Is WFH the great equaliser?

As Victoria gets closer to possibly legislating a minimum of two days working from home for eligible workers, the challenge now is balancing equality with practicality.

For Gartner HR adviser Neal Woolrich, a major concern heading into the Victorian government’s proposed WFH legislation is the definition of roles that can be “reasonably performed remotely”. With the intention to shift working-from-home arrangements from an informal benefit to a statutory right, currently missing from the legislation is nuance.

While praising the legislation’s intention, Woolrich said: “If a government comes in and puts in a sort of blanket definition about what they think can reasonably be performed remotely, that just takes away the ability of an organisation and the teams and the individuals within those organisations to make their own choices about what works for them”.

Having seen variability not only across teams and organisations, but within individual jobs themselves – depending on the workload, time of year and other factors – a mandate that takes control from both employer and employee could create problems down the line.

The answer, then, is a recognition that one size does not in fact fit all.

In fact, Woolrich cited a team known to change their working environment based on seasonal demands. He said: “I’ve heard finance teams who work remotely for the first month, the second month of the quarter, and then they’re all hands on deck for the third month of the quarter, that kind of thing.”

“The legislation may take away the ability of teams to make their own arrangements like that that work well for them”.

On the other hand, however, the risk of not having a mandated policy may be greater than that of a vague one. As employers encourage greater presence in the office in a hopeful move away from COVID-19-era circumstances, there runs the risk of judgements that do not favour flexibility despite their eligibility.

“Employees have consistently told us they’re not getting as [many] remote work opportunities or hybrid work opportunities,” Woolrich said.

“Employees have consistently told us that they want more flexibility than they’re currently getting.”

While the initiative is intended to drive employee wellbeing, studies have shown that organisations also see productivity benefits, especially when policy is enacted equitably. As reported in 2024, a study of 500 Australian employers found that four out of five agreed their remote personnel were either more or as productive as when they were physically present in an office.

However, another consideration for employers is compliance should the legislation become law. While the shift to two days WFH may not be a considerable adjustment to organisations with some form of flexible work arrangements already in place, the challenge of meeting and managing legal obligations may be less of a capability one, and more one of time.

As expected, many business groups and representatives have criticised the degree of control they are losing through the proposed changes.

As reported in November 2025, organisations such as the Australian Industry Group called the proposal “little more than pure political theatre”; however, a common sentiment among numerous groups was more that flexibility must be driven “by the varying needs of individual businesses, as opposed to legislation”.

The key is finding a balance between employee and organisational needs. And as Woolrich highlighted, there is a place for onsite work for collaboration, culture, and in-person management, and flexibility for employees to manage their work/life commitments when working from home.

“What’s worked consistently well over the last six years since COVID hit and we were initially forced into different working arrangements is really letting teams [to] sort of co-own the creation of what their working arrangements are going to be,” he said.

“Once the legislation passes, we will have this guardrail that stipulates we will have two days of work from home a week. But within that, give teams the flexibility to make their own choices as to how they do it.”

In this vein, Woolrich noted that there may be a way – depending on the final wording of the legislation – to be flexible within the mandate, by potentially averaging two days a week over the course of a year, or enacting a policy similar to that of the aforementioned finance team.

If this were to be possible and pursued, open communication and fair negotiation would be even more crucial.

And towards those in charge of the legislation, Woolrich said: “I think what they just need to do, you know, if they’re going to go down this path, is be really critical about the way they define that concept of what work can reasonably be performed remotely.”

He said: “I think they’ve got to have a very clear definition in place, but give employers the flexibility … employers need to have some flexibility within the legislation as well.”

Whether the legislation is passed, how it is received, and whether there is a flow-on effect in other Australian states are yet to be seen.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.