Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011. My electorate of Tangney has two strong industrial manufacturing regions: Canning Vale and Myaree. Many residents of my electorate are employed in each of these regions. As well as heavy industry and manufacturing, Canning Vale especially—but also Myaree—has small- to medium- sized enterprises and many mum-and-dad industries. Why is strengthening antidumping laws important?

Recently a number of business owners and operators have approached my office to discuss how the flood of cheap products and materials into the market is affecting the competitiveness of their businesses. These local businesspeople feel cheap imports are undermining their profitability and in some cases their very survival. Each and every individual felt they could identify a case of dumping that was directly responsible for hurting their business and few felt they would get fair judgment of their case under current antidumping laws. All agreed that stronger and more flexible antidumping laws are a welcome measure for business in Tangney.

Complaints from local businesses in my electorate demonstrate that the present system is too cumbersome and that it places the onus of proof on domestic business rather than on their competitors. Other complaints are that it applies retrospectively, often after irreversible damage has already been done, and that it is generally prohibitively expensive to access. Make no mistake: while the businesses in my electorate thrive and encourage open and free trade, a foreign manufacturer or producer exporting product into Australia below the price it charges in its home market is the unfair predatory pricing that dumping creates. As many of Tangney's businesses are trade and import exposed small- to medium- sized enterprises, I am certain many more businesses than have come to see me are directly affected by dumping, with little recourse.

Dumping is a modern form of protectionism with many international trade experts citing it as the most serious impediment to international trade. Many countries, especially in the EU, have over the past 20 to 30 years increasingly turned to dumping in order to offer protection to import-competing industries. Yet, while Australia's industrial products market is one of the most open markets in the world, the government only pursues a small number of dumping cases. Antidumping measures allow our government to apply for countervailing duties on goods that have been subsidised by the government of the country of export. Where dumping or subsidisation results in material injury to local industry, antidumping or countervailing duties can be applied. To demonstrate its seriousness, since 1980 GATT and WTO members have filed more complaints under the international anti-dumping statute than under all other trade laws combined. Further, more antidumping duties are now levied in any one year worldwide than were levied in the entire period 1947-1970.

Dumping hurts the competitiveness of businesses in my electorate and I welcome these changes. From an international law perspective we must be aware that, while the Australian antidumping system is based on agreed WTO rules and procedures, these measures only benefit a small number of import-competing firms while imposing greater costs on the rest of the economy. In short, international trade policy has little effect on antidumping legislation. Foreign industry can almost guarantee it will not be subject to antidumping tariffs if it charges high enough prices in its export markets. Domestic industry might resist lowering its prices because doing so improves its chances of winning an antidumping case. The same domestic industry might also lay off more workers than expected because doing so indicates injury. My point is, the intricacies of antidumping measures are immense and that is why the Productivity Commission was asked to investigate our current regime in 2009.

The Productivity Commission's report looked at some of the ways the current antidumping laws impact on the wider economy, with certain antidumping measures too easily becoming akin to long-term protection measures or becoming outdated in the face of changing market circumstances. The task force will examine the problems with the current regime with the aim of developing substantive policy designed to stop foreign companies dumping cheap products on Australian markets. The task force honours a coalition election commitment to ensure that Australian manufacturers' products are not undercut by imported or subsidised products or by products that do not comply with appropriate quality standards. Again, as the federal member of an electorate with a heavy import orientated sector, I am proud to say the coalition is standing up for local industry. The establishment of this task force also acknowledges the widespread call from industry groups for improved access to the current antidumping system. Worldwide dumping concerns are not new, and Australia is playing catch-up to the European Union, Japan and the United States. This coalition task force represents the most serious attempt to remedy what is a huge issue for industry in Tangney.

I noticed the budget contained no new money to combat dumping, as was pointed out by the Australian Industry Group CEO, Heather Ridout. If the Labor Party is serious about antidumping measures it should listen to AWU secretary Paul Howes, who has called on his members to write to their local member about dumping. I welcome Mr Howe's sentiment, but, given his influence in the Labor Party, I wonder why he is putting the onus on his members to force change. He also has not committed his union to the measures in this bill.

Questions I believe we need to address include whether antidumping action should be available in response to imports that only threaten to cause material injury to an industry, the period Customs have to investigate cases, and whether the minister should be expected to take action where dumping is found to exist.

Competition is good for consumers and drives business innovation. But I am not confident this bill amends all the problems with the existing scheme. Opposition leader Tony Abbott has highlighted two high-profile examples of dumping. In 2008 and last year we saw a situation where toilet paper from overseas was coming into this country at up to 45 per cent below cost. Initially, antidumping action was taken, but then the government failed to proceed with the case. Another situation saw biodiesel coming into this country at, it is believed, 40 per cent below cost. A Customs report highlighting this dumping case has been sitting on the minister's desk since late last year. I understand no action has been taken.

I do not think any Australian manufacturer objects to strong competition, but it has to be fair competition—and when you have materials coming into this country well below the cost of manufacture and transport that is dumping. Australia must make sure that our manufacturing industries and producers are not needlessly put at risk by an ineffective antidumping regime. Free trade requires a level playing field, again something I am not confident this bill provides. Local business in Tangney is not looking for a handout or a hand-up, simply the freedoms needed to compete in the local market. I do not think this bill goes far enough to address dumping, but it is a start.

See this speech in context