Victoria’s Work From Home Law: The Reputation Risk

The Victorian Government has now confirmed it will introduce legislation to enshrine a right to work from home two days a week, with the reform to be embedded in the Equal Opportunity Act.

From a policy perspective, the move is significant.

From a communications and reputation perspective, it is even more interesting.

Because this debate is already shaping up to be less about the legal mechanics and more about expectations.

In Australia, workplace conditions largely sit under the Fair Work Act, which governs the national industrial relations system. That Act already provides employees with a right to request flexible work arrangements, although employers can refuse on reasonable business grounds.

Victoria’s proposal takes a different path.

By embedding the right in the Equal Opportunity Act, the government is attempting to frame flexible work as a fairness issue rather than purely a workplace entitlement. In simple terms, refusing reasonable remote work could potentially be treated as unreasonable or discriminatory behaviour rather than simply an operational decision.

Whether that approach ultimately proves legally robust will depend on the final drafting and how the law interacts with the federal industrial relations framework.

But in many ways the legal question is only half the story.

What the government has effectively done is reset the public expectation.

For a large share of knowledge workers, working from home is already seen as a normal part of modern employment. By moving to legislate it, the government is reinforcing that expectation in the public conversation.

That creates reputational risk on both sides of the debate.

For the Victorian Government, the challenge will be credibility. When governments frame a policy as creating a “right”, the public reasonably assumes that right will be clear, enforceable and meaningful in practice. If the eventual legislation turns out to be narrower or more conditional than the public messaging suggests, the narrative can quickly shift from worker protection to political symbolism.

For business, the risk sits in how organisations respond.

Many employers have legitimate operational reasons for wanting people in the office more often. Collaboration, supervision, culture and productivity are all real considerations.

But blunt return-to-office mandates increasingly carry a reputational cost. In a labour market where flexibility has become an expectation, companies that frame the issue purely as control or compliance often find themselves on the wrong side of the public conversation.

The organisations navigating this best tend to take a different approach. They explain clearly why certain roles require physical presence, while demonstrating genuine flexibility where work can be done remotely.

In other words, the credibility test is not whether flexibility exists. It is how transparently the boundaries are explained.

What is becoming clear is that flexible work is no longer just an internal HR policy question.

It now sits at the intersection of law, politics, culture and reputation.

And in that environment, the organisations that manage the issue best will not necessarily be those with the strongest legal argument.

They will be the ones that communicate their position with clarity, credibility and a genuine understanding of how expectations around work are changing.