Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, for filling in because of the rearrangements of speakers we have had up here. I rise in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011. Before I speak about the changes the bill will make I will make a few observations to relay to the House concerns that are repeatedly expressed in my electorate office by members of the Hindmarsh constituency and community and, of course, by the wider population. These concerns have as their route insecurity stemming from a dynamic, competitive global economy and the continual shifting we have seen in the last 20 or 30 years of global capital and manufacturing from country to country and region to region.

Just looking at the electorate of Hindmarsh I can name half a dozen businesses—manufacturing industries—that were there but are no longer there. They have disappeared over the last 20-odd years. We had a great employer, Clarks shoes, in the electorate, in the suburb of Marleston. They moved offshore about 10 years ago. Approximately 300 people worked in that particular factory. We also had Griffin Press, who used to print all the Mills and Boon novels—which is a little hidden secret in Adelaide—for the Asian market. They have now moved their printing overseas as well—another 200 jobs there.

So we have seen a huge shift of global capital and manufacturing moved from country to country and region to region over the last couple of decades. But people have an insecurity from this changing profitability of domestic and local production; the questionable sustainability of old, long-held jobs, the divergence of which industries we have and what we consider normal and good and, ultimately, insecurity breeding fear of change and loss, which is often a consequence of change.

Our community has inferred over many years what Australian industry is—what our industrial landscape should consist of and what jobs should be expected to remain open to successive generations. In South Australia, as we heard earlier, we have the car manufacturing industry, which has employed thousands of people over the years. In South Australia we saw Mitsubishi close down a few years ago with the loss of 1,000-odd jobs. If we have not imported a pest or disease with foreign apples or pears for a certain period of time, should we discard our quarantine and inspection services? Certainly not. The purpose of Australian law is not only to stop a proscribed activity already commenced but to prevent a proscribed activity, the threat of which hangs over us waiting for an opportunity.

The law we address here today is that of the Customs Act 1901, which became the unwitting victim of our legal system. The Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, explained in his second reading speech on the bill the unfortunate situation that arose from the judgment of the full Federal Court last year. We cannot have a situation in which a law devised for the proper implementation and enforcement of trade rules is undermined or removed from potential application simply because there has been no unlawful activity in the recent past. We have the law not only to enforce proper behaviour when a party is tempted to cross the line but to establish acceptable behaviour and to proclaim what is right and what will not be tolerated. So I would fully expect all members and senators to get behind the government on this matter and to support the community in its concern for the maintenance of fair trade and antidumping rules within our states and cities and within our wider jurisdiction.

In South Australia, an antidumping case recently took place involving one of the big toilet paper manufacturers in the south-east. The company bringing the products in was found to be dumping. That finding was appealed and the case was upheld. The problem is that we have many cases around the country similar to that one that, for whatever reason, are extremely difficult to prosecute. We need good laws for the protection of our businesses and all the manufacturers to ensure that we keep those very important jobs in our cities, in our electorates and in our wonderful country.

I could not go on without mentioning a particular manufacturer in my electorate, Rossiters Boots. They have been manufacturing boots there for over 100 years now. Through difficult circumstances and difficult times when manufacturing is becoming unprofitable, Dean Rossiter, the owner of Rossiters Boots is determinedly persisting and continues to produce boots in the suburb of Hilton in my electorate. I have had discussions with him over the years. It would be very easy for him to get up and move overseas, as other shoe companies have done in the past. But he is persisting and persevering, employing people locally and trying to do the best that he possibly can. In fact, in some cases, he has second and third generation people working in the shoe factory where their grandfathers and their parents were employed. They produce a very good shoe, a great product.

A few months ago, I was in Bali. We saw massive shoe production factories everywhere. People were working for $70 a week. You can see how difficult it is to compete with those lower wages in some of those countries, where these same products are being made. You can also see the temptation of those particular companies overseas to come into our market. They know that they can sell the product cheaper. They can also dump the product on the market, bringing the prices artificially low and therefore sending businesses out of business.

I am very pleased that this bill has been introduced. It will amend certain provisions of the Customs Act. The bill responds to, as I said, a decision last year by the full Federal Court, which considered the review provisions and, in particular, the test for determining whether antidumping measures should be revoked. The proposed amendments in this bill insert a new test which will provide that the Customs CEO must recommend that the minister revoke measures unless satisfied that the removal of the measures would lead, or be likely to lead to a continuation of, or recurrence of the dumping and the material injury that the antidumping measures are intended to prevent. It is a clear test which will avert the unnecessary revocation of effective antidumping measures.

The government is committed to its antidumping system. These amendments will ensure that where measures have been put in place to address injury faced by Australian industry as a result of unfair trading practices that those measures remain effective.

As I said earlier, I would fully expect all members in this place to get behind this bill, to support the community in its concern for the maintenance of fair trade and antidumping rules within our jurisdiction and support the government's bill. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context