Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission Transfer) Bill 2013. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to separate the Anti-Dumping Commission from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and transfer it to the Department of Industry. The commission would continue to exercise the relevant antidumping powers and functions contained in parts XVB and XVC of the Customs Act 1901. This would include the receipt and screening of applications for antidumping measures and the conduct of investigations and inquiries relating to those applications. I note that the bill would also transfer to the commissioner any antidumping powers and functions currently retained by the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service under the Customs ACT 1901.

We on this side of the House do not oppose this bill, but we note that it builds on reforms introduced by Labor in our February 2013 Industry and Innovation Statement. The initiatives in that package are still at risk of cuts. What is the government's position on those initiatives? The government needs to speak up soon and decisively to support Australian industry.

Industries, companies and workers are injured when goods from overseas are dumped into the Australian market. That is why it is important that we have a fair and effective antidumping regime. In government, Labor strengthened Australia's antidumping and countervailing system to provide stronger protection from unfair competition for Australian firms. We implemented the most significant reforms to Australia's antidumping regime in more than a decade. In 2011, we announced comprehensive, WTO-consistent improvements to Australia's antidumping system, as detailed in the policy statement Streamlining Australia's anti-dumping system. We also established the International Trade Remedies Forum to provide advice on antidumping matters, with members from industry, unions and government.

In December 2012, we announced a package of reforms to Australia's antidumping system to deliver stronger protection for Australian industry against unfair competition from overseas. We recognised that, as global economic circumstances change and Australia is facing intense, and in some cases unfair, international competition from dumped goods, more needs to be done to ensure that Australia continues to have an effective antidumping system. Our reforms delivered stronger protection for Australian industry against unfair competition from overseas. These reforms were enshrined in Labor's Industry and Innovation Statement in February 2013, which included $27.7 million in further reforms to Australia's antidumping system. These reforms were, firstly, establishing a new antidumping commission to investigate dumping complaints; secondly, making it easier for SMEs to access and use the system; thirdly, investing $24.4 million to increase the investigative capability of the Customs and Border Protection Service, almost doubling the number of investigators; and, fourthly, strengthening remedies against overseas producers that injure Australian businesses by dumping and that attempt to circumvent Australia's antidumping rules.

The central objective of Labor's Industry and Innovation Statement was to build an economy which prospers in the 21st century and to create and support jobs. Our reforms to Australia's antidumping system were designed to support local businesses by ensuring a level playing field. In particular, the establishment of the Anti-Dumping Commission will deliver targeted resources to investigate dumping complaints and apply remedies where dumping is damaging local producers.

In government, Labor committed $1 billion in measures to support and create Australian jobs through the Industry and Innovation Statement. This included a series of measures to help Australian businesses gain access to major domestic projects, through changes to Australian industry participation plans. Labor's reform of Australian industry participation plans meant that domestic projects worth $500 million or more must demonstrate how they will provide more opportunities to Australian business. We set up a new Australian Industry Participation Authority to oversee these changes. We invested more than $500 million to establish industry innovation partnerships across the country including two in food and manufacturing, which are already up and running.

We provided $350 million as part of the Venture Australia initiative for a new round of the Industry Innovation Fund to attract private investment in the high-risk venture capital market. We continued to invest in the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad initiative, which included the appointment of supplier advocates, and the Supplier Access to Major Projects program and we continued to administer Australian industry participation plans requirements for government procurements and grants. We established the Manufacturing Leaders Group, a high-profile group of industry leaders, to provide advice to government across priority areas. We provided the Manufacturing Leaders Group with $5.6 million to 2016-17 to progress projects that will help improve productivity growth and ensure that Australian manufacturing is able to take advantage of opportunities in Asia and other markets. We invested $9.9 million in clinical trial reform to improve the conduct of clinical trials in Australia and support the pharmaceutical and medical research sectors.

All of these measures—Labor's $1 billion jobs package—are at risk of cuts by the coalition. While we do not oppose the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping) Bill 2013, we note that it does not provide the surety that Australian industry needs. The Abbott government is cutting the clean technology programs; it will not commit to programs under the jobs package; and it is turning its back on the automotive industry. It is time the coalition stopped turning its back on Australian industry and manufacturing and started helping businesses fund improvements and create jobs.

Dumping of overseas products onto the Australian market is becoming a matter of increasing concern for Australian manufacturers, food processors and food producers. In fact, it is putting many businesses under financial pressure, closing others and, with that, costing Australian jobs. I make two observations about why dumping is becoming a major issue of concern for Australia. Firstly, global multinationals deliberately sell products at below cost so that they can force competitors out of the market. When they have control of the global markets, they can then set their own prices. This is how large corporations operate and how they manipulate and monopolise world markets. There are many who will say that that is the way of the free market, that is the way it has always been and that consumers benefit as a result.

My view is that consumer gains are only short term and, ultimately, consumers pay more when the competition is eliminated. I note that many other countries have had antidumping legislation in place for some time. I also note from some statistics that many other countries use that legislation and whatever powers are available to them to counter antidumping measures on a much more regular basis than Australia does. Other countries use tariffs, import restrictions, quotas and a host of other trade barriers to protect their industries, whereas Australia complies with WTO principles and encourages free and fair trade. So Australia is considered an easy target. I hope that the free trade agreements that the government is currently negotiating with Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia and India, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, do not further disadvantage Australia.

The second observation I make is that the global financial crisis has caused a glut of products in world markets. These products, which cannot be sold, are filling up warehouses across the world and, in turn, are tying up funds and causing liquidity problems for those who own those stocks. The Australian economy, by contrast, is doing comparatively well. By international standards, I think it would be fair to say, we still have a very strong and robust economy—thanks to the Labor government's management of the Australian economy over those difficult years. So Australia is indeed a logical place to try to dump products, and that is exactly what has been occurring.

The Australian dollar is high, the economy is strong and so is consumption within Australia. Australia becomes an obvious place for those who cannot get rid of their product or who have a surplus of it to dump it. In fact, there have been reports in recent times of wind turbine towers being dumped in Australia. There have also been reports of a whole range of paper products, copier paper in particular, tomatoes, pork, biodiesel and canned fruit—to name just some of the products that are making their way into Australia as a result of the dumping that is occurring right here and now.

One example of dumping that I wish to point to is occurring right now in my own electorate of Makin. Tindo Solar, a new manufacturer of new technology solar panels, is competing against solar panels that are being imported from China. The fact is that Tindo panels are manufactured at a cost that is competitive with the true manufacturing costs of those same panels in China. But, because the Chinese have a glut of solar panels—I understand that there are warehouses full of them—they are dumping them wherever they can at below-cost prices, making Tindo's operations much more difficult. Tindo is a new company, with a new plant. It is capable of competing at true cost with any other manufacturer in the world but it is being undercut because of the dumping that is taking place. I brought this matter to the attention of the House on a previous occasion, and I do so again because I believe it relates very specifically and directly to the legislation that we are dealing with.

The last matter I raise is that of the Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. It currently has jurisdiction with respect to matters that come under the Customs and Border Protection Service. I note that, as a result of the legislation transferring functions to the department of industry and trade, that particular jurisdiction of the law enforcement commissioner will be lost, because the commissioner does not have jurisdiction over the department of industry and trade. Given that we are dealing with a matter that can very easily involve substantial amounts of money, I think it is very easy to see how improper behaviour might arise as a result of a process that deals with substantial values.

See this speech in context