Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The bill before us, the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011, is a really important bill, because it is actually about this Labor government getting serious on dumping and it is about fixing some of the long-term problems and established mechanisms that have been part of the market for quite some time. It is also about making sure we get the balance right between our WTO and free trade obligations, supporting local industry and making sure consumers get a fair price. It is not just about a cheap price; it is about a fair price—an equivalent price.

While I appreciate the comments and the history lesson from the previous member speaking, the member for Hughes, what he said really does not put into context the issues he raised—or dumping issues or the complex and sophisticated nature of what occurs today compared with what used to happen in the 1800s. But I do appreciate what he said. I thought it was quite interesting.

This bill clarifies for the first time when the minister may revoke antidumping measures as a consequence of a particular review. It responds to a very important decision of the full bench of the Federal Court—the Minister of State for Home Affairs v Siam Polyethylene Co Ltd, referred to as the Siam decision. This is really important, because the decision set up a catch-22 mechanism, which is quite dangerous and very problematic. What it meant for the minister was that he was compelled to act in a particular way which would not be in the best interests of this country or of industry in this country. It actually would have led to more frequent revocations and an inconsistency in the way that we dealt with antidumping in this country.

It is good to acknowledge that the opposition support this amendment we are putting forward today. They could not oppose it because it is a really good amendment and it has been really good work by this government in terms of getting this right. We are proposing to insert a new test that will provide that the Customs CEO must recommend the minister revoke measures unless he is satisfied that the removal of those measures would actually lead to continued dumping, further dumping or new dumping. I think it gives the right balance, particularly with reference to dumping, the recurrence of dumping or subsidisation and whether there would be material injury, which the antidumping measures are intended to prevent.

There are a whole range of technical issues all revolving around the capacity for the minister and the CEO of Customs to get the balance right and make those decisions in the right way. For me, it is about making a better and clearer process. It is about getting it right and doing that in the best way that we can. If you have a look at the antidumping measures and the processes attached to them, they are quite involved and quite complex and people would understand why there is the necessity for change. We just need to make it a workable and practical process that recognises the difficulties that Australian industry faces when it is up against actions that are really difficult to prove or interactions at arm's length in another country that might be dumping here in Australia. This amendment will also provide fairness by giving parties advance knowledge of the process for seeking revocation. It will give investigators time to properly consider the issues before reporting back to the minister. One of the big problems has been that not everyone gets the same access to information. That actually causes a problem, particularly for those who are seeking to amend or get right the antidumping measures or countervailing measures.

These amendments are sensible and they take us forward on the really complex matters of antidumping and how Australia plays a fair and robust role in the application of these measures. It is my view, and I would say it is the view of all of us in this place, that Australia has a great track record on these matters. We play a fair game. We seek to trade freely across the globe. We seek to interact with our trading partners on that basis. But the reality is simple—that is, dumping is real and does occur. At a simplistic level, dumping occurs when a foreign company sells products in Australia below the price they sell it for in their own country. It is a bit more involved and complex than that, but as a basic approach that is what is about. Let us understand that this occurs regularly and that it has an enormous impact on our industries, on our jobs here in this country, on our capacity to manufacture, to produce and to keep prices down and on our capacity to make sure that the Australian consumer has the best possible access to good quality products that meet our requirements at good, fair and cheap prices. If we do not get that balance right, it makes it very hard for Australian companies to compete with dumped imports. I hold firmly to the view that Australian companies ought to compete. They ought to innovate and do everything they can. They should not use dumping or antidumping as a surrogate for not fulfilling their part of the bargain, which is that they have to work hard and make sure that they can compete against equal products. If they are being provided fairly and cheaply in this country then we need to be able to compete with that. But as I have said a number of times, we want free trade that is also fair. It has to be a two-way street.

This is not just an Australian problem. Dumping is bad for any nation in which it occurs. When I say it is bad, it can mean the end of an industry altogether, particularly where that industry is a 100 per cent import replacement industry. Whether such an industry survives or not hinges on getting that balance right in terms of antidumping. You cannot come back from that position. Once an industry disappears, you cannot rebuild it. The capital cost and the fear of investment and everything that is attached means that once we lose a particular industry then it is gone and it is gone forever. There is plenty of evidence of that happening in this country. In fact, the Productivity Commission report shows a really interesting graph which they say shows that there is less and less need for antidumping measures because there are fewer and fewer cases. But if you actually track that through history you find that the fewer cases represent less being manufactured in this country. There are fewer cases to compete against because we have less manufacturing. I do not want to see that graph get to a point where there are no cases of antidumping because nothing is produced or manufactured in this country any longer. I think the Productivity Commission actually got that part of it wrong when they looked at what that meant for Australian industry and for competition.

This bill is about strengthening our antidumping legislation. It is about making certain it is fair, free trade that we are dealing with. It is about making clear, for all affected parties, the process to be followed in giving all affected parties more opportunities to have their voices heard when a review does occur. Dumping is complex. It is complex in a whole range of areas. It is complex because not everyone plays by the same rules and in the way they apply those rules. For example, Australia does recognise China as a market economy, whereas the US, Canada and the EU do not. That sets up a whole range of circumstances which make it much more complex for the Australian market and manufacturing and industry in Australia.

Australia must, under the rules, use Chinese domestic prices when establishing whether dumping is occurring. All other information available to make sure that dumping does not occur does not necessarily play a role, which makes it very complex in determining whether dumping is or is not occurring and, for that matter, whether there is material injury to a particular organisation or company or the wider market. As other countries do not recognise China as a market economy they use a proxy or a surrogate price, which can often be a more representative value of the cost in-country compared to the cost in our own market. Because of this, Australia often becomes the target market for dumped products, and this has been evidenced by a whole range of recent incidents. Basically, we are seen as a soft touch in a whole range of other areas.

I know the Senate economics committee is currently considering a separate bill sponsored by Senator Xenophon, which is aimed at strengthening antidumping provisions. While there may be some debate about all of the terms and what those provisions might be, I broadly support what Senator Xenophon is trying to achieve and I appreciate the work that he has done with this bill. I look forward to reading the report by the Senate economics committee on this legislation.

The reality is that we can do more to strengthen our antidumping legislation while still meeting our WTO obligations, because of the flexibility and judgment that is allowed by the current regulations to respond to genuine cases. We need to make sure that we get that right.

I have been saying, 'Let's do the right thing by industry. Let's do the right thing in terms of consumers as well, to make sure they have access to good-quality and cheap products.' But let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let us not kill our industries on the basis of inflexibility in terms of our regulations. There is plenty of evidence to support that case. As one submission to the committee points out:

The current provisions within the antidumping system, for example tariff measures, that may be applied to international companies' exports into Australia are less than those which would apply if the same anticompetitive and predatory pricing activities were undertaking in Australia between Australian domiciled companies—for example, as contained within the Trade Practices Act or the ACCC regulations.

To put it simply, we are harder on our own than we are on foreign imports.

I also want to take this opportunity to look at the real impact of dumping by bringing some other examples to the table. I want to mention the very good and serious work and the good campaign that is being carried out at the moment by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Australian Workers Union to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. It is a really good submission, which really takes this issue seriously because it affects so many workers and so many people across industry. And it will have a long-term affect on consumers in this country when certain industries are no longer with us.

In particular I want to raise the issue of Capital Limited, which over the past 10 years has been competing against Chinese imports, particularly on subsidised aluminium extrusions, which have taken a substantial market share in Australia. Capital, like many other businesses, are competing internationally. They are competing globally. They produce a fantastic local product but find it very difficult to compete where there are cases of dumping.

The reality is that we did find dumping. As a result of that dumping occurring, action has been taken. Unfortunately, in most cases, that action took place way too slowly and way too late. The damage has already been done or the size of the antidumping measure or countervailing measure was just too small. There are also the cases of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts, Big River Timbers and Boral in the Australian plywood production market, which has contracted by more than half since 2000. Dumping was also identified in that market, and measures were put in place against imports from China, Malaysia, Chile and Brazil. The reason I mention this is to make the point that this is real stuff that happens every single day. We need to ensure that our antidumping measures are responsive to what actually happens in the marketplace—and that is harder to prove. I am talking about situations where countries provide free products or do not act at arm's length in their in-country transactions, and that makes it very difficult for Australia to compete.

This is not a question of protectionism versus free trade; it is much more complex than that. I think we all agree that, being a globalised country which has formed the basis of its wealth creation on trade, we believe in free trade and that we are a robust trading nation. But trade has to be fair; we cannot be the soft touch—the patsy—allowing the dumping of products in this country. There are plenty of examples of good, strong manufacturing—globally competitive manufacturing—in this country having been put out of business because of cheap imports.

I am all for consumers having access to really good, cheap products; I have spoken on this in the House before. I do not mind cheap imported cars—I do not care how cheap they get—but I think there needs to be a fairness about the way it is done. We cannot just be used as a dumping ground for other people's exports and prop up their industries while ours suffer as a consequence. I think we need to get that right.

I believe very strongly that this country and our response ought to be as courageous in supporting industry and jobs and fair trade as we are in supporting free trade globally, free trade agreements and World Trade Organisation rules. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context