Manufacturing Clarity Needed on Proposed Work-From-Home Legislation, Says SEMMA

Why It Matters

The call underscores how misaligned state policy could disrupt manufacturing productivity and create legal uncertainty, affecting both employers and workers.

Key Takeaways

• State legislation may exceed federal industrial relations authority
• Manufacturing relies on on-site work; WFH not universally viable
• SEMMA urges clear communication, not new legislation
• Politicizing WFH could create unrealistic expectations
• Small manufacturers already negotiate flexible arrangements internally

Pulse Analysis

The push for broader work‑from‑home (WFH) options has accelerated across Australia since the pandemic, prompting several state governments to explore formal legislation. Victoria’s latest proposal aims to codify flexible work arrangements, but industrial‑relations law remains largely a federal domain, limiting the state’s capacity to impose sector‑wide rules. This jurisdictional tension is especially pronounced for manufacturing, where on‑site production lines and supply‑chain coordination are essential. Understanding the legal hierarchy helps policymakers craft measures that respect existing federal frameworks while addressing genuine flexibility needs.

Manufacturers, particularly small and medium‑sized enterprises, have traditionally managed flexibility through direct negotiations with their workforce rather than through statutory mandates. Many production roles—such as machine operation, assembly, and quality control—cannot be performed remotely, and imposing a universal WFH requirement would risk disrupting output and increasing compliance costs. SEMMA’s CEO Honi Walker notes that existing informal arrangements already balance employee preferences with operational constraints, delivering productivity gains without legislative intervention. Preserving this negotiation flexibility is crucial for maintaining lean supply chains and meeting tight delivery schedules.

The broader policy debate now centres on clarity and communication rather than new statutes. SEMMA cautions that politicising WFH during an election could raise unrealistic expectations among workers and employers alike, especially if state legislation oversteps its jurisdiction. By openly outlining the legal boundaries and encouraging industry‑led flexibility, the Victorian government can avoid costly legal challenges and preserve productivity in sectors where physical presence is non‑negotiable. A pragmatic approach—combining targeted support for eligible roles with respect for existing employer‑employee agreements—offers the most sustainable path forward.