TCF players stand up to be counted

NATIONAL: Textile, clothing and footwear funding enhancements, ethical and environmental manufacturing, skills upgrades and a tariff review have emerged as key issues in submissions to the federal government's TCF Review.

Following the May cut-off date for submissions to the review - due for completion on August 31 - the submissions, numbering around 80, included representations from the TCF consulting, retail, manufacturing, educational and research sectors.

Sydney-based consultancy Australian Fashion Partners (AFP) - whose clients range from emerging designers to large vertical companies - put forward numerous ideas, including measures to enhance the TCF skills base, the development of an environmental code of practice and standardised sizing.

A key proposal in AFP's submission was the streamlining of the TCF sector's multiple funding programs. Federal programs alone included the Strategic Investment Program (SIP), the Technology Development Fund, the Market Development Program, the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), the Expanded Overseas Assembly Provisions (EOAP) Scheme, the Product Diversification Scheme (PDS) and the Small Business Program. Future funding should also cater more effectively to Australia's dominant business type, small businesses, AFP argued.

"The TCF sector requires a focus that reflects the needs of all sector participants as opposed to the marginal benefits obtained from supporting larger employers with less responsive businesses."

Clothing retailer and manufacturer Just Group's submission supported the continuation of the SIP for clothing to 2010 to 2015, but emphasised this provided "scope for additional new dimensions to be overlaid on this core program for clothing".

Among these Just Group suggested the addition of a start-up initiative targeting new industry players. Given the small scale of the Australian industry, networking and collaboration within the industry would also be of benefit, Just Group director of operations Wai Tang said. 

Melbourne company Ripe Maternity did not lodge a formal submission to the review but contacted review author Professor Roy Green after the cut-off date with a number of proposals. These included the removal of SIP modulation - the practice deployed to ensure total grant payments for a particular year did not exceed allocated funds for that period - citing it as "a disincentive to investment and innovation schemes", as well as enhanced export support.

With the majority of its product manufactured onshore, Ripe also mooted measures to enhance onshore industry. These included a collaboration scheme between industry participants, whereby a condition of receiving funding was participation in partnerships.

This approach was echoed by RMIT University, which suggested SIP enhancements could play a part in fostering collaboration.

"Although successive iterations of the SIP have included categories for funding aimed at supporting innovation by funding research and development, this has not resulted in significant research collaboration between universities and industry," RMIT head of fashion Keith Cowlishaw noted in his submission.

The relaxation of import tariffs was another key issue. Just Group - which sources exclusive fabric from overseas - proposed this with regard to raw materials, while lingerie specialist Bras 'n' Things (BNT) claimed there was a case for the removal of the 17.5 per cent duty on the brassiere sector. It was now beyond doubt that that brassiere production would not return onshore, meaning tariffs imposed on imports were a disincentive to companies designing onshore but manufacturing in China, BNT's submission claimed.

By Belinda Smart