Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011 because it is a particularly important industry reform. It is vitally important that we protect our manufacturing industries from unfair competition. This legislation makes some meaningful improvements to our antidumping regime. We should be aiming towards a regime that allows our manufacturers to access good protections without undue cost or undue delays. Under the present regime, where it is very cumbersome and very untimely to counter the effects of dumping, our manufacturers are being greatly disadvantaged.

In my electorate, our many manufacturers are concerned with the issue of dumping—and I do welcome the reforms in this legislation. On 8 August, I welcomed the member for Indi, the shadow minister for innovation, industry and science, to my electorate. We met with a range of manufacturers and discussed a range of issues of importance to them. That visit was held at the premises of WE Smith Hudson, an innovative manufacturer of pressure vessels in my electorate. They employ some 90 employees. They have reduced staff fairly recently due to a downturn in orders, but they still maintain a staff of around 90. They produce world-class equipment, particularly in the area of heat exchangers, and they raised a number of important issues with the shadow minister and me.

One of the main issues that they raised was the ineffectiveness of our current local content laws, where a range of projects are required to have a certain set percentage of local content, but unfortunately it is possible for those laws to be circumvented by certain operators, who incorporate parts of the structure which are groundworks and are actually considered to be part of the local content. They raised with us the very important issue that, where you had local content requirements, they had to relate to the equipment itself and not to the preparatory work and groundworks that might be a necessary accompaniment to the equipment but really could not be imported anyway. If you have a local content requirement, it is vitally important that it is effective, and WE Smith Hudson raised the very important point that the current local content rules certainly did not pass that effectiveness test because purchases of equipment were able to incorporate the groundworks as part of the local content. Clearly that was not the intent of the legislation, but it has been the practical effect.

Another issue that WE Smith Hudson raised with us during that visit was the fact that many overseas countries are subsidising their manufacturers in competing with Australian manufacturers. Countries in Europe, for instance, are subsidising the cost of transport of their equipment to Australia for the purposes of incorporation in resource projects. I think that is a very important issue; it is not a level playing field for our local manufacturers. We are losing manufacturing jobs at the rate of around 620 every week and we need to look to ensure that our world-class manufacturing industry is not being disadvantaged by unfair competition, either through the failure of the effectiveness of the local content laws or through our industries having to compete with unfair subsidies being provided by countries in Asia and Europe.

Also the issue was raised with us of the fact that many countries preclude our manufacturers from competing in their markets. It is a source of great concern and it is costing us jobs. A firm like WE Smith Hudson has incredible skills—the match of anywhere in the world and better than most countries in the world—and incredible intellectual property, but in many cases it is disadvantaged in the markets that it wishes to compete in.

During that visit by the shadow minister, we spoke to a range of other manufacturers and the story was the same. Dealing with unfair competition, rising costs and government induced overheads was making it more difficult for them to compete in markets where imports are benefiting from a strong Australian dollar and cheaper labour costs. It is making it very difficult for those manufacturers to compete and to continue to employ people. I commend the shadow minister on coming to my electorate and sharing her time and discussing with my local manufacturers their concerns.

I commend the work that she did in discussing with WE Smith Hudson their specific concerns in relation to the very specialised pressure vessel markets and the challenges they faced with regard to the ineffectiveness of the local content laws and dealing with subsidised overseas competitors. They also raised the issue of infrastructure. The pressure vessels which they produce are massive in size and in many cases they are limited in transporting them on the current road infrastructure because of load limits on bridges. Another important factor that we need to incorporate in our transport policy is measures in relation to load limits so that we can transport large objects that are manufactured locally along our roads and get those goods to market.

I commend this legislation for the improvements that it makes to the antidumping regime. I know that much more needs to be done in this area. I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. To start, I want to commend a number of organisations and individuals for the work they have done in relation to this: my good friend the member for Oxley, the Hon. Bernie Ripoll; the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Justice; the Australian Aluminium Extrusions Association for their advocacy; and the Australian Workers Union, particularly Paul Howes. Locally, out my way, I would like to thank Sven Gade, the business manager of Capral Ltd, and Phil Jobe, the managing director of Capral; and G James Glass for their advocacy in relation to this issue. This is a national issue that has big resonance in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland where Capral is located. Capral is a major manufacturer of aluminium products. The legislation here will make a big difference that will protect the jobs of hundreds of people living in the western corridor between Ipswich and Brisbane and the rural areas outside. I want to thank those people and those organisations for their wonderful advocacy in relation to this bill.

Dumping is a particularly iniquitous practice that affects Australian jobs. Dumping occurs when an overseas supplier exports goods to Australia at a price below their normal value. The normal value is usually based on the domestic price of the goods in the exporting country. Tragically for Australian jobs, this has happened all too often. It is not a matter of free trade versus fair trade. We believe in free trade; as an exporting country we believe that it is in the best interests of Australia to export to countries like China, South Korea, the United States, Japan and Europe. But we also believe that trade between countries needs to be based on a degree of justice and fairness. When a company engages in dumping, it really seeks to have an unfair advantage compared to local Australian companies, and it will materially impact on local Australian jobs.

The improvements summarised in this legislation are the result of extensive stakeholder consultation, and some of the organisations and individuals I mentioned here have been major players in that consultation. There has been consideration of the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No. 48 of 18 December 2009, Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system. The consideration of this legislation comes very much out of that. The changes, we believe, will improve access to the antidumping system across the country. It will improve the timeliness of decisions in relation to this. We believe it will improve decision making over the whole process. We do not believe these are protectionist measures. We believe they are in line with our obligations, particularly our obligations under World Trade Organisation arrangements. We think also that we are doing what other countries comparable to us, the United States, Canada and other countries in the EU, are doing to protect local jobs and to make sure that there is a level playing field in relation to this particular measure.

There is a raft of improvements. I welcome the package of 29 improvements to the system. They will have a big impact on not only employment but also the social fabric of our community. There will be better support to industries in our area. The AWU supports this. We have had companies like Capral supporting this. We have even had the National Farmers Federation coming out in support of the measures we are undertaking here. David Crombie, the chair of the National Farmers Federation Trade Committee had this to say:

Agriculture is one industry that is particularly susceptible to dumping, where foreign products are exported to Australia at a price below cost price.

The NFF believes it is very important that industries like agriculture, that have legitimate claims against dumped exports, have the opportunity to seek a remedy for this through Australia’s anti-dumping system, ensuring unfair trading practices can be challenged.

He went on to say:

This means that the emphasis remains on whether goods were exported to Australia at a price below the normal value of the goods, thus making it harder for our farmers to complete, rather than on any perceived short-term consumer benefit.

When you have a situation where the National Farmers Federation, the AWU and business are in support of these changes, I think we have got it right.

In my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, which has a very large farming community and a very big manufacturing base in Ipswich, this will be particularly important—also for smaller businesses as well because they have found the cost, the expense and the complexity of antidumping action prohibitive in taking actions. So these amendments, which will make an impact nationally, will make an impact locally in my electorate. There are a number of improvements. The minister said in his second reading speech on 6 July 2011:

These improvements will improve the way we administer global anti-dumping rules in Australia and better align our laws and practices with those of other countries.

I agree. This will make a difference locally.

I will go through the amendments which will have an impact in my electorate and in communities across the country. Improvements include the following. There is an improved timeliness in relation to this issue. We will have a 45 per cent increase in Customs staff working on antidumping issues over the next 12 months to ensure cases are dealt with more efficiently and effectively. I think the 30-day time limit for ministerial decisions on antidumping cases will make a difference, for a start.

I think one of the biggest problems in this area is that it is extraordinarily complex. It is very difficult for the average person to get their head around. It is difficult for small companies to take on these types of cases. One only has to read anything prepared in relation to this issue, including reports, advice from QCs given to me, reports from companies involved in these types of cases, and analyses by Access Economics, to see this. It is extraordinarily difficult for the layperson to get their head around. This is very complex law. The whole practice and procedures here make it very difficult to identify whether a company overseas is dumping. We have not had the expertise, in my view. We have not had the staff in Customs to take this on. I think the commitment to boost the monitoring measures to ensure compliance will be very important. With companies from overseas, particularly in the case of Capral, the competition and the dumping have been from Chinese companies. For too long we have found it difficult to identify that dumping has actually occurred. The indexes, the criteria, the factors and the circumstances make it very difficult, particularly when companies overseas are often state-owned companies, which are heavily subsidised in countries like China. We need stronger compliance. The idea that we can combat these measures is really important. I think we need improved decision making. (Quorum formed)

Obviously we on this side of the House are concerned about protecting jobs and helping farmers, but those opposite are not listening to those sorts of speeches. They are not interested in protecting jobs, protecting workers or protecting farmers in our economies across the country. I mentioned before the complexity of this issue. For example, on 22 March 2011 Deloitte Access Economics undertook an analysis of antidumping measures in aluminium markets in 2008-09 for Capral. It is extraordinarily complex analysing the approach of Customs and Border Protection to substituting the London Metal Exchange prices with Shanghai Futures Exchange prices over 2008-09. Capral have been involved in a number of pieces of litigation, including an application they made on 11 May 2009 for the publication of dumping duty and countervailing duty notices in respect of aluminium extrusions exported to Australia from China. That is just one of many measures that the company and other companies in the country have been involved in. As at 30 June 2011, there were 24 measures in place against 18 products and 12 countries in relation to antidumping.

This is not some academic exercise. This is about protecting jobs and making sure that we have got a fair system across the country. We want to make sure that, while our local economies are strong and our national economies are strong, workers are protected, and that is what we believe in the Labor Party. We are not the party of Work Choices; we are the party that protects jobs and makes sure that we stand up for the living standards of people across the country. The reforms here ensure quicker and better dumping decisions and greater consistency with other countries. This is doing what the Americans and the Canadians are doing, in large part. There is stronger compliance with antidumping measures. We have accepted 15 of the 20 recommendations in the Productivity Commission report I referred to. Some of the Productivity Commission report recommendations make it more costly and more difficult, and we did not adopt those.

We have made a big difference here. As I say, there is improved decision making through greater use of trade and industry experts in investigating complaints. There is a more rigorous appeals process supported by more resources from government, providing flexibility in allowing extensions of time to complete the complex cases, which makes it easier to expedite, and there is better access to the antidumping system. I think increasing the standing of individuals, companies, unions and other people to take these cases on will improve the capacity to stand up for local jobs, local companies and local farmers. That is important. We need to clarify who can participate in these investigations. It has been difficult in the past. A lot of small businesses and small farmers could not do it. I can imagine industry associations, large trade unions and downstream industry standing up for workers and farmers in this country.

I think it is important that we have these measures. It is important nationally and it is important for local jobs. Once again, it is a federal Labor government that stands up for workers' rights, as it has been in the past and always will be in the future. I commend the legislation to the House.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. This is a day that Australian industry and the coalition has been waiting for for a long time—around three years, in fact. It was genuinely as long ago as that that the Labor Party flagged that the government would be taking action to improve Australia's antidumping system.

Finally, after all that time and following almost endless and ongoing efforts at buck-passing in recent years, the day has arrived when we have the opportunity to debate a piece of legislation on this issue. Of course, as every stakeholder in this area appreciates, the government has only acted now because it was shamed into it. Such a cross-section of critics had coalesced and so many storm clouds had gathered around its inaction that the government was rendered powerless to resist the inevitable any longer, especially after it became clear that even its own brethren in the union movement—and the faceless man who installed Ms Gillard as Prime Minister—were unhappy with its impotence on this issue. They told the government in no uncertain terms that something had to be done. I only wish this debate had come on sooner.

We all know that the Labor Party does not have its heart in legislation like the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill. You only had to watch the awkward, cringe-worthy body language and answers of the trade minister at the press conference on this issue on 22 June if you were not aware of this point already.

This legislation is being introduced under sufferance and it is born not from a desire to support, encourage and improve the fate of Australian industry and Australian agriculture but out of what the government see as a need to appease Mr Howes and to shut down public criticism of their misunderstanding of the problem of dumping and its ramifications for the Australian economy. It is the result of Minister O'Connor and Minister Emerson being panicked into doing and saying something—so much so that, even at the time they were staging their rushed press conference, some of the key documents outlining the changes were, quite remarkably, still being hastily cobbled together, to the point that, for a number of days after the announcement, they were not even ready on the ALP website, the Prime Minister's website, the customs minister's website, the trade minister's website or in any other kind of public distribution, even though they had had three years to get the details ready.

And then we found out that that was not even adequate in any case. What has subsequently been revealed is that this turned out to be yet another occasion when a policy was not even taken to cabinet, let alone to caucus, for its consideration. On one hand you had two ministers spinning a line for public consumption that the changes in this bill are revolutionary and apparently—if you swallow what was in their media alert—the most ground-breaking changes to Australia's antidumping framework in more than a decade. Yet, on the other hand, it turns out that this issue, in practice, is so trivial to the Labor Party that it has not even been listed as an agenda item for its caucus to discuss.

The succession of Labor backbenchers who will be trotted out in this debate have had absolutely no say in their party's policy on this issue of antidumping and are now, far from the first time in their careers, being ordered to blindly support a policy that has come their way. Nor have Labor powerbrokers even bothered to make any serious explanatory information available to key industry stakeholders or to the Australian public at large. It just shows, yet again, how loose is their grip on proper government and democratic processes, how feigned is their interest in the future of Australian industry, especially local manufacturing, and how skewed their priorities are.

Nonetheless—I will make an important concession here—given how reluctant they always are to admit error and defeat, even when it is blindingly obvious how bad their decisions and policies are and how devastating the impacts are for the Australian community, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies like this piece of legislation. In that context the coalition will be supporting the passage of the bill because at least it legislates for some basic improvements, and that is a start. But, as the AWU says, it is a first step. It is also quite a come-down—and an important one at that—for the trade minister and the customs minister. So some change in this area is definitely preferable to none.

We are glad that, dragged kicking and screaming though they may have been, the government have eventually reacted to the combined pressure of the coalition, Senator Xenophon, industry groups, individual businesses and trade unions to make changes such as imposing a time limit of 30 days on ministerial decision making, widening the range of factors available for consideration in the determination of material damage and expanding the list of subsidies against which Australian industries can apply for countervailing duties. Those are sensible and practical changes for which key stakeholders have been calling for some time and it is good that something is being done about these problems.

The coalition will also support the move to grant interested-party status to unions, industry associations and other downstream users through part 10B of the Customs Act. This change will allow these parties to gain direct participative rights in dumping investigations and the capacity to initiate appeals and reviews of decisions. It embeds in legislation recognition of the obvious point that the dumping of goods in Australia impacts on a wide range of parties. It also recognises that there are sometimes commercial limitations on the ability of a business or businesses to engage in antidumping applications.

Indeed, some of the trade unionists who have been at the core of this debate in Australia over recent months should be congratulated for their commitment to placing pressure on the government when it comes to antidumping policy. More broadly, we also welcome the custom minister's statement, in his second reading speech, that changes to improve Australia's antidumping system are vital, and we welcome his accompanying comment that local industries here are vulnerable to dumping. These are long-overdue acknowledgements from the government. There have been considerable and growing frustrations over recent years in Australia with the lack of a timely and effective investigation process undertaken by Customs and the significant costs imposed on businesses that wish to raise possible cases for consideration under the current antidumping regime. The system is widely regarded as being too expensive to access and is largely unworkable in its present form. The current structure of the system typically works against the best interests of Australian manufacturers. It represents another burden on them at a time when they are already encountering a range of unwanted costs and pressures and a series of poor and clumsy policies from a government that simply has no empathy for their plight. They want a system that works for them, not one that thwarts them, especially at a time when they are already confronted by a range of government imposed costs and compliance burdens and a series of clumsy policies from the government.

Against this background, anything that can be done to strengthen the integrity and quality of the administration of our antidumping system should be supported. We need to recognise that, for as much as Australia and other nations have embraced the ethos and operation of free trade over recent decades, it does not mean that there are not instances of unfair restrictive trade, nor that such instances may even be on the rise. After all, it is for entirely these reasons that antidumping systems exist in the first place and it is why their use is fully sanctioned and supported by the WTO. Far from serving as some sort of abominable subversion of free trade or as the last form of refuge for the closet protectionists, as some observers like the trade minister would often imply, they actually enshrine and serve to underpin free trade principles.

If they are effectively implemented, antidumping systems can go a long way to remove cases of market distortion and ensure that trade is conducted on a genuinely even playing field. If there is unfair trade, if goods are being dumped on the Australian market at below their comparable price at home or in some cases even below the cost of production, then these practices should be identified and dealt with. To simply cite the pre-eminence of market forces in this kind of debate and stand idly by while industry is held hostage to unfair practices that threaten their very existence is frankly nowhere near good enough anymore.

Hopefully the changes that the government is making in this bill will mark a turning point in helping to reverse any increases in dumping in Australia. They are certainly among the kinds of changes to which the coalition was giving voice when we committed in our 2010 election policy statement to review Australia's antidumping scheme to effectively ensure that Australian manufacturers' products are not undercut by imported subsidised products or products that do not comply with appropriate quality standards. In early 2011 we reinforced that commitment by establishing our dedicated coalition antidumping task force to specifically examine problems with the current regime and advocate for a more workable, accessible and effective model. They also tap into—albeit in an understated way—the reality that a number of other countries have increasingly recognised the importance of antidumping measures when encountering market-distorting trade activities, especially countries like the US and a number of EU member states, and more recently nations like Brazil, Argentina and India, where there has been a rapid escalation in the uptake of antidumping actions. Australia will find itself increasingly exposed and in an increasingly dangerous position if it does not remain mindful of these realities.

That said, the government here still has considerable work to do. Not only is it apparent that this bill legislates for only four of the policy changes announced on 22 June—and it is anyone's guess when we might expect to see further legislative changes that have been promised—but it is also clear that, even taking all of the flagged changes as a whole, the government has still not gone far enough. It is again indulging in another of its landmark hollowmen style games by selling some of its changes as things they are plainly not, especially when it comes to the absurd boast that it is allegedly boosting the resources of Customs—a point to which I will return shortly.

Fundamentally, this is yet another exercise in spin, in which the government is being too cute by half. In characteristic style, it is demonstrating that it is more obsessed with controlling public reporting of this issue than with putting in the hard yards and legislating for a full suite of changes that will actually have teeth and will genuinely deliver the kinds of reforms that will work to the full benefit of the Australian economy.

The spectacle of Minister Emerson breathlessly invoking the acronym WTO in almost every question he is asked on this issue and essentially railing against everyone and everything that argues for enhancements to Australian's antidumping system represents not only a public slap in the face for at least two senators on his own side of the parliament who have identified grave concerns with recent approaches to this policy area but also a misreading of the national interest—and it is a slap in the face for Australian industry, which is heartily sick and tired of being treated so poorly by this government. It is a shame he clearly does not come to this debate realising that antidumping systems and free trade are not mutually exclusive and that our obligations to the World Trade Organisation do not preclude us from implementing a more effective and robust framework. If he recognised that to be the case, then we might have had a more serious and proactive effort from the government.

For once, just once, it would be nice if Minister Emerson actually stood up for Australian industry and for all those millions of workers who used to be the lifeblood of the Australian Labor Party—the Australian Labor Party that is now simply an axis of weasels. As one of their own senators drubs them, they are a group of 'lobotomised zombies' whose passive acquiescence, as Australian industry gets battered from pillar to post, is a national disgrace.

Let me turn to one of the many obvious holes in Labor's spin on this issue: the implication in its glossy promotional documents that its alleged extra resourcing of Customs represents 'a boost'. There is Minister O'Connor's statement on 22 June that the government is looking to increase Customs' resources by nearly 50 per cent. The coalition's suspicion at the time that this was nothing more than sneaky rhetoric has subsequently proved to be extremely well founded because it has now emerged that there is going to be no extra funding of Customs at all. Rather than recruiting 14 new staff, it turns out that there will be no net increase in the overall staff numbers of Customs, only that 14 positions will be taken from elsewhere within the agency. So the overblown claim that there is an increase at all, let alone one of nearly 50 per cent, is exactly that—overblown. Even if they do ultimately shift another 14 staff to the relevant branch, other areas of Customs will obviously need to be cut to compensate.

All of this is at a time when there is already unprecedented strain and pressure on Customs staff in a number of areas, especially passenger processing, as the government continues to try in vain to patch up its dog's breakfast on border protection, following year after year of budget reductions that have already been forced upon the agency under this government—and to think that the Labor Party has the hide to criticise the coalition for its statements about the Public Service.

Something has to give and it is clear that Labor does not particularly care where or what it is. There is no commitment to improving the lot, the culture, the morale or the practical effectiveness of Customs. There is only a determination to try to make up for some of its excessive spending and appalling waste of government by now starving funds to areas that are already on life support anyway. Simply shuffling resources and giving the relevant branch the appearance of a lick of fresh paint by changing its name and relocating back to a diffuse staff that it probably had shifted out of there during its first few years in office is not going to achieve anything. What is to say that when it is required to extinguish another spot fire in another area of Customs at some point in the future the government will not just engage in the same kind of cost shifting again—only this time removing resources from the anti-dumping area itself?

This government is on the run. It is not considered policymaking or careful deployment of resources. I also note that the second reading speech of the Minister for Home Affairs on this bill featured references to the utopian prospect that this bill will provide 'greater certainty'. Unfortunately, he is clearly a long way from providing certainty on at least two of the key other measures, namely, the appointment of an SME support officer and the creation of a working group of the International Trade Remedies Forum, because it is not clear how these will function in practice other than that the SME support officer will be appointed purely on a trial basis and—surprise, surprise!—only until just after the time that the next federal election is due.

One of the other critical points of contention, confusion and uncertainty around dumping is that there is growing suspicion of increased use of subsidies by foreign governments to help lower the costs of production borne by exporters from within their own countries. It is true that through this legislation Labor is taking the rather obvious step of expanding the list of subsidies against which Australians can take action, and that is a good thing. But there has been nothing in the way of serious debate, discussion or information from the Labor Party about how it practically plans to strengthen the application of measures such as preliminary affirmative determinations or how it takes account, through article 2.4 of the WTO's anti-dumping agreement for instance, of the comparative advantage that will be conferred on overseas producers as a result of the introduction of Australia's go-it-alone carbon tax or how it intends, if at all, to make changes to the way in which the WTO's agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures is interpreted and applied.

Labor's changes do represent an improvement, but you could also be forgiven for being worried that the pursuit of this so-called package of improvements will, at the end of the day, just be another chapter in the long tale of Labor inaction and impotence when it comes to anti-dumping—just as was the case in 2008 when Labor, as part of the COAG process, formally agreed that anti-dumping was a priority area for reform but then nothing whatsoever was even uttered about it until the following year, just like in 2009 when the Labor Party commissioned and then received a Productivity Commission review of anti-dumping policy but then stuffed the report in the bottom drawer and did not bother to dust it off until after the 2010 election and just like earlier this year when the Minister for Home Affairs faithfully promised that Labor would commit to a new approach to anti-dumping—and presumably to new financial investments in the system as well—as part of the budget but then was forced to give in to the Treasurer who presumably told him that Labor's serial squandering had ensured there was simply no money left to fund this new approach and the announcement would need to be postponed and reworked yet again.

If the Labor Party were genuinely serious about anti-dumping reform, it would not merely introduce this so-called first tranche of anti-dumping legislation or even the second, third and however many more tranches it has in mind to implement what has been announced. Indeed, it would go further. Rather than gilding the lily about the modest reach and impact of its changes, it would practically and genuinely commit to more far-reaching cultural and practical reforms that are required. Nonetheless, these modest improvements are welcomed and I commend the bill.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few brief comments on the changes being proposed in the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. I make these comments in the hope that the bill will indeed seek to improve the current regime. I make these comments with the knowledge that on one hand the Labor administration is hoping to improve business through strengthening provisions within anti-dumping and in providing some safeguards and some actions on the minister. Yet at the same time and, indeed, in the same breath, the government is seeking to make it instrumentally difficult for business through implementing a carbon tax; the only economy-wide carbon tax in the world being considered and implemented—the words of the Productivity Commission in its latest report.

You would have thought that if a government comes to the dispatch box to look at issues that affect business—in this case to stop illegal dumping at a lower price—that there would be a degree of consistency in the values and principles by which they present legislation, and that that consistency would concern what makes it easier for business. But the only consistency we have seen so far is the impost on business. Even the Australian Industry Group is now looking at Labor's so-called Fair Work Bill and saying, 'You know what? It's neither fair nor leading to work.'

The carbon tax is now being universally described as a disaster right across the nation in terms of its antibusiness stance and how it affects the basic economics as well as business confidence in manufacturing. So many things this government does are harming business that it is hard to see a narrative about how they seek to help. So it is my hope that this bill will seek to make some improvements, and we shall be watching with great interest over the coming months and years to ensure that occurs.

A company in my electorate called JELD-WEN Australia is a company that has been through the mill twice on anti-dumping. The first time it was found to be unwarranted and the second time, I believe, the same will be found. It is hoped that these improvements will ensure that companies like JELD-WEN can face fairly and squarely the issues and that they can get the ministerial representation they need.

But it is also instructive that a company like JELD-WEN, which owns brands like Corinthian Doors and Stegbar, is experiencing a downturn in some areas of their business by as much as 20 per cent. Something like 80 per cent of our homes, offices and buildings contain at least something that JELD-WEN produces. If a company like JELD-WEN is experiencing such a dramatic downturn, it speaks volumes about what is happening in our economy.

If I look at the Gold Coast, at my electorate, there are three key things—three concerns—on people's minds. Number 1 is the carbon tax—the betrayal by the government—and the fact that the government will not listen to them. Number 2 is jobs and the loss of jobs, and number 3 is the increasing cost of living. That a company like JELD-WEN is showing such a downturn in this time of corporate downturn reinforces that people are hurting. The cost of living is increasing, people are not spending and people are worried about their jobs. The carbon tax is simply exacerbating a difficult situation.

All I ask for in this place—all we want from this government—is consistency, and the carbon tax shows there is none of that. I think we all agree that the basic purpose of anti-dumping is to allow countries to take action against foreign manufacturers who seek to export a product into Australia at a price which is lower than the price it charges in its home market and/or its costs of production. Whilst there are more technicalities involved in that, including shipping and the averaging of the cost of production if production is across multiple sites, the intent is to stop a major company coming through and exporting into Australia with a loss leader or dumping products that they cannot move and that fundamentally affect Australia's manufacturing or local industry. I think we all accept that that makes sense.

However, there is a range of issues with the current arrangements and the way they are implemented and administered. I think it is fair to say that there has been considerable frustration at the lack of timeliness and the effectiveness of the processes undertaken within Customs and the costs imposed on businesses where they are raising cases or seeking to address cases because of the multinational aspect of their business. Our system is widely regarded as being costly and for the most part reasonably unworkable. Perversely, it imposes a greater burden of proof on local industries. Again, it is hoped that these amendments will seek to change that.

The introduction of this amendment is certainly a response from Labor to the concerns being raised. Like all things it takes a long time—ironical, as opposed to the carbon tax. Six or seven days after becoming the government—once the final numbers were in—the Prime Minister broke her word, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'. But when it comes to Australian business and Australian manufacturing apparently it takes years. Can I say to the government: the irony is not lost on the bulk of Australia's businesses. It is good to see that the coalition—and I acknowledge Senator Xenophon—industrial bodies, individual businesses and trade unions have said to the government that there needs to be a range of responses to deal with the issues.

These reforms will seek to bring in a range of amendments, including a time limit of 30 days on ministerial decision making—which is nice—widening the range of factors available for consideration in the determination of material injury and, of course, expanding the list of subsidies against which Australian industries can apply for countervailing duties. On the whole, these changes would appear to be sensible and practical, but like all things time will tell whether they are workable and time will tell whether the ministerial intervention is done appropriately, logically and sensibly.

Most seem to interpret the bill as a reasonably positive move that may help to address some of the inherent flaws in the way that business is currently done and the way that anti-dumping is currently looked at. The members of the coalition's anti-dumping task force—I acknowledge the Hon. John Cobb MP, Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck, my good friend Michael Keenan MP, who is sitting at the desk now, and of course the shadow minister, Sophie Mirabella MP—have done a great job in consistently engaging with stakeholders and getting advice from business and industry associations. The general feel is for tacit support. We believe these moves are in the interest of the nation; let us wait and see how they go. It is our hope that these moves will improve the situation for business—hence the wide-ranging support we are giving to them. I personally hope that these moves will assist companies like JELD-WEN in my electorate, who have been at the receiving end of a range of cases that will assist them to defend themselves appropriately, properly and judiciously. I welcome the bill's introduction to the House.

Debate adjourned.