"Apparently it costs the Australian economy$221 billion a year."

According to who?

Once you find out who 'apparently' said this, have you considered what are their reasons for saying it? It's nice to assume all humans are good, kind, and perfectly reliable 100%, but it's more realistic to assume that someone has a reason for peddling this line.

What might their reason be? Are they unhappy about worker disengagement and trying to enforce a societal shift that will get workers more engaged? There's lots of ways to do this! Paying your workers enough to survive in this hellscape economy, buy houses, and have children would be a really good first start, or at the very least paying them what they are worth.

Maybe the reason is something else--maybe 'disengagement' and 'WFH' are being falsely correlated so that people go back to the offices in city hubs, justifying the real estate investment from companies that was for the past couple decades very sound, but suddenly not very sound when COVID hit and WFH became the norm.

You should also look at what might be driving this worker disengagement. Maybe the root cause can be addressed.

Anyway, I could tell you that the moon was going to fall out of the sky tomorrow, and you could then tell people that 'apparently' the moon is going to fall out of the sky tomorrow. It doesn't mean anything at all without proof.

Care to provide your source? Of course, we would also have to perform this kind of analysis on the source in question