Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

These proposed amendments to the Customs Act seek to clarify the circumstances under which dumping measures should be revoked. These amendments are sought to address the unintended consequences of a decision of the full Federal Court–the Siam decision–which formulated a test for revocation that will lead to outcomes inconsistent with the objectives of the antidumping system.

As a result of the full Federal Court's decision in Siam, it is much more likely that a finding of no dumping or no injury during a review period will lead to revocation. This outcome would be inconsistent with the objects of the antidumping system. The review provisions therefore need to be urgently amended to clarify the revocation test. These amendments would clarify that the Customs CEO may only examine whether the measures should be revoked where affected parties provide sufficient evidence in the approved form that there are reasonable grounds for asserting that the measure is no longer warranted, or where the minister requests such a review.

The amendments would also insert an express revocation test. Once the evidentiary requirements for initiating a revocation review have been met and a revocation review has been notified the 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 a recurrence of, the dumping or subsidisation and the material injury that the antidumping measures are intended to prevent.

It is imperative that the legislation governing reviews of antidumping and countervailing measures is amended in order to minimise the number of existing measures that are revoked which would not otherwise be revoked under the proposed changes that clarify and restore the intended operation of the review provisions.

I believe that it is very timely that the issue of antidumping measures is before the House. I believe it is a very important and serious issue, especially at a time when Australian exporting and import-competing firms are struggling under the difficulties of the high Australian dollar. The Australian Workers Union has launched a campaign to raise worker and community awareness about the damage that illegal dumping is doing to Australia's manufacturing industry. The AWU says that there has been dumping of a wide range of finished goods competing with Australian producers. It says that products like solar panels, rail track, wind towers, mining infrastructure equipment, steel frames et cetera are being produced overseas, primarily by China, and dumped on the Australian market. The AWU has resolved to call on the federal government to establish an independent commission to investigate dumping allegations and to legislate to enable affected groups and unions to ask for investigations to be undertaken by this body.

The union has warned that the sustainability of Australia's manufacturing sector is under threat, and has also called on the Australian government to help local industry by adopting a strict rule-of-law approach to illegal trade practices consistent with our WTO entitlements. The AWU has informed a Senate enquiry that Australia's commitment to a global free-trade regime should be on the basis that all our trading partners consistently apply World Trade Organisation trade laws and regulations. As the AWU has stated, it is committed to free trade. Over the last 30 years, coinciding with the reforming Hawke-Keating governments, this union has played its part in ensuring the benefits of trade liberalisation. This is shared by AWU members—along with the nation as a whole—in increased investment, job creation and national income. The benefits of free trade are not in doubt. Reciprocity of access to foreign markets has also been a key driver to enhancing the competitiveness of many of the trade exposed industries represented by the AWU including, steel, aluminium, plastics, petrochemical, agribusiness and horticultural industries.

However, just as with other activities in the marketplace, rules about free trade should apply, and trade on any terms does not constitute free trade. Unfortunately, in Australia there is a lack of regulatory action and oversight, which means Australian companies are ripe for exploitative trade practices aimed at dominating local markets through a range of subsidies and dumping strategies.

In a submission to the same Senate inquiry, the AWU spoke of its national Don't Dump on Australia campaign, which was launched earlier this year. In the submission the AWU outlined the following priorities to address product dumping: first, a properly resourced and independent antidumping agency responding proactively to dumping and subsidy complaints; second, improving the culture of Customs and compliance with Customs decisions; third, that Chinese exports by state owned enterprises should be treated like other state owned enterprises in other developed countries, notwithstanding China's market economy status; fourth, reflecting WTO rights in full in Australia's antidumping and countervailing system as trade defences rather than industry protection; fifth, amending the Customs Act to acknowledge that unions should have the right to petition for investigations; and, finally, strong local content requirements. Stronger local content requirements would serve to limit subsidised imports taking market share from local suppliers.

I support the AWU campaign. I believe that national self-sufficiency is important and I want Australia to continue to have a vibrant manufacturing industry. It is therefore important that our 'level playing fields' are genuinely level.

The fate of Australian workers in trade exposed industries rests with the creation and enforcement in Australia of a strong antidumping regime in order that nations do not take advantage of our generosity of spirit in trade matters. Many governments and in particular the Chinese government intervene directly and extensively in their economy to benefit their own industries. According to the WTO rules, however, WTO members including China can only do this in a manner which does not cause or threaten to cause injury to foreign suppliers of like goods. Of all the WTO members, China faces the most antidumping actions because of dumping of product below what is regarded as normal value and for recourse to export subsidies. There are two main ways Australian manufacturers of like goods are injured or threatened with injury by Chinese exporters assisted through government policies: first, by dumping and, second, by industry subsidies. The AWU submission says:

There is widespread evidence that China is engaging in a range of illegal practices to stimulate and protect its domestic producers of green technology, from wind and solar energy products to advanced batteries and energy-efficient vehicles.

These practices are enabling China to emerge as a dominant supplier of certain green technologies. They also have facilitated the transfer of manufacturing and research and development investment into China, costing otherwise efficient Australian companies and workers the green profits and high-skilled jobs of the future. Many of these practices are direct violations of the obligations China undertook when it joined the World Trade organisation.

The Australian Workers Union wants the federal government to understand that manufacturing workers take the brunt of deliberate Chinese government policies are not based on supply and demand, not based on WTO rules, but rather on a model of state capitalism aimed at winning dominant market share, by subsidising below the normal costs of production and giving other assistance at the expense of international competitors.

Our manufacturers should be well placed to exploit the economic opportunities available from the growing clean energy global economy. In order for Australia to do this, though, we must ensure that we have an equal opportunity to compete where all nations observe the global free trade rules. Sadly, our manufacturers are not competing on a level playing field with Chinese competitors. Chinese competitors can offer dump prices in Australia, not because they are better at making certain products than Australia but because their state owned or state linked enterprises sell the inputs to their industries at less than the cost that it takes to produce them or their normal cost of production. China manages its exchange rate, and the yuan is undervalued by approximately 20 per cent to 40 per cent, affording yet another advantage. Many of the dumping and subsidy practices of the Chinese have been challenged by other jurisdictions, including the US, Canada and the European Union. The WTO has defended their right to take action, because these practices clearly disadvantage industries and workers.

In recent months, both the United States and Canada have begun to adopt a more aggressive position on China's disregard for WTO rules. If they can act against dumped products then Australia should be able to follow that lead. As the AWU has pointed out, we should not worry about claims that a strong antidumping regime is simply a new form of protectionism threatening free trade. Free trade is in reality being threatened by China's flouting of the WTO rules. If we do not act now then products that once were dumped in the US and Canadian markets will be redirected to naive Australia and we will suffer even more. China needs to abide by the international rules governing trade, investment and labour standards. To allow them to do otherwise would be to allow them to play us for economic mugs. As the Australian scholar Christian Jack said, accommodation of China does not necessitate abandonment of Australia's core values. Australia must enforce its right to apply effective antidumping and countervailing measures to prevent injury and loss to Australian industry and workers. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context