It is 8 am on a Monday morning in Sydney’s CBD. While in the grasp of winter, the cool air causes a shiver among the businessmen and women who clutch their bags and wallets as they enter their buildings, while a construction team tends to a new development. There are cafes, newsagencies, and bus stops cramped with workers who await service while looking at their phone, knowing they have a client meeting soon. The streets, like everywhere in central Sydney, are packed with vehicles, and some have drivers unafraid to shout and honk their horns. Similar scenes occur in other areas of the Emerald City; Macquarie Park, Chatswood, Parramatta, and North Sydney are also home to traffic, high-rises, white and blue-collar workers as well as universities, hospitals, businesses, and public services. There are schools, of course – but the children of Sydney attend school all across the city, from the Lower North Shore to Hurstville. The child’s mother and father may work a great distance away from family and their home, and thus, Monday mornings become stressful affairs due to long commutes, traffic, congested footpaths, and the pressure for the child to arrive at school on time, in perfect uniform.

Yet this scene – where parents spend all day in their office while children attend school – is not the only scenario. Since the Covid pandemic, many white-collar workers began to work at home by using digital technology such as Zoom and Google Teams to facilitate meetings. If they have children, the parent may also have to supervise them due to schools being closed.

However, as the pandemic waned and schools reopened, Work From Home had become so normalised and standard that it soon became an expectation from employees. Parents, especially mothers, could spend more time with family and forego long commutes. One benefit of Work From Home was its flexibility; workers who finished early were under no pressure to remain in the office until 4 or 5 o’clock. Interestingly, this had an effect on fertility. The Atlantic in March 2023 reported an increase in fertility due to Work From Home. Whilst the focus is on mothers who already have had children, it is certainly a fascinating example of technology and employment being utilised to help families – not the other way around. Similar articles are also found in Axios and The Strait Times.

It is still unclear the exact influence Work From Home will have on long-term fertility. However, the post-Covid ‘baby bump’ experienced in the United States is good news. For decades, fertility rates have declined across the world. There are many reasons for this: financial, urban planning, second-wave feminism, and the removal of ‘baby bonuses’ in federal policy. If Australia is to have fertility above replacement level, we need an innovative approach that is compassionate to the reality many parents, and would-be parents, experience. That’s why Work From Home, whilst not the answer to all our woes, is a step in the right direction.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Many employers and executives have spoken about the drawbacks of Work From Home, including NAB, who have since ordered all senior staff to return to work full time in the office. Meanwhile, other companies have referred to young staff who prefer a hybrid model as ‘selfish’. Their provocative comments speak to the dissatisfaction many employers have towards hybrid and Work From Home models. It’s easy to understand why. When employees work remotely, there are fewer opportunities to supervise junior employees and monitor security risks. There are also many challenges in team building and client nurturing with remote work. According to the app Fellow, in-person meetings make sense when there are complex objectives, a need for focus and teamwork as well as for building trust among employees. The opposition to hybrid or Work From Home shouldn’t be sneered at or dismissed – employers are not piggy banks, they are professionals who have targets to meet. Work From Home advocates, especially those concerned with fertility, need to approach this with empathy for the employers’ position. It is not wise to dismiss the urgent and understandable concerns about remote work held by our fellow citizens.

In addition, not all industries are suited for Work From Home. This includes hairdressers, primary school teachers, aged care workers, military officers, nurses, and firefighters, among others. Work From Home is not an option for everyone, and any government scheme planning to promote hybrid or remote work must keep this in mind. It is also prudent for the Australian government to understand that boosting birth rates requires a sophisticated understanding of how Australians work and the role technology plays in daily life.

From this, the Australian government could offer incentives to encourage Work From Home for pregnant women and mothers. These incentives could take multiple forms, from tax breaks to investment opportunities, where the Australian government will help these companies grow and thrive, as opposed to merely surviving. It is also reasonable for employers to only offer generous benefits to employees who are high-performing or have stayed at the same company for quite a while. Whilst the future of Work From Home remains unclear, it is crucial for the Australian government to understand that the Australian people are not just workers – but also mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. We do not live to work, we work to live. This nuance has been sadly absent from recent discussions concerning women, motherhood, and the workforce. Considering the ongoing inflation and housing crisis, where many young people are priced out of Sydney and Melbourne (where they may work), there is an urgent need for a solution that is compassionate to parents and encourages fertility.

It is hard to imagine a Sydney CBD that isn’t hectic, stressful, and congested. Yet this shouldn’t entrench the family lives of Australians. It is time for our politicians and employers to remember that.