Why the Right to Disconnect has ‘largely been a non-event’
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
In conversation with HR Leader, one expert unpacks why legislation to protect employees’ ability to switch off from the workplace hasn’t driven meaningful behavioural change and impacts.
Research from the Australian HR Institute (AHRI) has found that three in five (58 per cent) of employers believe that the Right to Disconnect – which came into effect nationally in August 2025 – has improved productivity and employee engagement, while at the same time, just 10 per cent have actually changed their after-hours communication approaches with staff.
Against this backdrop, DLPA chief executive Karlie Cremin has questioned whether the legislation has actually changed the ways that Australians work, and how our businesses manage their employees.
Speaking with HR Leader, Cremin said that, for most organisations, “I think it has largely been a non-event”.
“By the time the legislation came into effect, many workplaces had already spent years working through flexible and hybrid working arrangements and had developed their own expectations around availability and after-hours contact,” she said.
“In many cases, the legislation formalised practices that were already happening rather than fundamentally changing them.”
The gap identified in the aforementioned AHRI research, Cremin noted, gives her pause on the question of whether improvements in productivity or engagement have actually been made. “If only 10 per cent of organisations have actually changed their communication practices, it is difficult to argue that the law itself is driving a significant behavioural shift,” she said. “It may be that employers recognise the value of healthy boundaries, but those attitudes and practices were already developing independently of the legislation.”
As recently reported by HR Leader, a ruling in the South Australian Employment Tribunal was the first to test the limits of the Right to Disconnect laws, after an employer allegedly exploited staff while expecting them to respond to numerous TikTok videos sent out of hours.
The Right to Disconnect, Cremin said, has largely formalised what many organisations had already worked out for themselves. That is, flexible work forces employers and employees to become much clearer, she said, about when people are available, how work gets done, and what reasonable expectations look like outside traditional hours. “For well-run workplaces, the Right to Disconnect has probably reinforced those boundaries rather than created them,” she said.
When asked if employees are genuinely exercising their legislative right to disconnect, or if fears about job security, restructuring, and offshoring make them reluctant to switch off outside working hours, Cremin said she suspects that the current economic environment is playing a significant role.
“In some industries, after-hours work attracts paid overtime, and employees may actively want those additional hours. In salaried environments, however, people who are concerned about job security, restructuring, or their role being offshored may be far less willing to push back on an after-hours request, regardless of what the legislation allows them to do,” she said.
“A legal right and feeling secure enough to exercise that right are two different things.”
In reflecting on the first year of the legislated Right to Disconnect, HR leaders should focus less on whether the organisation technically complies and more on what the culture is actually telling employees, if they are to drive meaningful behavioural change for their workplaces.
“If people believe responding after hours is necessary to demonstrate commitment or protect their job, a policy alone will not change behaviour,” she said.
“The bigger opportunity is to create clear expectations around availability, workload, and performance so employees know when they genuinely can switch off without feeling there will be consequences.”
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.
