Robert D Veal
21st January 2016
Attention Barbara Cullen
Small Business Victoria
GPO Box 4509
Melbourne Vic 3001
Dear Madam
Re Evaluation of additional Public Holidays in Victoria
Thankyou for the opportunity to participate in the evaluation process. I am not sure when it closes. It has been on my agenda to respond but I have been under significant time pressure over the last two months. I trust it is not too late.
In case it is thought I am only speaking for the business community , and do not appreciate an employee perspective and family life, it may be noted that I am and have been an employee for most of my working life, and my one wife and I have brought up 9 children on a single income since our marriage 40 year ago.
It was mentioned in the Ministers reply to the original submission that the intention in providing the additional holidays was not economic stimulus but for the benefit of employees and their families.
But someone has to pay, and that employee benefit comes at a very large combined cost to the States employers. It certainly is not an economic stimulus, but a pressure to contract the economy.
There is little doubt that most employees who benefited will be pleased with the additional holidays, which is natural enough as they do not bear the cost. Not uncommonly I have observed they tend to take a short term view, and are tempted with present pleasure but at the expense of longer term stability and prosperity. Employees have stability of employment when businesses have stability and can prosper.
It is mentioned that there is freedom for businesses to close so as not to be exposed to the penalty rates which apply. But notwithstanding available closure there is still a significant cost in terms of lost output. A number of small businesses I have an accounting role with, operate on small profit margins in a very competitive environment, and do not match their employees annual earnings and benefits. These find the additional impost a significant hardship.
This closure option is not available to a number of sectors including the health, some public utilities, emergency services and transport to name but a few. Some publicity was given of the huge cost to the hospital system of the penalties they incurred. There is constant pressure on this sector to provide quality services to an increasing population, and this impost can only squeeze their ability to do so.
I would urge the government to reconsider its action which I suspect became caught up in chasing electoral popularity at the time, rather than providing impartial governance and a framework to sustain longer term employment.
Yours faithfully
Robert Veal