Six weeks working from Bali, still logged into Australian systems, still serving Australian clients, still on the Australian payroll. For a growing number of workers, that is what a flexible work request looks like in 2026. It sounds like ordinary remote work with a better view. Legally, it often carries a separate set of obligations that neither the employee nor their employer has thought through.

Employment lawyers and global mobility advisers warn that short overseas stays are producing visa refusals, deportations and unexpected foreign tax bills. The root cause is a shared assumption: that a short trip means low legal risk. It doesn't. And for Australian employers, the exposure runs across immigration, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), and in some cases workers' compensation coverage under state law.

From conference trips to working from abroad

Nicholas Potter, employment practice leader at LegalVision, says the requests landing on HR desks have shifted in kind, not just in volume.

"The questions have moved from occasional business travel to ongoing cross-border work. Employers are no longer just asking whether an employee can attend an overseas conference. They are asking whether someone can work from Bali, London, or Singapore for 6 weeks, continue accessing Australian systems, service Australian clients, and remain on the Australian payroll."

The core problem is visibility. Global mobility adviser Vialto notes that many organisations simply do not know where their people are physically working, or for how long. That gap is the start of most compliance failures.

Why a short stay doesn't mean low risk

Potter identifies the central misconception clearly. A country may permit visitors to attend meetings, conferences or training under a visitor entry pathway but still prohibit productive work, local service delivery or paid activity. The rules are country-specific, and the boundary between business-visitor activity and actual work is not always obvious.

Hugh Cook, a partner at Vialto, describes how quickly the situation unravels. An employee arrives and discovers their visa does not cover what they planned to do. They are refused entry, questioned about earlier visits and ultimately deported. Cook's point is not theoretical: the exposure also ripples back to the Australian employer, creating potential penalties, sponsorship consequences and damage to client relationships.

The tax clock runs faster than you think

Most travellers have encountered the idea of a 183-day threshold. That number comes from international tax treaties, and it only helps if a relevant treaty is actually in force. Australia has no income tax treaty with Hong Kong, meaning the 183-day treaty exemption does not apply there at all. In Hong Kong, visitors may be exempt from salaries tax only if their physical presence does not exceed 60 days in the year of assessment, and any part of a day counts as a full day.

Cook's warning on this is precise: without central travel tracking, several short trips can quietly push an employee over the threshold. Vialto also flags that senior staff who negotiate contracts, generate revenue or make commercial decisions while offshore could inadvertently create a permanent establishment for the company, giving the host country a taxable business presence for the employer.

The ATO dimension is separate from the foreign tax question. Australian tax residency rules are complex and fact-specific. An employee who spends extended time overseas while maintaining their Australian employment relationship, home, and family ties may remain an Australian tax resident throughout, meaning their overseas income is still reportable to the ATO. Conversely, an employer's Super Guarantee (SG) obligations, currently set at 11.5% and rising to 12% from July 2025, ordinarily continue for employees on the Australian payroll regardless of where they are physically located, though the precise application depends on whether the work triggers a foreign superannuation or social security obligation in the host country.

For employees: what to check before you book

The risk at the border is personal. A manager's verbal approval offers no protection at immigration, and the individual employee carries any foreign tax liability that results from an undocumented stay. Before travel, these are the questions worth working through carefully:

• Do I have written approval? A verbal confirmation from a manager will not assist at immigration or in a foreign tax audit. Get the approval documented before the flight is booked.
• Does my visa or entry pathway actually cover what I will be doing? Attending a client meeting and delivering client work are treated as different activities in many jurisdictions. Check the specific visa conditions, not just the common practice.
• How many days have I spent in this country this tax year? Count every trip, count partial days as full days, and verify whether a tax treaty with Australia is in place for that country. For Hong Kong specifically, the threshold is 60 days, not 183.
• Do my workplace entitlements travel with me? Under the National Employment Standards (NES) in Part 2-2 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), your Australian entitlements generally do not pause because you are physically offshore. Host-country employment law may also apply simultaneously.
• Am I still covered? Confirm whether your employer's workers' compensation coverage, professional indemnity insurance and data-access arrangements extend to the country where you will be working. In most Australian states, workers' compensation is a state-based scheme, and coverage offshore varies by policy and jurisdiction.

Potter is direct on the dual-obligation point: an Australian-based employee may retain Australian workplace entitlements in full while the host country's laws also apply. That creates potential obligations on both sides of the border at the same time. Before comparing employers on flexible work, it's worth checking verified employer reviews to see how clearly companies document and support international work arrangements.

For HR: replace manager discretion with clear rules

"The practical shift is that 'work from anywhere' now needs governance, not just manager discretion."

Potter's core position is straightforward: no overseas work without documented approval before travel. That approval process should address the destination country, the proposed length of stay, the visa category and what it permits, the specific work activities, data access arrangements, insurance, tax position, safety obligations and whether the host country's employment laws could be triggered. Treating overseas work as an extension of ordinary remote work is the most common source of compliance failures.

For Australian HR teams, the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) adds a specific layer. Section 65 of the FW Act gives eligible employees the right to request flexible working arrangements, and employers must respond to those requests on reasonable business grounds. Where an offshore work request is framed as a flexible work request, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) could be asked to assess the response if a dispute arises. The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has published guidance confirming that Australian obligations under the NES do not pause during overseas deployments; the employment relationship remains governed by the FW Act unless the parties have contractually displaced it, and displacement has limits.

Organisations that handle this consistently well tend to apply the following approach:

• Maintain a list of countries where short-term offshore work is approved, set a maximum approved duration and retain the right to withdraw approval at any time.
• Pair the policy with centralised travel tracking drawn from corporate booking systems, with particular focus on high-frequency corridors such as Australia to Bali, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
• Apply additional scrutiny to senior staff, whose commercial decisions made offshore can create a permanent establishment risk for the Australian entity.
• Handle requests consistently with section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) on flexible working, including issuing written responses within 21 days and documenting the business grounds where a request is modified or declined.
• Review workers' compensation, professional indemnity and directors' and officers' cover to confirm whether they extend to the proposed destination.

Potter identifies the framing error that leads organisations to get this wrong: treating overseas work as a lifestyle benefit rather than a regulated work arrangement. A well-constructed policy can support both travel and compliance by drawing a clear line between incidental tourist contact, genuine business-visitor activity and substantive offshore work. The Australian HR Institute (AHRI) has flagged cross-border workforce governance as an emerging capability gap for HR practitioners, particularly as work-from-anywhere requests increase across the professional and knowledge-economy sectors.

Flexibility that holds up at the border

Neither Potter nor Cook is arguing that overseas work should stop. Cook's position is that the goal is to enable business travel, not to restrict it, while reducing the risk of immigration breaches, foreign tax exposure and costly compliance failures. That requires both sides of the arrangement to act before the flight is booked.

For employees, that means requesting written approval, counting days accurately across every trip in the tax year and confirming what the destination visa genuinely permits. For HR teams, it means knowing where people are physically located, ensuring policies treat offshore work as a distinct approval category, and staying current on the FW Act obligations that continue regardless of an employee's physical location. The ATO's guidance on individual tax residency and the FWO's published position on the extraterritorial reach of the NES are the two most practical starting points for any review of an existing policy.

The compliance risk in this area is not driven by bad intentions on either side. It is driven by the gap between a work arrangement that feels informal and the legal framework that governs it. Closing that gap is a policy design task, not a matter of restricting flexibility.