This bill is currently before Parliament.
Work & employment
The bill would let any employee ask for a change in working arrangements.
The bill was introduced to turn work from home into a general statutory request right rather than a right tied to specific personal circumstances. The explanatory memorandum says the pandemic showed many roles can be performed effectively from home, while current Fair Work ActThe main Commonwealth workplace-relations law. This bill would amend its flexible-work request provisions. provisions do not provide a general right to request remote work. The Greens speech framed the bill as a national response to changed work patterns, arguing that remote work can support workforce participation, caring responsibilities, inclusion and productivity while still allowing employers to refuse where the job cannot practically be done remotely.
The bill sits in a wider fight over whether hybrid work should be handled case by case, through awards, or through a national legal right. After pandemic-era work from home became normal for many office jobs, Fair Work disputes and award reviews tested how far employers could require office attendance and how far workers could ask for remote work. Unions pushed for stronger request rights, business groups warned against a general right and raised award-condition issues, Victoria announced a two-day work-from-home proposal, and the federal government rejected a Greens push for national laws before this private senator’s billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it as a government minister. These bills can start debate but do not become law unless both houses pass them and they receive Royal Assent. was introduced.
The main concerns in the collected public record are about how broad a national work-from-home right should be and how it would interact with business operations and award conditions. Employer groups opposed enshrining a general right during related Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. processes, and the federal government rejected the Greens push for national two-day work-from-home laws before this bill was introduced. The collected parliamentary material for this bill does not include later second-reading debate from other parties, divisions or amendment outcomes.
Senator Barbara Pocock introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Greens.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
217 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
The bill would let any employee ask for a change in working arrangements. The current Fair Work ActThe main Commonwealth workplace-relations law. This bill would amend its flexible-work request provisions. right is tied to listed circumstances such as caring responsibilities, disability, age, pregnancy or family and domestic violence.
It would create a new kind of request for working from home, or otherwise remotely, for up to two days a week.
For those two-day work-from-home requests, an employer could refuse only if the arrangement would make the inherent requirementsThe essential duties or practical requirements of a job. For two-day work-from-home requests, the bill would focus refusal on whether those requirements become impractical or impossible. of the job impractical or impossible, and the employer would have to consider reasonable adjustmentsPractical changes an employer could make to accommodate a request, such as digital meeting arrangements, equipment, secure access or reporting methods. before refusing.
Other flexible-work requests would still be judged against the existing “reasonable business groundsThe existing Fair Work Act test employers can use to refuse some flexible-work requests. The bill would keep this test for non-work-from-home requests but use a narrower test for two-day remote-work requests.” test, but the bill would make employers genuinely engage with employees before refusing requests.
The Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. would be able to review refusals of two-day work-from-home requests and make binding orders about whether the employer’s refusal ground is made out.
If enacted, the work-from-home amendments would apply only to flexible-work requests made on or after commencement. Schedule 1 would start the day after Royal Assent.
Subsections 65(1), (1A) and (1B) ... Repeal the subsections, substitute: Employee may request change in working arrangements ... An employee of an employer may request the employer for a change in working arrangements.Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) introduced bill text
A request under subsection 65(1) is a work from home up to 2 days request if the requested change in working arrangements would ... result in the employee being permitted to work from the employee’s home, or otherwise remotely, for up to 2 days per week.Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) introduced bill text
if the request is a work from home up to 2 days request—on the ground that the requested change in working arrangements would make the performance of the inherent requirements of the employee’s employment duties impractical or impossible ... the employer must consider any reasonable adjustments the employer could make to accommodate the employee’s request.Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) introduced bill text
genuinely engaged with the employee in relation to the request ... otherwise—on reasonable business grounds.Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) introduced bill text
an order that it would be appropriate for the ground in subparagraph 65A(3)(d)(i) to be taken to have been made out; or ... not to have been made out ... the ground ... is taken ... to be made out ... or ... not to be made out.Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) introduced bill text
Schedule 1 ... The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent ... The amendments ... apply in relation to a request for a change in working arrangements under subsection 65(1) made on or after the commencement of this Part.Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) introduced bill text
Context
The bill sits in a wider fight over whether hybrid work should be handled case by case, through awards, or through a national legal right. After pandemic-era work from home became normal for many office jobs, Fair Work disputes and award reviews tested how far employers could require office attendance and how far workers could ask for remote work. Unions pushed for stronger request rights, business groups warned against a general right and raised award-condition issues, Victoria announced a two-day work-from-home proposal, and the federal government rejected a Greens push for national laws before this private senator’s billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it as a government minister. These bills can start debate but do not become law unless both houses pass them and they receive Royal Assent. was introduced.
Fair Work test case backs an employer refusal
The Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. accepted reasonable business groundsThe existing Fair Work Act test employers can use to refuse some flexible-work requests. The bill would keep this test for non-work-from-home requests but use a narrower test for two-day remote-work requests. for refusing an employee’s request to work exclusively from home, including concerns about productivity, training and team culture.
Australian Financial Review ↗Business groups oppose a general work-from-home right
Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry opposed enshrining a general right to work from home during a Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. awards review, while unions pushed for a right to request remote work.
Australian Financial Review ↗Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. considers a Clerks AwardA modern award covering many clerical, administrative and office-support workers. It appears in the page context because separate Fair Work Commission proceedings were considering work-from-home terms for those workers. term
The Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. said it would develop a work-from-home term that could give clerical workers covered by the Clerks AwardA modern award covering many clerical, administrative and office-support workers. It appears in the page context because separate Fair Work Commission proceedings were considering work-from-home terms for those workers. a legal right to request remote work.
Australian Financial Review ↗ACTU pushes for stronger refusal rights
The ACTU pushed for workers to have stronger rights to challenge refused work-from-home requests and for a higher threshold before employers could reject them.
Australian Financial Review ↗Victoria announces a two-day work-from-home proposal
The Victorian Labor government announced a plan to enshrine remote working arrangements into law, giving eligible public and private sector employees a right to work from home at least two days a week.
Australian Financial Review ↗Federal Labor rejects a Greens national law push
The Albanese government rejected a Greens push for national laws enabling a two-day work-from-home right, while not directly criticising Victoria’s proposal.
Australian Financial Review ↗Greens introduce the private senator’s billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it as a government minister. These bills can start debate but do not become law unless both houses pass them and they receive Royal Assent.
The bill was introduced in the Senate to create a national right for employees to request up to two days a week working from home or otherwise remotely.
Parliamentary bill page and second reading speech ↗Senate sends the bill to committee
The Senate referred the bill to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, with a report due on 27 August 2026.
APH bill page notes ↗Legislative route
Senator Barbara Pocock’s private senator’s billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it as a government minister. These bills can start debate but do not become law unless both houses pass them and they receive Royal Assent. was introduced in the Senate.
Introduced and read a first time
The Senate opened second-reading proceedings and an incorporated speech set out the case for the bill.
Second reading moved
The bill was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. The collected APH note records the report due date as 27 August 2026; the local bundle does not include a committee report.
Report due 27 Aug 2026
APH bill page notesKey criticism
The main concerns in the collected public record are about how broad a national work-from-home right should be and how it would interact with business operations and award conditions. Employer groups opposed enshrining a general right during related Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. processes, and the federal government rejected the Greens push for national two-day work-from-home laws before this bill was introduced. The collected parliamentary material for this bill does not include later second-reading debate from other parties, divisions or amendment outcomes.
The bill itself tries to answer some business concerns by allowing refusal where the requested remote-work arrangement would make the inherent requirementsThe essential duties or practical requirements of a job. For two-day work-from-home requests, the bill would focus refusal on whether those requirements become impractical or impossible. of the job impractical or impossible. This page does not infer broader parliamentary opposition beyond the collected sources.
General right seen as too broad
Employer groups opposed enshrining a general right to work from home during a Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. awards review, arguing instead for changes to award rules around remote work.
Productivity and team-culture concerns
A Fair Work CommissionThe national workplace tribunal. Under the bill, it could decide disputes about whether an employer validly refused a two-day work-from-home request. test case accepted an employer’s reasonable business groundsThe existing Fair Work Act test employers can use to refuse some flexible-work requests. The bill would keep this test for non-work-from-home requests but use a narrower test for two-day remote-work requests. for refusing full-time work from home, including face-to-face interactions for productivity, training and team culture.
Award conditions and penalty rates
Employer proposals in related award proceedings sought more flexible treatment of penalty rates and other conditions for remote work, while unions argued those demands would financially penalise workers who work from home.
Federal government not adopting the Greens proposal
Before the bill was introduced, the Albanese government rejected a Greens push for national laws enabling a right to work from home for two days a week.
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Nick McKim’s incorporated speech supported the Greens bill as a national work-from-home right.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“This Bill would expand the right to request flexible working arrangements under the Fair Work Act ... It would require employers to consider, before refusing such a request, reasonable adjustments that could accommodate the request ... The Bill has safeguards for employers, as it would limit refusal to cases where the arrangement would make performance of the role’s inherent requirements impractical or impossible.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
Senator Barbara Pocock’s private senator’s billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it as a government minister. These bills can start debate but do not become law unless both houses pass them and they receive Royal Assent. was introduced in the Senate.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
The Senate opened second-reading proceedings and an incorporated speech set out the case for the bill.
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Report due 27 Aug 2026
The bill was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. The collected APH note records the report due date as 27 August 2026; the local bundle does not include a committee report.
Referred to Committee (28 Nov 2025): Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee; Report due 27 Aug 2026
APH bill page notes