Dr Lisa Heap was invited to give evidence about working from home arrangements before the Senate Select Committee on Education and Employment Legislation in November 2026.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to this Inquiry.
I am a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Future Work.
The Centre for Future Work is an independent research centre that conducts and publishes research into a range of labour market, employment, and related issues.
The Centre’s recent research on the incidence and impacts of work from home is contained in a 2025 briefing paper written by Dr Fiona Macdonald, entitled Working from Home, Not a Problem, and the expert report prepared by me and Dr Macdonald for the recent Fair Work Commission Working from home – Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020 (AM2024/34) case. Both of these reports are available on the Centre’s website.
Despite progress on access to working from home (WFH), including the decision of the Fair Work Commission in the Clerks Award case, our strong conclusion, based on our research, is that regulatory change is required to enable broader access to WFH and to normalise WFH arrangements, thus ensuring greater access and protecting those who access it from being penalised in any way in the workplace.
There are still workers who would like access to work from home, and whose jobs would support this, who are being denied this option.
Therefore, we strongly support the intent of the Bill under consideration.
In our view (based on national and international literature) the preferred model for WFH is one where:
- WFH is available to all workers whose role supports it (regardless of length of service)
- the regulatory framework sets an expectation that approval to WFH will occur, unless the inherent requirements of the role make it impossible to do so
- there are clear and enforceable processes and timelines for dealing with requests to WFH, and requirements to document reasons for refusing a WFH request
- there is easy access to a tribunal (the FWC) to resolve any disputes associated with approval or application of WFH arrangements
- it is clear that pay and conditions should not be traded for the ‘right’ to WFH
- issues such as employer provision of equipment, and matters associated with data, privacy and the safety of employees, are addressed.
Our research tells us that:
- working from home for at least some of the week enables and supports job satisfaction, individual performance and fuller participation in paid work
- working from home benefits organisations, and contributes to more inclusive and gender-equal workforce participation and a more productive economy
- importantly, the potential positive effects of working from home include increased economic participation, greater take-up of full-time employment, and more career options for workers with care responsibilities, older workers and people with disability or health conditions
- some common objections to working from home are ill-founded, and based on managerial or employer preference rather than evidence.
Conclusion
Where provisions are most effective, i.e. where there is broad uptake and accessibility, is where provisions normalise the practice of worker initiated changes to work arrangements.
This is likely to be where there is a national framework promoting this flexibility (through regulation) and where access to arrangements is not linked to, or conditional on, personal attributes or the need to care.
Read more
Report: Working from home, not a problem
Expert report: Working from home