Debate over the future of working from home (WFH) has intensified in Australia as policymakers consider legislation that would strengthen employees’ rights to request remote work. The proposed Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill, introduced by the Greens, would give employees the right to work remotely for up to two days a week unless doing so would be impractical or impossible due to the inherent requirements of their role.

13 March 2026

Part 2 | Debate Intensifies Over Proposed Right to Work From Home

Debate over the future of working from home (WFH) has intensified in Australia as policymakers consider legislation that would strengthen employees’ rights to request remote work. The proposed Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill, introduced by the Greens, would give employees the right to work remotely for up to two days a week unless doing so would be impractical or impossible due to the inherent requirements of their role.

Supporters of the proposal argue that remote work has already demonstrated clear benefits in many sectors. The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) told a Senate inquiry that flexible work arrangements have been highly successful within the Australian Public Service. More than 185,000 APS employees gained expanded flexible work rights through service-wide bargaining in 2023, including the ability to request working from home with a strong presumption in favour of approval.

According to the CPSU, disputes have been extremely rare. The union reported that only five disagreements over work-from-home requests have occurred across the entire APS workforce, and all were resolved without proceeding to the Fair Work Commission. The union attributes this success largely to the National Employment Standards requirement that employers genuinely attempt to reach agreement with employees before refusing a request.

Research cited by the Centre for Future Work also suggests that hybrid working arrangements can improve job satisfaction, individual performance and workforce participation, while contributing to a more inclusive and productive economy.

However, the proposal has also sparked concern among workers whose jobs cannot be performed remotely. The Police Association Victoria told the Senate inquiry that expanded WFH rights risk disadvantaging essential workers such as police, firefighters, paramedics, nurses and teachers. Unlike many office-based workers, these employees must continue to commute daily.

The association estimates that employees working remotely save approximately $110 per week in commuting costs, or about $5,300 annually. It also noted that Australian workers spend close to an hour each day travelling to and from work. Based on this figure, compensating a senior constable for commuting time could amount to more than $15,000 per year.

To address this imbalance, the police union has recommended that employers be required to consider alternative benefits for workers unable to work from home. These could include higher pay, additional leave, compressed working weeks or other forms of workplace flexibility.

International developments are also shaping the debate. In the United Kingdom, the government is considering reforms that would allow employees to challenge unreasonable refusals of flexible work requests, with employers potentially required to pay compensation of up to eight weeks’ wages.

As governments consider how best to regulate remote work, the central challenge remains balancing the benefits of flexibility with fairness for workers whose roles require them to remain on site.