Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before the member for Lalor leaves, I note her comments. It surprised me a little bit that there are not more people speaking on this bill, because it really is an important bill. For anybody that cares about jobs in Australia—certainly in terms of steel and aluminium—the bill is absolutely critical, and I think we have all heard stories about issues where the quality of imported products is not exactly what it should be.

But I suppose when it comes to her point about electrical cables there are other processes, aside from the things that this bill addresses, by which quality and standards are considered—such as Standards Australia. I stand here as somebody who has, in my electorate, a very important business that has taken a case to the Anti-Dumping Commission. I will talk a little bit more about that later. Let it not be said that I am somebody that is not in favour of fair and, particularly, free trade.

I have been a very strong advocate for the work Minister Robb has done in terms of South Korea and Japan and, more recently, China in expanding the opportunities for exporters in our country to take advantage of those large markets to our north. But at all times there should be an element of fairness in that. I note the comments from the member for Lalor about the fundamental support for this legislation. It goes to what I think every Australian would expect of their legislators, and that is to the very edge of the obligations that we have under World Trade Organisation regulations. I do not think that is overreach, I do not think that is unreasonable, because I think they do want governments. I note what the previous administration did in this area, and acknowledge that, but they do not want business that will sacrifice local businesses at any cost. Yes, it is a competitive market, and yes, anybody in business understands that competition is a critical and vital part of delivering better prices and ultimately better products to consumers, and that is something we should all support.

So, there are a number of elements to the bill before us here, and, as I said, I will touch on one specific business in my electorate that has been impacted by that. I look forward also to the contribution by the member for Murray, because I know that she has been as passionate as anybody could be about her manufacturer, SPC, and issues they had regarding tomatoes. So, I will not go into details there, but I will look forward to her contribution. The bill does a number of things, not least of which are in terms of a number of commitments we made before the last election. One was to move the Anti-Dumping Commission's responsibilities from Customs into the Department of Industry, because, at the end of the day, it is industry that is impacted by that. Notwithstanding obligations that Australia rightly has under WTO guidelines, this policy has allowed the reforms to go to what is quite within the guidelines but to the edge of the World Trade Organisation guidelines. They will put a much heavier onus on foreign exporters to cooperate with investigations if and when they are brought forward. And indeed, if they do not cooperate, they will reserve the right to impose those duties sooner.

And I think 'sooner' is the critical thing here, based on the experience I have had with Norske Skog in my electorate. This is a big business. This is a multinational business. But from their point of view, once they have put a case forward to the Anti-Dumping Commission and are ultimately given a preliminary adverse determination then the timing of that process is problematic for many businesses. I do appreciate the efforts and the intent that is within this bill to send those clear signals that are designed to send and change the behaviours of those exporters that are dealing in this space to react in a time frame that is more appropriate to the fact that we want to see that determination made in a way that allows the business to get on with business or at least limit the damage that is incurred.

The member for Lalor—and I will not dwell on this—made some points around the International Trade Remedies Forum. I am not an expert in this area, I must say, but in terms of stakeholders in issues like this we want efficient mechanisms, we want flexible mechanisms, and these are not the sorts of things you need to bring people kicking and screaming to, I do not suppose. Where there are stakeholders engaged in a process there, where there are concerns, where there are potential cases in this instance of dumping in this market, it is not going to be hard to engage with stakeholders. So, on a case-by-case and in a specific sense, the government's intention is to be able to bring together working groups, and no doubt those working groups would include the different representation that the member for Lalor suggested.

Again, I cannot understand why more people are not on the list to speak to this bill, because it really is important. Small businesses are the engine room here. The difficulty with the whole notion of the process to bring a case of anti-dumping is that it is indeed problematic for those small and medium enterprises. It is less problematic for a business like Norske Skog, whose case I will touch on in a minute. But I am particularly pleased to see that the initiatives within this are all designed to support small and medium enterprises that believe they have a case to make to the commission. And I think that is pretty consistent in terms of what this government is trying to do across a range of areas, not least of which started up with the Minister for Small Business, who is doing a wonderful job to support small business, including the grocery code he initiated in recent weeks. I think this is further evidence of the importance—in terms of procurement but also in this case antidumping—that this government places on small businesses. And many of these businesses are often family businesses, and the timing issue I touched on before is very problematic for some of these businesses.

As I mentioned, Norske Skog is located at Boyer, just near the town of New Norfolk in my electorate. They recently brought a case before the Anti-Dumping Commission in relation to newsprint, and, as I mentioned, they had a preliminary adverse determination. As much as anything else, it is about confidence for that business to know that there is a process there that is supporting local manufacturers. If you take that notion of confidence and that notion of support for local businesses—in this case, manufacturing businesses—it leads on to how you might muse about or what you might consider to be a disincentive to invest in the future.

Norske have traditionally been involved in the production of newsprint. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that consumption of newsprint around the world is declining for reasons that we are all well aware—we read our newspapers on iPads and a whole range of other things. This innovative business have branched out into the production of lightweight coated catalogue grade paper and they are the only manufacturer in Australia of that product. I am not privy to the process they went through to consider whether or not the substantial investment. A loan from the state government at the time in Tasmania was provided to assist them and there was also a grant from the federal government, as it was at the time, to assist them in the substantial investment—$80 million from memory—required for the establishment of a new line there.

I have seen that line first hand and the very high technical nature of that paper manufacturing process. If you pick up a newspaper and it has a catalogue in it, more often than not, that is where it has come from in Australia. There is a market for around 300-odd thousand tonnes—out of the 400-odd thousand tonnes of paper—of lightweight coated paper in Australia. At the moment, the Norske Skog mill at Boyer is supplying about 120,000 tonnes and we hope in time they will be supplying a little bit more than that into the Australian market. Obviously, they have got advantages in terms of their ability to supply on a just-in-time basis whereas a product coming from overseas takes a little bit longer.

But I come back to my fundamental point, which is that if we want businesses to invest they should have the confidence that there are appropriate mechanisms and a timely process in place—a process that is not so cost prohibitive that it is impossible, particularly for those small and medium enterprises, to bring forward cases initially seeking preliminary adverse determinations that would then be able to incur tariffs if it were deemed to be appropriate.

As I mentioned before, a number of other cases have been brought before the Anti-Dumping Commission recently. I will not go into the details of the member for Murray's contribution. I know she is very passionate about this. We have had cases of cheap timber. As a fellow Tasmanian, I cannot understand why on earth a country like Australia would need to bring cheap timber into this country. It is quite beyond us but that is another conversation. The member for Lalor touched on steel and quality issues that are sometimes there, but arguably that is the decision for customers. That is not an issue for this bill. Where there is product meeting a certain standard being brought in and it is being sold at a price less than what it might be in their domestic market, that is where the Anti-Dumping Commission's role comes in.

After talking to about this with the Rod Bender, the managing director at Norske Skog, I can say that the difficult thing for local companies trying to fight this is that it is difficult to prove in the required time the financial hardship experienced from the dumping. This is an important and relevant bill. I note the member for Lalor's concerns, but we do want efficient and flexible mechanisms that are much less formal, because the stakeholders involved will bring themselves to the table and, on an as-needs basis, we can bring together on specific issues working groups that will no doubt include representation from a broad range of stakeholders. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context