controlled state government to have him expelled from parliament. The Kiama MP was taken into custody on remand last week while awaiting sentencing after he was found guilty by a jury of three counts of indecent assault and a fourth count of intercourse without consent. The charges relate to acts against two young men – an 18-year-old at Meroo Meadow in 2013 and a 24-year-old man in Potts Point in 2015 – and sparked calls for the south coast MP to resign from parliament. A motion was expected to be introduced by Labor to the Legislative Assembly to expel Ward, with support from the Coalition earlier this week. If successful, it would mark the first expulsion from the NSW lower house since 1917. Instead, the matter was set down for a full-day hearing at the Supreme Court after an 11th hour injunction was applied for by Ward's lawyers, who argue the state parliament does not have the power to expel him. The last-minute legal move makes it almost impossible to expel Ward, who is still being paid by parliament and is the current member for Kiama, before the Legislative Assembly adjourns until next month. Leader of the House Ron Hoenig earlier in the week said the court did not have the authority to stop matters being but before legislators, but that the state government would abide by the injunction out of respect. The matter sets the stage for a peculiar legal challenge. Premier Chris Minns told 2GB on Tuesday morning most people would 'appreciate it's an unconscionable situation to have someone who's currently sitting in jail in Silverwater convicted of serious sexual offences who is demanding to remain a member of parliament and continue to be paid'. Asked why Ward had not resigned, Mr Minns said 'clearly, he's got no shame'. Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said that, if the government was prepared, they could resume 'in the interim with a small quorum of MPs'. 'We would be willing to do that. It would be possible, for example, to have just 20 MPs, the quorum deal with the matter,' he said. Mr Speakman said 'As a general principle, we are supporting the government's efforts in court. 'That includes as a general principle the arguments that it's putting in court and the outcome that it seeks, which is that the injunction is lifted and the parliament can proceed to expel Mr Ward.' The injunctive orders issued by the court, 'pending further order', restrain the defendant, Mr Hoenig, from 'from taking any steps to expel or otherwise resolve to expel' Ward between July 30 and 10am on Friday.

The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
The dissident award-winning artist keeping a close watch on China
In an upstairs room of a Collingwood gallery hangs a line of colourful prints on a wall. It's only when you look closely that you see small areas of damage, evidence of their role in a troubled recent past. Dissident Chinese artist Badiucao points to a scratch on one and steps back. 'Some of the frames are even broken', he explains, saying it was a deliberate choice to leave them this way. These works were originally slated for display in 2018 at a doomed exhibition in Hong Kong. They now open his first Australian solo show, Disagree Where We Must. One of the prints features Joshua Wong, a key figure in Hong Kong's pro-democracy Umbrella Movement. At the time it was created, Badiucao was working anonymously. But three days before the Hong Kong show was due to open, 'the Chinese government found out my identity and took my relatives into the police station, ' he says. In response, he cancelled his show. A year later he shed his anonymity and finally revealed his face and identity to the world. The scratches and dings, he explains, help tell the story of how this group of works was hurriedly removed and hidden in the months and years after the show was cancelled. The Shanghai-born Badiucao, who now lives in Australia, contributes to this masthead and is a Walkley Award winner for his cartoons, has always used his art to critique mainland China's government, its policies, and historical wrongs. This ethos is on full display in Disagree Where We Must. Held in Collingwood's Goldstone gallery, a space opened by artist Nina Sanadze this year, the exhibition takes its title from the Labor government's stated approach to China: 'We will co-operate where we can, disagree where we must, but engage in our national interest.' A room at the back of the space is devoted to a video that first screened on billboards in Hong Kong earlier this year in a test of the limits of free speech in the wake of the sweeping National Security Law implemented in 2020. In the four-second clip, Badiucao silently mouths the words 'you must take part in revolution'.

Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The dissident award-winning artist keeping a close watch on China
In an upstairs room of a Collingwood gallery hangs a line of colourful prints on a wall. It's only when you look closely that you see small areas of damage, evidence of their role in a troubled recent past. Dissident Chinese artist Badiucao points to a scratch on one and steps back. 'Some of the frames are even broken', he explains, saying it was a deliberate choice to leave them this way. These works were originally slated for display in 2018 at a doomed exhibition in Hong Kong. They now open his first Australian solo show, Disagree Where We Must. One of the prints features Joshua Wong, a key figure in Hong Kong's pro-democracy Umbrella Movement. At the time it was created, Badiucao was working anonymously. But three days before the Hong Kong show was due to open, 'the Chinese government found out my identity and took my relatives into the police station, ' he says. In response, he cancelled his show. A year later he shed his anonymity and finally revealed his face and identity to the world. The scratches and dings, he explains, help tell the story of how this group of works was hurriedly removed and hidden in the months and years after the show was cancelled. The Shanghai-born Badiucao, who now lives in Australia, contributes to this masthead and is a Walkley Award winner for his cartoons, has always used his art to critique mainland China's government, its policies, and historical wrongs. This ethos is on full display in Disagree Where We Must. Held in Collingwood's Goldstone gallery, a space opened by artist Nina Sanadze this year, the exhibition takes its title from the Labor government's stated approach to China: 'We will co-operate where we can, disagree where we must, but engage in our national interest.' A room at the back of the space is devoted to a video that first screened on billboards in Hong Kong earlier this year in a test of the limits of free speech in the wake of the sweeping National Security Law implemented in 2020. In the four-second clip, Badiucao silently mouths the words 'you must take part in revolution'.