📈 Fed's first cut since 2020: Time to buy the dip? See Tech-focused stock picksUnlock AI Picks

Australia’s Axing Funds To Fight Sweatshops

Published 04/02/2014, 02:40 PM
Updated 04/02/2014, 02:45 PM
Australia’s Axing Funds To Fight Sweatshops

By Angelo Young - Who knew Australia had a garment sweatshop problem?

Answer: a lot more people do now that the government, seeking cuts amid a projected AUD$47 billion ($43 billion) budget shortfall this year, has decided to de-fund an 18-year-old program that accredits local manufacturers of textile, garment and footwear products.

Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA), a joint initiative between industry groups, companies and unions, has been the main non-governmental program for rooting out abuses to the supply and production chain of the garment industry. Since 1996, the ECA has accredited participating manufacturers and provided labels to inform buyers that the product was ethically sourced. Australia’s clothing and textile industry generated about $9.1 billion in annual revenue and paid $1.6 billion in wages in 2012, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

© Reuters. An industrial sewing machine is pictured as police officers conduct a check at the Shen Wu textile factory in Prato December 9, 2013. Prato, the historical capital of Italy's textile business, has attracted the largest concentration of Chinese-run industry in Europe within less than 20 years. Yet Prato is also a thriving hub of labor abuses committed by both Italians and Chinese, a byproduct of globalization gone wrong. In a drive to cut government spending to tackle a ballooning deficit, Australia, another developed country with a garment sweatshop problem, is ending an 18-year-old program that accredits garment manufacturers that ethically source their labor.

But now the ECA is losing its $925,000 annual budget as part of the right-leaning Liberal Party-led government’s efforts to cut spending, effectively putting an end to the program. The government has warned there would be unpopular cuts as the country faces a stronger Aussie dollar and sluggish investment in its important mining sector.

The country’s Employment Department is also reviewing reforms to the labor law implemented in 2012 under the previous Labor Party-led administration of Premiere Julia Gillard that boosted protections for homeworkers, who are more susceptible to being ripped off by garment industry subcontractors.

That review will be released July 1. Any changes will likely be considered more business-friendly by the economically liberal government thus angering labor rights advocates who say the reforms protected homeworkers, many of whom are first-generation South Asian immigrants who are more vulnerable and unaware their rights as legal residents or citizens.

“ECA’s accreditation program is internationally recognized as best practice in an industry in which exploitation is endemic,” Simon McCrae, ECA national manager, said when the cut to ECA funding was announced in March.

Global trade liberalization is often couched as a win-win situation where consumers reap the reward of lower prices while poor workers in the developing world increase economic mobility. But trade liberalization has its downside for manufacturers in fully developed and stable economies when products that are made more cheaply abroad.

Tariff eliminations have put intense pressure on Australian clothing manufacturers and U.S. seafood processors to compete with the products made in countries with less regulation and enforcement. Meanwhile in poorer countries exploitation is rife amid lax workplace-safety standards, weak enforcement agencies and a culture of bribery. All of these factors can lead to problems in developed countries as companies there find ways to reduce expenses to compete with the flood of cheap imports.

Australia’s Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union says that since import tariffs began falling in 1992 Australian garment and textile manufacturers have increased their dependence on homeworkers and subcontractors who run sketchy workshops and pay employees less than the legal Australian minimum wage of $14.15 an hour. What trade liberalization has done, says the group, is pushed many nefarious labor violations into the shadows of the cities like Maidstone, Footscray or Springvale, where in 2010 the union exposed numerous violations, such as paying workers as little as $2 an hour, locking them in workplaces with no fire-exits and threatening them with physical harm for speaking out.

“While the closure or down-sizing of many large companies creates the impression that much clothing production is moving off-shore, a sizeable industry slips under the radar here in Australia, hidden and largely unregulated, in small sweatshop factories and private homes,” the union says on its website.

The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union estimates that there are about 50,000 Australian workers in the industry.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.