Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I am very happy to rise and contribute to this debate and, indeed, support the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015, however modest it is. It is an improvement to the current arrangements and it may provide some further support to local industry that has been confronted with serious challenges by antidumping and by certain companies who have sought to breach WTO provisions. For that reason, whilst there might be some amendments foreshadowed by the opposition to strengthen the bill, I think it does assist with efforts by government to ensure that our local manufacturers are not unfairly affected by improper, unlawful conduct by those companies seeking to take some of the market share.

But, to place it into some context, I think it is important to reflect upon some of the very significant measures that were outlined and implemented by the previous Labor government in relation to dumping. As Minister for Home Affairs, I had responsibility for this area of public policy in 2010, 2011 and 2012. As a result, I met with many of the significant manufacturers who were dealing with a number of challenges, some of which were beyond the control of government but, nonetheless, were ones that were causing them great difficulty, namely and in particular, the exchange rate.

These manufacturers, like the tourist industry, were dealing with a very high and persistent dollar, which, as you know, can be helpful to Australians who, for example, want to travel overseas. It is a wonderful thing to have such purchasing power to travel to New York and have a dollar that has more value than the American greenback, and it is good for importers to purchase goods. That can, indeed, be a benefit to importers or consumers who are purchasing imported goods. But it may not be for those manufacturers exporting and for the tourist industry relying upon incoming tourists—and, of course, the value of their currency has a great sway on whether they choose Australia as a destination or choose another destination—and upon the local tourist, who sought to go overseas because of that advantage. For manufacturers exporting there were great challenges in that period.

As a result, we looked at our anti-dumping mechanism through the prism of whether it was of any use to our manufacturing sector and concluded that significant reforms were required to protect the interests of our sector, to ensure that jobs were not unduly lost and to ensure that sectors of our economy such as manufacturing and tourism thrived, not just survived. For that reason, as minister at the time, I introduced a whole range of anti-dumping measures which, if I may say so, were the most significant reforms that had been undertaken in this area of public policy for at least 20 years. It was really responding to the needs of manufacturers. I have recently spoken to OneSteel, BlueScope and other significant employers in this country. They tell me that those reforms, in combination with the further reforms by Minister Combet and further work done by Minister Clare in the portfolio that I held a little earlier, have led to very significant benefits for our manufacturers. These reforms were all in keeping with our WTO obligations but, in combination, sent a very strong message to those who wanted to take a market share of our economy that they would have to do so within the rules.

What I found when I examined comparable anti-dumping regimes around the world was that our regime was probably the least effective. The Productivity Commission, in many cases, does good work but, despite what I found, the PC's review of anti-dumping sought to weaken the regime, to weaken the support for local industry and to introduce measures that would have acted contrary to the interests of manufacturers. So I was not in an easy position in having to receive a report that I supported in part but not substantively. From that point, we as a government introduced new reforms which were welcomed by industry and by unions. And there were further reforms undertaken by the then ministers Combet and Clare. So there was a suite of reforms throughout that entire period because it was so obvious that the acute impact of the exchange rate on our manufacturing sector was such that, if we could not provide ways to mitigate it—and one of them was to use the quite reasonable approach of approving our anti-dumping regime—there would have been more job losses and more company failures. It would have been a terrible thing.

This bill is more modest in its reach but consistent with the approach taken by the previous government. While I applaud the government for its introduction, I would refer to the fact that an amendment has been moved to retain the International Trade Remedies Forum. The government wants to abolish that forum. I think that is the wrong move and it is critical that the forum be maintained. It is of great use. If you speak to manufacturers around the country who rely upon government support and this particular regime, you would find almost universal support for that forum. Therefore, it would be a mistake for the government to abolish such a forum—and that is why Labor has moved an amendment to that effect.

The one thing this government seems to have failed to do in areas of public policy is to maintain stakeholders in the process. We accept there are times when you can remove obsolete bodies that are not being effective. But there are many bodies where you have wonderful people from industry and other walks of life providing really good advice to government, and the idea of just sacking all those people under the heading of getting rid of red tape or getting rid of bureaucrats—they are not bureaucrats, they are not public servants; they are industry people—is a big mistake. In relation to this area, whether it is the International Trade Remedies Forum or other areas of public policy, the government would do well to think about the use of mechanisms that provide a platform for industry or others to inform government.

We therefore seek some amendments. But it is good to see that the coalition, whilst failing to do anything when they were in government during the Howard years, have ensured that there is maintenance of the reforms that we implemented. Specifically, on 2 March 2011 we moved to make changes to laws governing the process for reviewing anti-dumping measures. Dumping is when an overseas country exports its goods to another country at a price that is below the price it charges in its home market or below the cost of production. That is the essence of dumping. We sought to respond to that because it was unduly prevalent in some sectors of our economy. What we did was put in place a bunch of reforms. The legislation, for example, outlined a specific procedure for applying for revocation separate to the existing review process. The bill clarified that, if a party wants the minister to revoke anti-dumping measures, it must initiate the request or apply within a certain time. This move, we argued then, would make the review process more open and transparent, giving Australian manufacturers adequate time to respond to an application for revocation.

There were many impediments—and I just point to that example—to enabling manufacturers, particularly smaller manufacturers, to be involved in reviewing a decision as to whether or not a good had been dumped in our economy. Removing those impediments and providing support for industry has led to a much better result. For example, I have been advised by local companies that they have won cases on review that they believe they would never have won without the reforms that were undertaken in the period when Labor was last in office. Therefore, it is good to see that in this anti-dumping measure—other than the wrongful step of looking to repeal a forum that I think is of use to government—there is no effort to turn back those reforms that were so important to local industry.

Local manufacturers like BlueScope Steel and OneSteel—those very innovative and remarkably good companies—were confronted by the higher Australian dollar and overcame that challenge. Then, assisted by good government, they overcame some improper conduct by some exporters to Australia, which were in breach of anti-dumping rules. As a response to those things those companies have come through very well. If you look, for example, at the profit margins of some of those companies, you will find that they are now in the black—and they were in the black in recent times. That was not the case five years ago. That was not even the case four years ago.

We—employers, unions and government—should collectively be very proud of the fact that what we did back then was the right thing to do. It has been affirmed to me as recently as last Tuesday, when I was meeting with the very senior managers of these companies, who informed me that those reforms made the difference between whether they found themselves running at a profit or a loss. That is how significant it was. I pay credit to this government for not seeking to change those, but instead to add to some measures. I would only like to suggest—I do so by way of finishing—that we do not proceed with removing the forum that is referred to within the regime. This particular forum, the International Trade Remedies Forum, is very important. It should not be abolished. If the government accepts the amendment I think it would mean that there would be a unanimous position—it would certainly be a position of the two major parties, if not of all parties—that this bill should be accepted in its entirety.

See this speech in context