Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on a matter that is of great importance to the people of Tasmania and to all those involved in the textile, clothing and footwear industry in this country. The closure of the Blundstone boot factory in Hobart, which is moving to India and Thailand, is not only going to hit Tasmania hard; this relocation will have a resounding effect across the whole country. The factory’s closure has caused the loss of jobs for over 300 workers, which is devastating not only to Hobart but also to our Tasmanian community.

There is a growing trend, which has been facilitated and actively encouraged by the Howard government, for businesses to go offshore in their search for skilled workers at the lowest possible price. The closure of the Blundstone factory is all the more worrying because this is not the first time that a well-known Aussie company has packed up and said, ‘We’re off.’ This is a concerning trend. Do we have to move all our Aussie icons overseas? Among the brands that are Australian owned but now made overseas we have: Jockey underpants, Sunbeam kettles, Sheridan sheets, Hills hoists, Billabong, KingGee, Stubbies, Slazenger and Malvern Star—all made in China—as well as Kookaburra cricket bats, which are made in India.

Of all the industries that make up the Australian manufacturing sector, it is the textile, clothing and footwear industry that has been the hardest hit. Countries like China, India and Taiwan have an abundance of workers willing to do the same work at a much lower cost. Blundstone’s managing director, Steve Gunn, unfortunately summed it up when announcing the closure. He said: ‘I don’t believe that manufacturing in Australia is a sensible option.’ Is this really the direction that we want our manufacturing sector to take?

I realise this was not a decision that Blundstone made lightly. They have a responsibility to their shareholders and to guarantee the continuation of their product. But the Prime Minister and his government must be held accountable for the economic situation that is forcing so many companies to look abroad rather than at home. The Howard government’s tariff reductions have hit the textile, clothing and footwear industry hard. If all the companies are gone, what will be left for the workers? I do not think the Howard government have an answer for that. They have no plan for this industry. They are a tired government with no plan for the future.

Blundstone is just the latest in a series of companies that have been hit hard by the government’s agenda to lower the wages and conditions of Australian workers. We cannot ignore the fact that when closures happen, when jobs head offshore, it is the regional centres, where the majority of these factories are based, that are the hardest hit. Not only do workers lose their jobs but there is a snowballing effect within our communities.

The 300 workers who have lost their jobs as a result of Blundstone’s move will not have an easy time of it when it comes to finding other work—often it is necessary for workers to move to other areas—and neither will the 90 workers who will lose their jobs at ACL Bearing Company in Launceston as a result of a restructure announced by the company last week. Tariff reductions, price reductions, the commodities boom, currency pressures, fuel prices and the tight labour market have been blamed by General Manager Chris Brooks as reasons for the sackings. Anne Urquhart, Tasmanian state secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, questioned the logic behind the company’s decision to slash its workforce while at the same time trying to increase its productivity. But of greater concern to the remaining workers is ACL’s inability to guarantee job security for those who are left after the retrenchments.

The recent Blundstone closure draws the question: just how long can companies like ACL continue to operate under these increasing pressures? The only choice the Howard government is offering is to head offshore. The federal government should be providing incentives for business to stay on Australian soil, to retain Australian workers, to increase the skill levels and to employ even more workers. Yet still the Howard government refuses to act, even in the face of comments like this from the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout:

... you can’t knock a Chinese person for wanting to get a job that might feed their whole family ...

The Canberra Times article in which she was quoted went on to say:

Where we have got it wrong is in our failure to put sufficient emphasis on the technology that will cancel out the advantage of low-cost labour.

It is the Howard government that is effectively forcing our home-grown companies to abandon Australia. Even if you try to ignore the devastating flow-on effects that job losses through local companies closing and heading offshore have on families, on small towns and on regional and state economies, there is no denying that the benefits to the general public in encouraging our companies offshore are few and far between. Many have tried to argue that the savings made by business on the costs of labour will be passed on to consumers in the long run. There could be nothing further from the truth.

We keep hearing of the statistics that tell us that Australians are quite prepared to pay a little more for products that are Australian made. That is part of why Blundstone enjoys the popularity it does. Tradespeople across the country and others within our community know and love their ‘Blunnies’. There is no doubt that, even with the closure of its Hobart factory and the savings the company will make as a result of setting up shop in Asia, the company will continue to bank on its name and its true-blue Aussie image. Once the publicity surrounding the company’s move wears off, consumers will continue to pay high prices for a brand they know and love without necessarily realising it is no longer Australian made.

Again, all of this is by no means Blundstone’s fault. The Howard government has offered them no other option. In the wake of the announcement, there was talk of threats to urge construction workers to boycott Blundstone. This type of action will do nothing to help workers struggling within the industry. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union has, of course, been prominent in attempting to ensure that its workers will be looked after.

The TCFU was vocal in pushing for a federal-state plan to save some, if not all, 300 jobs at the 137-year-old Hobart factory, but the plan was unsuccessful. The TCFU national secretary, Tony Woolgar, flew in soon after the announcement was made to negotiate redundancies for workers, and the Tasmanian government’s Department of Economic Development has been active in working towards meeting the challenge of putting workers back into jobs. The issue, however, is that the situation we have seen repeated again and again will continue and other companies will follow Blundstone out of Australia until either the Howard government reassesses its trade policies or is removed from office.