Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

From the outset, when speaking on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011, I will give the House a little bit about my background, because it was actually an anti-tariffs message that got me really interested in politics as a teenager. I pay homage to Bert Kelly, who was a lone voice in the Australian parliament for a couple of decades. He kept on fighting the anti-tariff issue on the basis that it made our economy worse off by trying to protect certain industries, because whenever you protected one industry you invariably hurt another industry and, of course, you hurt the consumer. So I come here on the basis of being still a free marketer. I am sure there are many on the other side who are of the same opinion and believe in free trade—but it has to be fair. That is why we have the World Trade Organisation and the rules on the basis that, where a product is proved to be dumped and harming a local industry, you can then use tariffs to fight against that unfair trade. I come from a free-trade basis, but I also believe it has to be fair, and that is what this issue is all about.

The issue of dumping in Australia is not just about competition. It is about unfair competition, and there is a substantial difference. Australian businesses are generally resilient and tough and have become so from reforms over the last 30 or so years, so there is no doubt that if they are given a fair go they will withstand, innovate and produce. However, it is very difficult for Australian businesses to move forward in the current climate when they come up against forces such as a cheap product being dumped into the country at up to 60 per cent below production cost. This is where Australia needs to support businesses with responsible policy. It can be a hard decision for businesses to launch a case against dumping; if they go ahead, the process needs to be made much fairer than it is. Certainly the feedback I hear currently is that time and money invested just in putting a case together is hugely consuming. I am not saying it should be dead easy, but I think everyone recognises it is way too hard, is way too expensive and takes too long, and by that time the industry can be in such a situation that it will not survive.

Recently I met with a business in the south-east of my electorate of Barker along with my colleague the member for Indi. I think it should be noted that the member for Indi visited 20 electorates during the five-week break from parliament. That shows a huge amount of commitment to this goal, and I think we are all the better for it. This company could clearly point out where dumping had occurred and the devastating effects it was having on their operations. When weighing up their next course of action, the company is faced with the arduous task of proceeding with putting forward a case for dumping. A large amount of resources is needed to prove a dumping case. The process has many flaws, and for small to medium sized businesses it is simply not possible for them to see out the process. Consider the obstacles faced by industry in Australia: the looming price on carbon that will drive up costs and drive investments offshore; the dangerous two-speed economy that is making it increasingly difficult for businesses to remain profitable; and now the prospect of a product being dumped unfairly against their business.

With responsible policy, the pressure of dumping could be alleviated somewhat. With appropriate measures, businesses would feel confident that they had the backing of a government that understands the issues they face and is willing to support them. But they have no such feeling of this government. It is simply not happening under the Gillard government. I know this because I have met with businesses and heard it straight from the horse's mouth. The government should be well informed about this issue, considering they commissioned the report into dumping. I was certainly floored that, even after the government's own report saying that product was in fact being dumped in Australia at up to 60 per cent below cost of production, Labor chose to take no action. Here we are, over 12 months down the track, and this government has made some changes to their anti-dumping policy, but it is nowhere near enough.

An example I can give the House—and have on numerous occasions already—is that of Kimberly-Clark's mill in the township of Millicent. Millicent is a town with a little over 5,000 people, about 700 of whom are employed in the Kimberly-Clark factory. Many more, of course, are in related industries. So you can understand how important the Kimberly-Clark mill is to the people of Millicent. The factory uses a lot of our wood products, which we also grow in the local area, and it is a very strong part of our whole economy down there. In fact, the forestry industry alone is worth more than $3 billion a year to the local economy. It is not just a very substantial part of the direct local economy around Millicent; it is also important to the area for another 100 kilometres around it, where there is a lot of forestry.

This factory uses those products and makes tissues, toilet paper and those sorts of things. The Productivity Commission report showed that there were other countries dumping tissue and toilet paper in Australia, to quite an extensive degree, at up to 60 per cent below the cost of production. It was not five or 10 per cent—in fact, I think most companies in Australia could still compete with that—but up to 60 per cent below the cost of production. Kimberly-Clark is a prime example of a business that was harmed by dumping, and I brought the plight of the Kimberly-Clark mill to the attention of the House over 12 months ago. It is only now that the government is taking some steps to rectify the issue.

It is interesting that the government established a $17 million fund in the south-east for innovation and investment. This was in part to help Kimberly-Clark workers who were made redundant to find new jobs and up-skill. It is hard not to wonder if this was a patch-up job by this government. Perhaps, if Labor had acted responsibly in the first place and made certain businesses were protected from this unfair dumping, there would have been no need for this fund in the first place. I note the government's improvement to this anti-dumping policy, and it is a step in the right direction, but it does not go anywhere near far enough. Businesses need to be protected and the processes need to be such that businesses have the resources to complete the process. I am talking about the time and the money, because, in speaking with several local businesses, it has been made clear to me that there are significant faults in the current process. The government has indicated that this legislation is the first instalment, with more to come. We will wait with bated breath on that one. I am aware that these improvements have been well received by stakeholders, but a lot more has to be done. This legislation is not tight enough and not structured well enough.

The coalition has really pushed the government into making these improvements. If not for the pressure from the coalition I very much doubt that this Gillard government would have bothered to make these improvements. There were some contrasting views within the Labor Party itself about this issue. A few Labor members took it upon themselves to write their own report on anti-dumping, which they felt quite strongly about, and this was quite a bit more involved than the changes proposed here in this legislation. As I understand it, the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, was not very happy about that, but at least some members on the other side were prepared to stand up for their constituents.

This legislation was not taken to cabinet or the caucus, something we are seeing more and more often from this government. It is just a select few making the decisions and the rest are expected to follow quietly. I wonder what the members with manufacturing in their electorates think about this legislation. Do they think it has made the appropriate measures to protect businesses? I doubt very much that they would agree that this is anywhere near enough.

I am sure that there would be members of the other side pushing for further improvements because if, like me, they spend any time out in their electorates visiting businesses then I am confident they would know of the issues that have been plaguing the anti-dumping campaign. The government must take further steps to protect businesses from the burden that dumping brings to their operations and profits, because without profits you will not have employment. Businesses are the backbone of this nation and should be treated as such, not crippled as they are under this government. For instance, the government has promised to increase resources within Customs, adding extra staff to deal with anti-dumping. It sounds like a great idea in theory, except it has allocated no new money for it. Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor said a few weeks ago that the government was promising 'a 45 per cent increase in Customs staff working on anti-dumping issues over the next 12 months'. If there is no new money, then how can this be achieved without cuts from other areas? This is going to add pressure to an already underresourced sector. Customs has plenty to worry about with keeping the country safe from terrorism and the like, and then the Labor government comes along and cuts their resources even further. This government has cut resources from Customs in every budget it has delivered. Now it is making more promises that will equate to more cuts. This is a real shame.

Another improvement the government is making is to include a few new groups to the list of 'interested parties' who investigate the complaints and are generally involved in the process. These groups include industry associations, downstream groups and trade unions. The involvement of trade unions can be concerning, but in this instance it seems that they are on board with helping businesses overcome dumping. It really is in the best interests of the workers to see the business recover fully and move on with business as usual. Certainly, in the dealings I have had with local businesses that have been harmed by dumping, their unions have assisted with the process and acted in the businesses' best interests, and I welcome that action.

The Minister for Home Affairs was quick to criticise the opposition during his press release on the government improvements and he called on Tony Abbott to declare where he stands on dumping. I think it is quite obvious where the coalition and Mr Abbott stand on dumping, given we stand in this place time and time again asking the government to take action and run campaigns in our electorates. On top of that, Mr Abbott created the anti-dumping taskforce in February this year so the coalition could develop responsible and practical policy. Yet this government jumped on the band wagon only a month ago, even though these problems have been very clear for a long time. I think the minister should pull his head out of the sand.

Confidence is down amongst the business community, and who can blame them in light of the uncertainty that this government brings to the nation? Labor cannot be trusted. The Prime Minister cannot be trusted. She has misled the Australian public with her intentions, and this legislation is no different. 'Here is the first instalment but trust us to deliver more,' says the government. 'We will promise more resources but there is no new money.' This government was backed into a corner on anti-dumping by the coalition and that is why this legislation has come about. What will we have to do to get the rest fixed up? How many more businesses will have to be brought under by unfair dumping before this government makes responsible changes to ensure that they are protected?

The coalition has been serious about this issue since it arose as a potential problem. I have stood in this place and raised my concerns on several occasions. We have a task force that is specifically working on our policy so that it is well structured and responsible—not a last minute, poorly thought through decision like we see all too often from this government. Members from the coalition task force are out there visiting businesses like the member for Indi did in my electorate. Where is the government's task force and where are their members sticking up for local business?

The improvements outlined in this legislation are a step forward in protecting businesses from dumping, but they are not enough. Labor needs to tighten up this legislation and the minister must divulge how the extra Customs staff will be funded and reveal all the details. I would hope that this government is sincere about protecting businesses and does not just stop at this bill. It would be helpful if the minister revealed the government's plans about more improvements and it would be helpful if this happened soon—not another 12 months down the track. This is another example of the devil in the detail, another example of delays and of acting only after significant pressure from stakeholders and the coalition. (Time expired)

See this speech in context