WFH bill addresses cost-of-living crunch, Greens say

A landmark piece of draft legislation proposed by Australia’s largest minor party would significantly alter the employment relations landscape nationwide, but bodies remain split on the impact on the labour market.

The Greens Party’s Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work From Home) Bill 2025 was the subject of a public hearing held by the Senate education and employment legislation committee on 4 November.

The proposed bill would allow workers the right to request up to two days of working-from-home arrangements per week and, as expected, has generated significant criticism from industry and employer groups.

According to the Business Council of Australia (BCA), the bill would increase workplace complexity, reduce productivity, and make managerial responsibilities more difficult. The advocacy organisation contended that the current system whereby employees negotiate arrangements directly with their employer is more efficient than the proposed right.

In its submission to the draft legislation earlier this year, the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) characterised the legislation as impractical and unnecessary, warning that the mandate would also clash with modern award reviews and operational realities.

Some bodies, such as the Australian HR Institute (AHRI), supported broad flexible work accessibility, but opposed the legislation of specific statutory entitlements.

The basis of the Greens Party’s argument for the bill’s enshrinement is the potential for more equality across the workplace.

The party explained that Australia’s current industrial relations framework does not provide sufficient certainty for workers to access working-from-home arrangements, and that the position of power that employers hold means they are more likely to access these arrangements.

The Greens cited several statistics that formed part of evidence presented to the committee, including that two-thirds of surveyed employees had some degree of access to working-from-home arrangements, 18 per cent do not currently work from home but would like to, and 32 per cent with some access or interest would like to do so more.

Within the proportion of workers who currently had access to partial remote working, 86 per cent agreed it positively impacted their work/life balance, 76 per cent reported improved mental health, and 67 per cent said it helped their physical health.

Saved time, improved productivity and performance, and financial savings were cited as key benefits, with workers gaining an average of 3.4 hours and $110 per week from working from home.

Further, it was noted that female employees are disproportionately refused working-from-home requests, while women are also more likely to identify household management as a benefit of working from home than men, at a rate of 52 per cent to 39 per cent, respectively.

Greens spokesman for finance, workplace and employment Senator Barbara Pocock said: “Today’s inquiry showed overwhelming evidence in support of the Greens’ Bill to allow the right to work from home at least two days a week for all kinds of workers, regardless of caring responsibilities.”

“Working from home should be a fair and enforceable right, it should not depend on an employer’s discretion. Where work can be reasonably performed from home, workers should have a right to access flexible working arrangements.”

Pocock criticised the Labor, Coalition and One Nation parties for voting against the legislation that would purportedly give workers stronger bargaining power, work/life balance and control over working conditions.

Citing the recently established Right to Disconnect as a similarly worker-focused legislation, Pocock said: “Given that most workers in Australia are covered by federal workplace law, it makes practical sense to embed this right at the national level.”

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