As Australia marks the first anniversary of the Right to Disconnect, three leading legal professionals reflect on whether the reform has truly been a catalyst for change or if it is quietly fading into obscurity.
Since 26 August 2024, the Albanese government has introduced the Right to Disconnect legislation, granting employees of large businesses the legal right to refuse work-related contact outside their scheduled working hours – unless such refusal is deemed unreasonable.
When the law came into effect a year ago, headlines celebrated it as a landmark moment in the ongoing battle for work/life balance, particularly within the legal profession. The legislation promised lawyers the chance to truly recharge, disconnect from technology, and enjoy a well-deserved break.
Yet, both before and after the legislation’s introduction, questions and doubts have persisted about whether such a measure can realistically be applied in the demanding world of law. Now, 12 months on, the reality has proven far more complex than originally anticipated.
While the legislation has prompted policy updates, leadership training, and some difficult but necessary conversations, the entrenched “always on” culture persists across many industries, particularly in legal practice.
Speaking with Lawyers Weekly, Warwick Ryan, partner at Hicksons Hunt & Hunt; Wesley Rogers, partner at Marque Lawyers; Amanda Lyras, partner at Clayton Utz; and Carly Stebbing, partner at Longton Blackwell, explore how the first year of the Right to Disconnect has both highlighted its potential benefits and exposed its limitations.
A year of quiet but significant change
Carly Stebbing, who has advised on policy implementation and training, offered a sobering perspective on the past year, noting that many workers she encounters do not feel empowered to exercise their right to disconnect.
“Outside of being asked to present on the topic, draft compliant policies, and implement training on how it works in practice, it has not impacted my day-to-day work. Indeed, in my day-to-day work, for private clients, I continue to see workers asked to do more with less,” Stebbing said.
“With rising unemployment and mass redundancies across higher education, banking and tech industries – just to name a few, workers do not feel empowered to exercise this workplace right.”
For Warwick Ryan, the legislation has quickly become a key focus in his advisory practice, shaping much of his day-to-day work as he helps clients update their policies to comply with the new changes.
“Over the past year, the Right to Disconnect has become a regular feature of my day-to-day advisory work. I’ve supported clients in updating employment contracts, drafting policies, and navigating the often-grey area of what constitutes ‘reasonable’ out-of-hours contact in their operational context,” Ryan said.
Beyond paperwork, Ryan noted that the law has sparked “leadership training and cultural reviews”, particularly in workplaces where expectations about availability were previously “unspoken” rather than explicitly defined.
Wesley Rogers shared that, although the legislation hasn’t yet brought about major physical changes within the legal profession, its true impact lies in sparking important and meaningful conversations about work/life balance.
“While the Right to Disconnect laws have found their way into some disputes, on a more practical and meaningful level, they sparked consideration and discussion within businesses about work/life balance,” Rogers said.
“Considering the laws are, in essence, a dispute resolution framework, if they are leading to greater discussions and/or consultation about work/life balance, including to mitigate potential disputes, it cannot be said that the laws aren’t having any meaningful impact.”
For Amanda Lyras, her experience working across various businesses and clients has revealed a noticeable lack of meaningful change, with few employees actively seeking to enforce their right to disconnect.
“The Right to Disconnect has not featured meaningfully, as we expected. There was an initial flurry of activity around introducing updated policies and employment contracts, but we haven’t seen an avalanche of employees seeking to enforce the right,” Lyras said.
She added that the legislation has brought about a “subtle cultural impact”, including “greater consideration in how staff are contacted outside working hours”, but it hasn’t fundamentally disrupted how many industries operate.
The challenge of ‘reasonableness’
When it comes to the main challenges in implementing the Right to Disconnect, the law’s most difficult aspect to apply in practice, and perhaps its most crucial, is determining whether out-of-hours contact is “reasonable”.
For Ryan, this flexibility is both a strength and a source of uncertainty, creating blurred lines for many employers.
“The legislation rightly allows for flexibility, but in practice, this has left many employers uncertain about where to draw the line, particularly for roles involving client responsiveness, urgent operational needs, or after-hours collaboration,” Ryan said.
Aside from the legal aspects of the legislation, Ryan explained that the cultural change within legal teams has been just as impactful, as many organisations face challenges in managing availability and wellbeing without sacrificing productivity.
“Shifting workplace culture has been just as significant. Some organisations are still grappling with how to balance availability and wellbeing without compromising productivity. This has been a particular challenge for clients with international reporting lines, where communication across different time zones is the norm,” Ryan said.
Lyras echoed these views, emphasising the difficulty of determining when it is “unreasonable” for employees to refuse out-of-hours contact, noting that a one-size-fits-all approach is not suitable across organisations.
“Working out when it may be ‘unreasonable’ for employees to refuse to respond to out-of-hours contact is a key challenge and requires a careful analysis of individual roles, and the nature and purpose of any out-of-hours contact. A blanket approach can’t be applied across an organisation,” Lyras said.
However, Rogers highlights a different challenge with the legislation, pointing out that the phrase “right to disconnect” itself can be misleading for both employers and employees, leading to incorrect assumptions.
“The main challenge has been for both employers and employees to fully understand how the laws operate. The phrase ‘right to disconnect’ is a loaded one, which catches the attention of employees, the media, and others,” Rogers said.
“Understandably, the phrase can lead to the assumption that employees have a strict legal right to clock off at 5pm and ignore work for the rest of the evening. That is not what these laws say.”
This misunderstanding, Rogers explained, complicates the implementation of the law, requiring employers to educate their staff on how it operates in practice while developing compliant policies.
“Not only do employers need to get a good understanding of how these laws operate in practice, so they can take appropriate measures in the spirit of what they are trying to achieve, when it comes to rolling out those measures, some employers may face some misplaced presumptions held by staff, which is an additional layer of consideration,” Rogers said.
Culture v compliance
If the goal of the Right to Disconnect legislation is to improve work/life balance, the verdict after its first year is decidedly mixed.
While Ryan acknowledged that it’s “still a little early to tell” whether the legislation has improved work/life balance, he sees it as having created a “valuable platform” for progress, though “cultural expectations” continue to exert a strong influence.
He pointed out that a “gradual shift” is underway, describing the legislation as part of a broader package of reforms that have empowered employees to establish clearer boundaries.
“The Right to Disconnect is part of a package of changes (i.e. including the right to ask for flexible working arrangements, more flexible parental leave options, and WFH) that has empowered employees to have clearer conversations about boundaries and more sympathetic work design,” Ryan said.
“Where the legislation has been embraced proactively, through leadership modelling, policy change, and education, we’re seeing a genuine shift in expectations around after-hours communication. It’s not perfect, but it’s a positive step forward and one that’s continuing to evolve.”
Rogers also urged caution against expecting rapid transformation from the implementation of this legislation, but acknowledged that many employers – even in demanding sectors – have taken the law seriously.
“For businesses or industries that adopt an ‘always on’ mentality, I doubt these laws have changed that culture overnight, and it would be overly ambitious to have expected them to,” Rogers said.
“That said, in our experience, many employers, including those in very demanding industries, have genuinely engaged with these laws. Again, if these laws have sparked some level of needed conversation about these issues, then that’s progress.”
Offering a contrasting viewpoint, Carly Stebbing stressed that the legislation has yet to make a meaningful impact on lawyers’ work/life balance, largely because the current economic climate and widespread job insecurity discourage workers from truly switching off.
“I think the fact that we have not seen a decision of the Fair Work Commission dealing with a dispute over this workplace right demonstrates it is not being exercised regularly and workers are not enforcing it through the dispute channel available,” Stebbing said.
“I do not think it has improved work/life balance, I think the economic climate and relative job insecurity are getting in the way of people truly switching off.”
For Lyras, although dramatic changes haven’t yet materialised since the legislation’s introduction a year ago, she believes it has sparked an important dialogue around boundaries.
“The legislation has started an important discussion around boundaries to support work/life balance. I have seen a greater awareness of the impact work demands can have, particularly in the post-COVID world where many people work remotely and flexibly rather than during structured working hours and locations,” Lyras said.
However, she acknowledged the complexities of the modern workforce, where advances in technology and increasing globalisation have made it more challenging than ever to truly disconnect.
“Having said that, truly ‘switching off’ can be difficult across many industries, in light of the increasing globalisation of work and the connectedness technology allows us. In industries like the legal industry, the market is also competitive, and clients will frequently expect to receive responsive service,” Lyras said.
Striking the right balance
So does the law get the balance right between protecting wellbeing and meeting business needs?
Ryan shared that while the law appears to strike a balance on paper, its success ultimately depends on how comfortably employees feel exercising their rights.
“If employees feel intimidated or believe that exercising this right will be career-limiting, then it will not have achieved its aims. On its face, the Right to Disconnect provides a reasonable foundation for protecting employee wellbeing without unduly constraining business operations,” Ryan said.
“Its strength lies in its flexibility, allowing context to guide what is considered ‘reasonable’ contact. However, that flexibility can also be a source of uncertainty, particularly in complex or fast-paced industries.”
Identifying that most challenges currently arise from interpretation rather than the law’s framework itself, Ryan predicts that future case law and guidance from the Fair Work Commission will clarify expectations for different types of workers.
“At this stage, most challenges stem from interpretation rather than the framework itself. Over time, as case law or commission guidance develops, we may see refinements that bring greater clarity, especially around expectations for different categories of workers,” Ryan said.
“One issue that will emerge is whether the FWC (and the Federal Court) accepts that those that are willing to have the after-hours intruded upon are entitled to be appropriately remunerated for doing so – and the converse.”
Similar to existing flexible work laws, Rogers views the Right To Disconnect legislation as a positive step, recognising that its framework can be appropriately adapted to different employer circumstances.
“Like our flexible work arrangement laws, these new laws put a spotlight on the issue, including through the underlying protections given to employees,” Rogers said.
“But the laws also recognise that every individual and employer’s circumstances are going to be different and therefore, they need to build on a framework that can deal with all those differences.”
Lyras also agreed that the law’s focus on whether it is “reasonable” to refuse out-of-hours contact provides a practical and flexible framework that carefully balances protecting employee wellbeing with the legitimate operational needs of businesses.
“The fact that the right hinges on whether it is reasonable to not respond to out-of-hours contact is a key way of balancing employee wellbeing and business needs,” Lyras said.
“Where work demands require a particular role to be available for contact ‘after hours’, that is not prohibited by the legislation – so ultimately, it will be for employers to ensure they are assessing those work demands realistically and reasonably against an employee’s role and terms of employment.”
However, Stebbing offered a more critical perspective, questioning the necessity of the new law.
She pointed out that existing rights under the National Employment Standards already protect against unreasonable hours, and work health and safety regulations address psychosocial risks such as poor job design and excessive workloads.
“I did not see a need for the law to be introduced. There was already the right to refuse unreasonable additional hours of work under the National Employment Standards and the introduction of the duty to eliminate psychosocial hazards under work, health, safety regulation – which includes poor job design and excessive work hours,” Stebbing said.
“The new workplace right adds more regulatory burden to business in a climate where workers do not feel empowered to exercise the right to disconnect. If work is not secure and properly resourced, it will continue to infringe on the personal [lives] of workers.”
The next 5 years
Looking ahead, the three legal professionals agree that these issues are unlikely to vanish anytime soon.
Ryan anticipates that these issues will evolve alongside broader shifts in work patterns, with ongoing tensions between employee autonomy and availability.
“As hybrid and flexible models become more entrenched, the tension between availability and autonomy will remain front of mind for employers,” Ryan said.
“I anticipate a more sophisticated approach to managing these issues, potentially with sector-specific norms, stronger guidance from regulators, or even technological solutions that help automate boundaries.”
Ryan added: “The conversation around sustainable work practices isn’t going away, and in five years’ time, I expect we’ll be talking less about ‘disconnecting’ and more about building smarter, healthier models of engagement.”
Rogers shared similar views, noting that ongoing debates about work design and improving work/life balance will continue within the legal profession.
“Issues surrounding the right to disconnect are not going to disappear anytime soon. There will always be conversations in relation to how we can support better and more healthy work/life balance (see the four-day work week discussion),” Rogers said.
“I wouldn’t be shocked if the landscape evolves to a point where employers have a greater and more explicit proactive obligation to monitor address matters relating to the right to disconnect.”
Lyras highlights two competing forces that will shape the future of the Right to Disconnect: growing attention to psychosocial risk management on one hand, and an increasingly competitive job market – accelerated by AI – on the other.
“There is increasing recognition of the need to manage psychosocial risks that may see a continuing shift towards ensuring work demands are reasonable,” Lyras said.
“On the other hand, the job market is becoming increasingly competitive, including with the rise of AI, and this may give rise to greater leverage in the employer’s favour in terms of what is required from employees in the performance of their roles.”
