On Thursday 13 November 2025, Spaceful, in partnership with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), hosted an exclusive panel discussion at the Spaceful Sydney Studio, examining the Victorian Government’s proposal to mandate a minimum right to two work from home days per week.
Moderated by David Alexander, Chief of Policy and Advocacy, ACCI, and featuring Shaun Schmitke, Director Workplace Relations, ACCI, Kim Vella, Head of Operations, Cowell Clarke, and Clinton Marks, Director for Melbourne and Perth, Robert Half, the discussion explored the legal, operational, and cultural implications of a legislated approach to flexibility.
While the need for flexibility is well accepted, the panel agreed that a mandated, one-size-fits-all approach introduces significant risks for Australian businesses.
Employer autonomy vs. legislative mandate
Central to the discussion was the fundamental debate around who should determine flexible work arrangements. Should it be the employer, led by strategic business needs, or the government, via legislation?
- Legal uncertainty: ACCI representatives highlighted the proposal’s lack of clarity and potential conflict with federal workplace laws, raising concerns about future government intervention in employment contracts.
- Operational strain: The panellists emphasised that legislating flexibility could restrict the managerial discretion needed to meet client expectations, maintain workflow continuity, and respond to day-to-day operational realities, particularly small businesses and roles requiring a physical presence.
The impacts on culture, equity, and talent
Beyond the compliance and operations, the panel highlighted broader cultural and talent considerations:
- Equity and dispute risk: A mandate risks widening the divide between roles that can and can’t be performed remotely, potentially fuelling workplace disputes and expectatoins for compensation.
- Performance and mentorship: While experienced professionals can thrive remotely, early career employees rely heavily on in-person support, mentorship and incidental learning, all elements that are difficult to replicate under a mandated model.
- Talent strategy: Many organisations are already using employer-led flexibility as a differentiator. A legislated minimum could dilute this competitive advantage and set a low baseline, rather than encouraging innovative employee value propositions.
- Workplace culture: Culture and performance frameworks become harder to maintain when attendance patterns are dictated externally rather than shaped intentionally by the organisation.
The future of the workplace: beyond legislation
Ultimately, the panel agreed that while the Victorian proposal reflects a broader, national shift toward flexible work, the solution requires nuance, not a blanket rule.
Across Australia, organisations are rethinking the role of the office altogether. Workplaces are evolving from locations for routine tasks into intentionally designed destinations for collaboration, connection, and learning. This shift, which is already underway, sits beyond the reach of policy settings.
While policymakers focus on establishing minimum standards, leading organisations are investing in trust-based cultures, intentional workplace design, and flexibility models aligned to business outcomes. The panel’s conclusion was clear: regardless of legislative changes, the future of work will be shaped by employer strategy and the quality of workplace environments, not by mandated attendance patterns.
