Productivity Commission Questions Whether Australia Needs a Work-From-Home Right

Productivity Commission Questions Whether Australia Needs a Work-From-Home Right
Australia’s proposed work-from-home law is running into a basic question: is new regulation solving a widespread problem, or formalising arrangements that are already working? The Productivity Commission and workplace officials argue the evidence points to the latter.

The private bill, introduced by Greens Senator Barbara Pocock on Nov. 5, 2025, would let all employees request up to two days of remote work each week. Employers could reject a request only when working from home was “impractical or impossible.” At present, that right is limited to Australians aged over 55 and carers.

The strongest opposition centres on the volume of disputes. Diab Harb, a first assistant secretary at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, said the Fair Work Commission handled just 431 flexible-work disputes in the last financial year, compared with roughly 50,000 to 55,000 matters overall. That suggests formal conflict over remote work is a marginal issue rather than a crisis requiring a universal legal remedy.

The Productivity Commission makes a similar case, but frames it around productivity and necessity. Commissioner Catherine de Fontenay told a Senate inquiry there was “no clear need” for a legal right to request working from home, saying employers and employees were already reaching suitable arrangements. She added that there was “no strong evidence” that large numbers of workers who could be productive remotely were being blocked from doing so.

The bill’s supporters would argue that low dispute numbers may reflect limited existing rights, not a lack of demand. But the evidence presented by officials points to a narrower conclusion: while flexible work may be valuable, the case for imposing a broad statutory framework remains unproven.