It seems the delays could have been caused by decisions to experiment and go against trend, to manufacture the products in the USA, rather than countries such as China, where more expedient production conditions prevail.
We variously marvel at the cost-effective manufacturing processes in these countries and express alarm at the knock on effect on manufacturing here. The federal government's lack of will to subsidise local manufacturers is built on a conviction that workers here enjoy conditions that are unsustainable and our work conditions must be downgraded to ensure local industry is more competitive with overseas counterparts.
We enjoy record low prices on products such as electronics and clothing and marvel at what we consider the 'miracle' of modern manufacturing in China, as if it is part of God's bounty. That this is far from the case is revealed in Baptist World Aid's recently released Behind the Barcode report. It is not a gift of God but our taking advantage of the disempowerment of fellow humans in less fortunate parts of the world.
The Baptist report focuses on widespread ignorance of the conditions of the people who produce electronic consumer goods. In other words, what we don't know won't hurt our conscience. It's our lack of knowledge of the exploitation of the workers and, more significantly, the lack of interest on the part of Australian and multinational companies in knowing about the human circumstances of the manufacture of these products.
The headline findings of the report include that fact that 97% of electronics companies could not demonstrate they were paying workers enough to meet their basic needs. Only 18% of companies had even partial knowledge of where their raw materials were sourced. Also 34% of companies had a code of conduct which included workers' rights to collective bargaining, but only one company could demonstrate that there was a collective bargaining agreement in place.
Nokia, which still managed only a 'B+' grading in the study, was the only company among 39 leading technology brands able to prove it was paying its manufacturing workers a living wage above the official minimum. The study defined a living wage as enough money for food, water, shelter, clothing and a bit extra for discretionary spending or emergencies.
Other companies such as Australian retailers Kogan and Dick Smith did badly, and were not prepared to cooperate with the study by providing information about the systems of monitoring labour conditions they did have. Dick Smith instead issued a statement complaining that the study 'does not fairly represent Dick Smith's current practices' and insisting the company 'has policies in place to ensure that our supply chain meets our strong ethical and environmental standards'.
The lesson for Australian consumers wanting to be as confident as possible that they are not supporting child slave labour is that they should buy products from companies such as Nokia, who can demonstrate better than their rivals that caring about workers' conditions. This is, if you like, a feature of their products, and should take this into account when purchasing.
For its part, the Australian Government needs to less cavalier and reticent to subsidise local manufacturers, who are obliged to be transparent about their work practices and bear the costs of this. For a relatively modest outlay, it could have saved the Electrolux factory in Orange NSW, and we would have confidence that our vacuum cleaners are not being produced by slaves and sold to us at bargain prices.