Speakers:
– Australian Industry Group, Victoria Head, Tim Piper
– Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CEO, Sally Curtain
– Business Council of Australia, Chief Executive, Bran Black
– Property Council of Australia, Victorian Executive Director, Cath Evans
– Housing Industry Association, Victoria, Executive Director, Keith Ryan
– Australian Retail Council, Chief Executive Officer, Chris Rodwell
Date: 28 August 2026
Topics: Jacinta Allan’s work from home Bill
E&OE
Tim Piper, Australian Industry Group: Good morning. My name is Tim Piper. I’m the Chairman of the Victorian Congress of Employer Associations, which represents most of the biggest associations in this state and we’re here to talk to you about work from home.
As you can see, this has become a really important issue for business. You don’t have business groups coming together like this, and on such a number of occasions, without it being a really significant issue. And that’s why we come together again today, after having spoken to the Government and the Premier yesterday.
And despite the fact that we didn’t get what we were seeking at that time, we’re pleased that the legislation has been removed from the from the Parliament today, and we’re looking forward to having further negotiations and discussions with the Premier, with the Government next week.
We do believe that this legislation should be scrapped altogether. We remain of that view, and the reason we remain of that view is because our members are telling us that. This is not just us thinking that, we get such a reaction from our members when they see that this legislation might be continued. It comes from big members. it comes from smaller members. Each of them have got their own issues around this, and each of them finds that this legislation is going to be difficult, it’s going to create disputes, and it’s not going to be good for the economy.
We are already being told that jobs are at stake. We are already being told that the potential, in the longer term, for national headquarters to be at stake, and that’s not what we want for Victoria. We want a positive Victorian economy
Sally Curtain, Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: The reality is, good legislation does not get paused on the eve of its passage. This is terrible legislation. Victoria simply doesn’t need it. We’ve spoken and engaged with another thousand of our members this week, and they’re telling us loud and clear that 60 per cent of them are going to take their investment elsewhere as a result of this legislation.
I think it’s the Premier and the Government realising that this legislation is not worth the cost, the complexity, and the jobs impact for young people in this state. We implore the Government to abandon this legislation and instead focus on investment for this state, to put up the open for business sign and get Victoria more competitive.
Cath Evans, Property Council: We want to see this Bill withdrawn from the Victorian Parliament. Victoria does not need this legislation. We are very, very concerned about jobs for Victorians. We have heard a message loud and clear from the business community that this legislation creates an absolute wedge for businesses entering the state and creating the much needed jobs that we need here in Victoria.
We already have the highest unemployment rate of any state in Australia. We need policies that attract investment to this state and create new jobs. We call on the government to abolish this legislation and move forward with sensible policy initiatives that encourage investment into our state.
Keith Ryan, Housing Industry Association: This Bill is bad law, it can’t be salvaged. My members, builders, want to build. They want to be focused on building the homes that the Victorian Government says they want built, 800,000 in 10 years.
Instead, they’re being asked to consider potentially even more restrictions, more controls, more red tape on how they employ people and run their businesses. They need certainty, they need to know that they can actually have a future in Victoria. And Bills like this do nothing to help small business or large business confidence. The law, the Bill must be dropped. It has to go.
Chris Rodwell, Australian Retail Council: This legislation is for a problem that doesn’t exist. Businesses are already giving work from home opportunities to their people. They don’t need the Government to put a rule book around it.
What this does effectively is it sucks the life out of businesses and business owners, especially small businesses. It adds a burden of compliance and cost that they don’t need. They need to be focused on managing their business and growing their business. Instead, they’re bumbling with a burden of cost and compliance.
No other state is doing this, and it’s for good reason. It doesn’t create a single job. It doesn’t support investment in a business. So why would we go down this route in Victoria, especially for an economy that is so challenged at the moment. And so business owners are saying they’re coming to that point of saying, “What do I do here?”
Too many retailers in this state are looking at closure, are looking at moving elsewhere, and this legislation will only compound that problem, only bring them closer to that reality of deciding to go elsewhere. And retailers that might look to come to Australia or some other state are not going to choose Victoria.
Bran Black, Business Council of Australia: You’ve heard from my colleagues, they’re bringing a particularly state-focused perspective to this so important issue, and they’ve made their positions very clear. They’ve said that this bill is not needed in Victoria and it needs to be scrapped.
I’m speaking from a national perspective and my message is exactly the same. The Premier has said that he wants a reset in business, if this bill goes ahead, all he’ll get is a rewind.
We are absolutely united in our opposition to this legislation. We are saying very clearly there is no amendment that is sufficient. This Bill must be scrapped.
It is clear that it is a Bill that is unneeded. It is clear that it is a Bill that is unwanted. As to it being unneeded, we know that we already have Commonwealth legislation in this space. But more importantly, we also know that almost four in five Victorian businesses are already offering flexible working arrangements for their staff.
In terms of it being unwanted, you’ve just got to look at the statistics. Victoria has led the country in unemployment for 18 of the last 24 months. That is a leaders’ table that nobody should want to be at the top of, and yet Victoria is. We need to help turn this state around.
On our own analysis, the Business Council of Australia’s analysis, Victoria has come last in the country for competitiveness with respect to its settings to try and attract investment for the last two years, and on present form, it’s looking pretty likely that it’s going to lock in that last place yet again.
We don’t want to see that. Victoria has historically been the driving force of Australia’s economy, we need to do everything that we can to make sure it reclaims that position, and that starts with scrapping this bill in its entirety.
Journalist: How were your discussions with the Premier when you spoke with him yesterday, I believe. Was he responsive to what you were calling for?
Tim Piper, Australian Industry Group: We had an amicable meeting with the Premier. We put our forward law again that we think this legislation should be scrapped. He explained to us that wasn’t his view, and we were able to discuss a number of amendments that were there.
But we did reiterate to him on many occasions that this legislation should not go ahead. That’s our beginning point.
Journalist: How long did the meeting last?
Tim: We had an hour with the Premier. We had an hour and a half with his staff afterwards, which gave us an opportunity to put forward our views. Those views were recognised, and whether they’ll be accepted or not is another matter. But they came from the amendments that we had about four or five weeks ago, that we put to the previous Premier.
Journalist: First time you’ve met with him, how would you describe his demeanour as a man sitting down with someone in a negotiation?
Tim: That was the second time we met with the Premier. We met with the Premier two weeks ago, and his demeanour was very similar. I mean, he recognises there’s a need to be supporting business, but he also feels like he’s caught here.
So his demeanour was fine, and it wasn’t an abrasive meeting, but gave us an opportunity to make sure that our views were really being heard.
Journalist: What do you think is ultimately going to change from your meeting? What did he agree with you on?
Tim: Well, the important point from our perspective is this legislation isn’t being put through today. The important point is that we’ve spoken to other members of parliament too about the fact that we don’t want this to be pursued. So it’s off until at least next week.
We’d rather it be pushed back to after the election. That’s what really should happen here.
Journalist: You’ve said that the Premier disagrees with you, that he thinks that the Bill should continue, but he’s obviously talking with you to try and find a middle ground. What do you think that middle ground is going to be now that you’ve had a chat with him? What’s he conceding on?
Tim: Well, we’ve explained to the Premier there is no middle ground. The fact is that we are very much against this legislation. We don’t think it should continue. Now, the Premier is considering amendments that have been suggested to him before, and some of those amendments would improve some very bad legislation. But the point is, you can’t improve the legislation so much that it’s going to make it worthwhile and easy to use.
Journalist: What are those amendments?
Tim: There are a range of amendments that we put forward about six weeks ago, moving from stacking, talking about OH&S issues, talking about what pro rata might mean, and a number of other factors around how you could actually enable employers to say no to an employee in terms of whether they should get the two days working from home.
Journalist: And has the Premier conceded to most amendments?
Tim: The Premier, at this stage, hasn’t conceded to any amendments, but we’re in discussions with the Premier’s Office to determine that.
Journalist: Is another meeting set?
Tim: There has been no other meeting set at this stage, but we fully expect there to be another meeting because we have to talk through what the Premier and the Government wants to discuss with us.
Journalist: The Government wants to move this through. The Opposition is also going to support it, so it seems very likely that it will go through. Has the Premier said anything at all to suggest that he’s open to scrapping it?
Tim: The Premier, at this stage, hasn’t said that he’s open to scrapping it. That isn’t his position, but it certainly remains our position.
The fact is now that the legislation has been pushed back a week at least. That’s an important opportunity for us to be making sure we galvanise business, we galvanise the community and help the Premier to understand that this is not good legislation, and it actually won’t help him with the election.
Sally Curtain, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: What I’d say is that’s the second pause in two weeks, and what it tells me is that the evidence that the business community is providing to the Premier is compelling, that there is no net benefit to Victorians as a result of this legislation.
It’s already working really well. We don’t need more complexity. We certainly don’t need to impact any single job and, in fact, we need to create jobs. So I think our evidence is compelling and will continue to be.
Tim: We’re getting a lot of feedback from our members, big and small, national members. I was speaking to one yesterday, and he suggested to me that putting somebody on in Victoria right now costs twice as much as it does in some of the states. That’s already as it is. This is just going to add to the complexity, add to the disputes, and add to the cost of putting people on in Victoria. And as we’ve said throughout, that will only cause further unemployment.
Journalist: The Finance Minister this morning announced that they won’t get pot plants and tea and coffee and so on for offices in departments and agencies. Do you have those types of facilities for your staff and do your members for their staff? And do you think the public service might struggle to attract the best workers?
Sally: What I would say is it’s a different standard. You’re actually spending the public funds. What the private sector does is they’re running it to help them. Ultimately, every dollar spent with public funds must be best value and must be in the public interest.
Journalist: Does the tax payer dollar go further if they’re attracting the best staff?
Sally: I guess I’ve been a public servant for a long time prior to this job, and what I would say is what attracts great talent is impactful work, really shifting the dial for Victorians, solving the problem, and that’s what will attract great staff into the public service.
Journalist: What did you make of the secret levy that the Government had put on commuters tapping on every day since last year?
Sally: It’s deeply concerning. This is not consistent with government processes. It’s on top of (indistinct), and I recall that equally in the in the development of this legislation, it has not gone through traditional processes legislation that impacts everyone should go through, like a regulatory impact statement. And if it had, it would show there is no net benefit to Victorians, and that the cost of this is simply not worth it.