VICTORIA’S Treasurer and Northern Victoria MP Jaclyn Symes has declined to directly address concerns raised by sections of the business community about the State Government’s working from home policy, instead issuing a brief, generic response through a government spokesperson.
The Review asked Ms Symes whether she believed the government’s position strikes the right balance between workplace flexibility and the economic health of small businesses that rely on workers returning to offices and town centres.
Rather than addressing that question, Ms Symes’ office provided a short statement attributed only to a Victorian Government spokesperson.
“Work from home is good for the economy, because it saves families time and money and it gets more parents working,” the statement said.
“If you can work from home for a small business, you deserve the same rights as someone working for a big bank.”
The response made no reference to the concerns raised by small businesses, regional communities or local economies, and did not explain how the government believes those competing interests should be balanced.
For critics, the statement illustrates what they say has been a persistent feature of the government’s handling of the debate: broad slogans in place of detailed answers.
Much of the public discussion around working from home has centred on the impact on Melbourne’s central business district, with business groups warning about empty office towers, reduced public transport patronage and declining weekday trade for city retailers and hospitality venues.
But others argue that framing the issue purely around the fortunes of the CBD risks overlooking the wider economic implications across Victoria.
Over the past several years, the shift toward remote work has dramatically altered where people spend their time and money.
The broader question, critics say, is not simply where work takes place, but how economic opportunity is distributed across the state.
Regional Victoria has long argued it receives a smaller share of major investment and employment opportunities compared with Melbourne. For some observers, the current debate raises familiar concerns about whether state policy continues to be shaped primarily with the capital city in mind.
Against that backdrop, the lack of a direct response from the Treasurer’s office has only fuelled frustration among those seeking a clearer explanation of the government’s thinking.
As the debate over working from home continues to intensify, many businesses and regional communities are still waiting for a straightforward answer: how the government intends to balance flexibility for workers with the economic realities facing local economies.
For now, that answer remains elusive.