Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The previous speaker is a very interesting person to follow and I think he speaks to the very big difference between this side of politics and the other side. The fact is that we cannot trust the market; there is a role for government to play in the market to ensure that we have a fair market. The previous speaker said that we need to trust in the magic of the market. There is no magic of the market. There is no such thing as magic. Magic is quite often a con, an illusion, people pulling a trick or playing a game, it is entertainment. To suggest that our market should be based on this notion of magic shows that for those opposite it is not serious about the important role that government has to play to ensure we are building strong, ethical businesses and we are building strong, ethical industry, and to ensure that we have with that good jobs that underpin it.

This bill seeks to amend the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Investment and Innovation Program. If passed, it will result in the closure of the Clothing and Household Textiles Building Innovative Capacity Scheme as well as the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Small Business Program. These programs are designed to help rebuild a strong textiles industry in Australia and there is a role for government to play. I was surprised to learn that there are still 44,000 Australians employed in the textile industries, yet the common belief in the community is that our textile industries are gone. They may have been gone from sight but they are still there, though not in the big factories that we used to have. Today they are in people's garages, today they are in people's homes. What we have seen in the textiles industry, in this 'magic of the market' environment and this push to compete with countries that we cannot possibly compete with, is that people no longer work for a solid company and a solid employer but work on their own as a subcontractor and being paid by the piece and not by the hour. Closing these programs early means a small saving for the government of $25 million but it will have a huge impact on an industry trying to rebuild and re-create its place in Australia. I thought one of the roles of government was to help create jobs. We hear from the other side all the time, 'Don't worry, you'll get a better job. Don't worry, you'll find another job.' But what jobs? Every single programs that was introduced by the former government to build jobs, to create secure jobs, is being torn apart and taken down piece by piece by this government.

The Clothing and Household Textiles Building Innovative Capacity Scheme was about innovation. It was about developing a sustainable and internationally competitive manufacturing and design industry for clothing and household textiles in Australia. In my own electorate we have had one of our manufacturers benefit from this particular scheme. ADA, which employs about 105 people in its Bendigo factory, manufactures clothing that our police wear, the clothing that our emergency services wear, protective clothing that our armed forces wear when on deployment and at home. They have also recently developed, produced and manufactured the uniforms and clothing which our Commonwealth Games team will wear this year. ADA is an example of an opportunity that we have within this industry, but it will only happen and continue to grow if we have innovative schemes and programs like the ones this bill seeks to delete.

Payments of the grants are retrospective. They are based on investment decisions that firms have already made. So it is not about giving money and then seeing the investment, it is about saying, 'You did the good work, it has worked, and here is the grant.' The grants are available for research and development and include innovation, production and design. It is not a corporate handout and corporate welfare, as the other side suggests. It encourages funding for research, development and innovation, and that is exactly the space that our government should be in, supporting industry to innovate, supporting the research and development. It is not a corporate handout at all.

Cutting out the small business program is another whack that I just cannot understand coming from a government that claims to be the champion of small businesses. Small business grants provide grants of up to $50,000 for projects to improve business enterprise and the culture of textiles, clothing and footwear businesses. This fund in 2012-13 provided almost $3 million for 74 innovation textiles, clothing and footwear businesses. That is 74 businesses that did not receive a corporate handout but got support from the former government from this grants program to ensure that they are innovating and that they are growing. If we want small business to continue to create jobs then we have a role to play with responsible and sensible investment to support those jobs. These grants were available to small businesses with fewer than 20 employees but with a minimum turnover of $100,000, so we are not talking about our large companies like ADA, we are talking about our smaller companies. This program helped create job security, it helped create jobs that you could count on. On this side we acknowledge that we need to have strong industry if we are to have strong businesses, and if we have strong businesses then we have secure jobs that people can count on. There is a strong role for the government to play in helping to create industry and ensuring that we have good, secure jobs as part of that industry plan.

Who will be affected by these changes? I have mentioned that it will hurt small businesses. I have mentioned that it will hurt larger businesses. It will also hurt the people who work in this industry and those hidden workers who work for piece rates. These workers are quite often from non-English speaking backgrounds, have quite good skills and work from home. Because they are not paid well and do not have good working conditions, they have to make do on very, very low wages. I will give some examples about who we are talking about. The other side like to beat this up and say that this is a protection racket for unionists and that it is about big handouts to unions. It is not; it is a grants assistance program that helps businesses that see a future in ethical textiles. It is about supporting the businesses that want to directly employ people so that their workers and their supply chain are not exploited.

I will talk about Mia. Mia works as an outworker for a company accredited to Ethical Clothing Australia. She has been working in the industry over 10 years and for the first time in her life Mia has received annual leave and leave loading from her employer. This is why it is so important that we see the re-establishment of an ethically strong textiles industry to ensure that the workers in the industry get back the rights that so many of us have and that they have lost. Because Mia is now acknowledged as an employee, as well as annual leave there are a number of other entitlements that Mia has received. She has received back pay. She is no longer underpaid. She actually gets pay slips for the first time as well as superannuation and workcover.

It seems to be a goal of this government to stop people from being employed directly by an employer and to see as many people become their own small business or enterprise and to be outsourced. It is important that workers are acknowledged as workers and that they receive proper entitlements. That is what we need an industry plan for in this area. We need to ensure that these 44,000 people are recognised as employees not as subcontractors, not as outworkers and not as people who are paid by the piece, and that they are treated as employees with the associated conditions that come with being an employee. That is why it is also important that government supports the employers that wish to rebuild the industry. That is why it is also important that government supports the industry.

Another example of the sham contracting and underpayment that occurs in the industry comes from Lyn, who is a highly skilled outworker. She who has also worked in clothing manufacturing for over 10 years past. Despite her skills, she was paid significantly below the minimum award rate. She was paid as little as $10 per hour. Because of her family situation, Lyn needed to work from home. She has a son with a disability. Lyn's employer sought ethical clothing accreditation and in conjunction with the compliance of an audit, Lyn raised a number of issues, which were able to be resolved through Ethical Clothing Australia. Lyn is now paid properly and in accordance with the minimum conditions. These are real people in our communities, real people who will be affected by the changes that are before the House. It may sound like a small change and it may sound like it is just a fund that is being deleted, but this fund was helping to rebuild an industry in Australia. It is not a corporate handout.

At a time when we are facing the loss of our car manufacturing sector and the loss of other manufacturing sectors, we need to look for opportunities and the future of manufacturing jobs. Given that there are 44,000 people still employed in the Australian textiles industry, it is the role of government, I believe, to help that industry grow. It is the role of government to support through innovation, just like this program, not through handouts but by providing innovation grants that support the businesses that do want to do the right thing and make sure that their employees receive the wages and conditions that they are entitled to and that they are able to grow their businesses.

I will finish on ADA, a business that provides employment in my electorate. ADA employ just over 100 people. The material that they manufacture is used by other ADA businesses as well as other manufacturers around the country. It is about the supply chain. It is about ensuring that wherever possible we start to buy local. Buying local and ensuring that we have the supply chain secured not only helps create jobs but also helps to secure and create industries. Yes, we are competing in the global market but we must always put ethics and ethical trading at the top of that.

The government are delusional if they believe that we can compete with the low wages and the unorganised workplaces of Asia. What we can compete on is quality and ensuring that our supply chain is secure and ethical. ADA is one of the companies that have signed up to this program and they have gone further. Previously, they had imported their ceramic material. However, with the CSIRO they are now trying to develop that product locally. CSIRO is another organisation hit hard by this government in its budget. It is clear not just from the abolition of this grant scheme and the measures in this bill but from the government's whole approach to industry that they do not have a plan and wish to just tear it up. They believe that the role of government is to leave it to the magic of the market. It is wrong. It is wrong to suggest that government do not have a role to play in ensuring that we have strong, competitive and ethical industries.

See this speech in context