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 (No. 3) 2012. Antidumping and customs circumvention are not usually issues which are raised in the P&C meetings and the pubs in my electorate of an evening, but dumping really has an impact on the people of Ipswich and the Somerset region. It causes job losses. We have undertaken some serious reform to address this issue, to protect local jobs and to create a level playing field within markets.

A company in my electorate which has made a big impact in relation to this and has been at the forefront of the fight about dumping is Capral. It is a manufacturer of aluminium extrusion products. It is a 76-year-old Australian company employing about 900 people across the country. Its largest aluminium extrusion plant is located at Bremer Park, in Ipswich, and employs about 300 workers. At Capral they take a 400-kilogram aluminium billet, traditionally sourced from Australian smelters, and turn it into everyday products, extruding, ageing and finishing the aluminium to form numerous shapes and sizes for use in innovative products such as window frames, truck and bus bodies and general engineering.

The Bremer Park plant is a state-of-the-art plant, but it runs at about 50 per cent capacity. Why does it run at about 50 per cent capacity? It does so because of dumping. It does so because it is facing unfair competition from Chinese dumping in our economy. This plant is one of the most highly automated, efficient, internationally competitive plants in the world.

The managing director, Phil Jobe, and the extrusion business manager, Sven Gade, have taken me on numerous tours of the plant, and I have arranged in the last few years for Ministers Ludwig, O'Connor and Clare to tour the plant, meet with workers and management, and see what measures could be undertaken to protect jobs. Phil has said to me that the industry is under pressure. A lot of manufacturing is under pressure. OneSteel, BlueScope, G James Glass and Aluminium and a number of other plants are under pressure in the manufacturing sector because of dumping. The high dollar does not help. The international effects of the global financial crisis do not help either. But there are other pressures. The mining boom has had little impact on this particular company in my electorate, save for the pull of employment from the plant to the mining sectors in WA and Queensland. Phil Jobe has regularly stressed to me that the No. 1 pressure the company faces is the dumping of cheap aluminium extrusion into Australia by the Chinese.

I have met with Paul Howes, the National Secretary of the AWU, at the plant as well. I have met with plant workers. I want to say this. Both management and unions are in favour of free trade, but that trade needs to be free and it needs to be fair. They are not afraid of competition; they just want a level playing field. Dumping aluminium extrusion from China has seized almost half of the Australian market, and this has put our industry under a lot of stress.

The facts are that the Chinese are dumping products in our economy and taking advantage in three ways. Dumping is really the generic term for three ways that they are undertaking. The Chinese government ownership of aluminium smelters in China results in them subsidising the supply of primary aluminium. They are not doing it because they are good guys. They are not doing it because they want to sell their product in Australia at cheap prices to help our construction industry. They are doing it because they want to destroy, in effect, our manufacturing base to get a greater share of the market, and what they want is to then control it. It has resulted in a control of our market which can be up to six times as much control of the market as you would see in the US or Canada. They are not doing it because they are good corporate citizens or international competitors; they are doing it because they want to control the market.

The second way that the Chinese companies are undertaking this is by circumvention of Australian laws and customs measures. I know that, when Minister Clare was in my electorate at Capral, he was put through a very extensive discussion by Phil Jobe of just how the companies get around doing this. Sometimes it is by another company importing parts or bits and pieces, which then transfers it to another company. It is extremely complicated. In fact, I have read QC reports and legal advice on this, and it is one of the most complex areas of the law.

Sadly, I do not think that in the past we have had enough expertise in the Trade Measures Review Office. As part of the earlier tranche of legislation, we increased the expertise, gave ministers 30 days in which to make decisions and increased the size of the trade measures office in relation to this, and we propose to do so by up to 45 per cent.

But we really have a terrible situation in my area. I know that unemployment is 3.7 per cent, but when the biggest aluminium extrusion plant in the country is operating at 50 per cent, it is a problem. On this problem, Phil has said: 'We're not looking for tariffs; we're not looking for a reversion to that sort of mindset. What we're asking for is that countries that bring product into this country abide by the rules.'

If countries are not abiding by the rules, we need to declare it openly. We have an extensive agenda. Minister O'Connor and Minister Emerson announced just a few short years ago a series of measures, and this legislation belongs among the final stage of such measures. However, I do not think it is the last in the final stage of measures, because Minister Clare has appointed former Victorian Premier John Brumby to report on the idea of a Commonwealth antidumping agency. While I do not want to prejudge the report, my own view is that an agency with expertise is better that an agency that might be put together in Customs. I am not convinced from what I have seen from my experience with industry and from what I know from discussions with unions and management that the decisions of the Trade Measures Branch of Customs are always right, so I applaud Minister Clare for engaging former Premier Brumby to investigate whether a specifically prescribed agency which concentrates on antidumping and investigates whether a more timely conduct of investigations is appropriate will make trade operate more fairly. The trouble is that investigations take ages.

One of the worst decisions that the Howard government ever made was to say that China is operating as a market economy, because it means that we are hamstrung in some ways. This decision was made in about 2005, and it means that we cannot adopt what I think is the fairest way to assess whether or not dumping takes place. I can understand why they did it as a precursor to a free-trade agreement with the Chinese, but I think that an acknowledgment that the Chinese heavily subsidise their industry would have been a better recognition of economic reality in China. I think that the Howard government's decision was very bad and that the current oversight is inadequate, and I applaud the government for what they are doing.

The legislation before us will make a difference. It is about reform of three policy areas. I have talked about such reforms on numerous occasions and do not intend to talk much further about them, but the legislation aligns our antidumping and dumping countervailing systems with those of our free-trade organisation counterparts. We are hamstrung by the decision of the Howard government, as I have said before in other speeches, and we have to get around it in some way that does not breach our obligations. We need to improve our timeliness, our expertise and our examination procedures. We have already considered the idea of improving locus standi organisations which can take on antidumping cases. When industry, the unions and the National Farmers Federation are all singing from the same hymn sheet, you know you are on the right track. In politics you cannot always get everyone on your side, but you know that you are doing something right when they are all saying that we should be doing what we are doing.

This legislation is important. It inserts new provisions implementing a proposal to amend the subsidy provisions in the Customs Act. There is a new division to enable industry to apply for an anti-circumvention inquiry. There are other, stronger provisions to address non-cooperation. This legislation is important for the sake of Australian jobs. Every vote that I have ever cast internally in the ALP has been for free-trade—every single one—but China cannot continue to do this and to affect trade and commerce and jobs in my electorate. I go to the plant at Bremer Park and see—and Minister Clare has been there—how much more the plant could do for economic development and jobs and prosperity in my region. There are 300 workers there, and the workforce could be doubled. That is what we are talking about—the impacts on local communities. The antidumping laws are very complicated. They are obtuse, esoteric and vague. They are the sorts of things that Phil Jobe gets a QC to advise him on every time Capral takes on a case. In fact, in 2009 they did so and won. But they have a real impact on people's lives. Every day the workers at the Bremer Park plant worry about their jobs—I have talked to them.

I applaud the minister for this legislation. I applaud him for appointing John Brumby to look at the antidumping laws. I think that there are more things that we can do. We should take a more aggressive attitude. China is important to us, but we cannot sacrifice Australian jobs for the sake of our obligations to China. Australians come first. Well done, Minister—I think you are on the right track in this legislation, and I hope that former Premier Brumby recommends a new agency with more teeth, more power and more regulatory oversight and that we can take a more realistic approach to the antidumping laws.

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

In rising to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 3) 2012 I state again that the coalition supports in broad terms the changes that are proposed in this legislation. Given that this is at least the fourth time in the past year that we have been asked to debate the same general set of government changes to antidumping legislation, I have already made the same point about coalition support a number of times, but I am happy to state yet again that this legislation contains a sensible set of changes and that we are comfortable about supporting them. The coalition has long taken the view that any revisions that can be made to the legislation to sensibly reduce the time and the significant costs imposed on Australian businesses which wish to raise possible antidumping cases for consideration should be regarded as very important.

There is, justifiably, considerable frustration across Australia about the barriers and the costs in the way of businesses and industries that are the targets of dumping.

Within the coalition, we believe it to be beyond doubt that changes that genuinely increase the effectiveness of antidumping investigations in Australia are desperately needed. That philosophy was heavily reflected in our work on our own antidumping policy that was released last year following detailed consultation with a range of affected parties and extensive internal work by four of our frontbenchers in drafting that policy, extensive discussions and analysis of world best practice, particularly the European model and the American model. As a result of that work, we are proud to have played a central role in publicly shaming the government into finally beginning to implement changes, after several years of sitting on their hands, as well as to have shone a light on their utterly protracted and unnecessary process of repeatedly filing the issue in the too-hard basket and shuffling it off to one inquiry after another.

Indeed, it with is worth stating that the changes in this bill effectively represent an endorsement of some of the key recommendations and points in the coalition's antidumping policy—but it did not have to take this long. It is a shame these changes have not been implemented more quickly and that there has now been another depressing return to procrastination from Labor on antidumping in recent weeks. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies in that the changes in the bill are actually, eventually, being legislated at all. In particular, it is reassuring that there is now recognition from the government that, across a number of areas of antidumping legislation, Australia's approach should be aligned more closely with that of a number of other jurisdictions. I am glad that the current bill is intended to achieve progress on that issue on various fronts. Again, that is a key component of the coalition's policy.

As I say, the principle of embedding closer consistency with other countries' approaches is an absolute no-brainer, particularly when other like nations are facing the same challenges of dumping from the usual suspects and the effect on their industries, particularly manufacturing, is akin to the impact on ours.

The tolerance of non-compliance and non-cooperation has been there for far too long. We have been easy targets. We have been a soft touch when it comes to getting assistance and cooperation with investigations and compliance with decisions, and that is stated quite openly and unambiguously in our policy.

In that sense, I am glad that the Labor Party agrees with us and that steps are now being taken, through this legislation, to close some of the openings and escape clauses that presently allow uncooperative parties to potentially evade or reduce their liabilities. It is something the Australian people expect us to do. If we believe that there should be an antidumping system, then necessarily it must be an antidumping system which works and is effective, which ensures we have adequate investigation and enforces our decisions. However—and, again, as has been pointed out many times in the course of the protracted debate on the various tranches of this legislation—the Australian system would also benefit greatly from a much more decisive change of political will, attitude and culture. To that end, it is especially disappointing that the Labor government is still not investing a single extra dollar into the Customs budget in order to specifically fund any changes to the antidumping system. This is notwithstanding the point that it is clear, and indeed it has been clear for some time now, that the system needs to be better resourced. It is not an appropriate response to the current set of problems to attempt simply to cost-shift from other areas of Customs, let alone after a period during which it has placed the agency under severe strain in so many areas.

It is also utterly remarkable that the government now thinks it appropriate that John Brumby—yes, John Brumby!—should be called in to 'consider the feasibility of a Commonwealth anti-dumping agency', including 'the benefits and costs of retaining this function within the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service'. The previous speaker, the member for Blair, said we hope that the recommendations from yet another Brumby review board would advocate taking administration responsibility for the antidumping regime out of Customs and he also said more things can be done. Yes, more things can be done. You do not need yet another review, yet another inquiry, to state the obvious. You do not need to waste more money or to give another failed Labor Premier a job to tell you the world's best practice shows that Customs is not and has not been the most appropriate place in the Public Service to have a functioning, well-resourced antidumping regime with access to appropriate legal and economic expertise.

Even more frustrating than the waste of money and procrastination is the breathtaking hypocrisy. Some members of this Labor government foamed at the mouth when the coalition pointed out last year that administrative responsibility urgently needed to be shifted from Customs. This is something I was and am very passionate about. It is what the Americans did for good reason and it is in our policy.

On 7 November 2011, the then Minister for Home Affairs, no less, said that:

… moving responsibility for anti-dumping decisions from Customs to another department is just bureaucratic reshuffling and will take away the responsibility for making decisions from the staff who actually monitor what is being imported into Australia.

And yet what do we find out now? That the Labor Party has secretly called up Mr Brumby to ask if he could spend several months acquainting himself with the issues and work out how he could do this very thing. Today seems to be a day of deja vus and history repeating itself. There was no call to the coalition at any time over the past year to talk to us about how we could have very easily worked together to quickly and efficiently achieve this. Instead, all we received was abuse—not as vitriolic as the abuse John Howard got when he introduced the Pacific solution that this government has adopted today, but it was still abuse. We were told, yet again, that we were wrong, when in fact we were right. Now we will no doubt be treated to the spectre of several months' more delay and more wasted spending on another tortured review process that the government hopes might enable it to stumble upon a possible future course of action that is already immediately obvious.

It is as unnecessary as it is disappointing. What is it about this current government that they do not understand the basic responsibility that comes with a ministerial salary? You cannot outsource all your policy making and your decisions. You have 1,500 spin doctors, you have thousands of public servants, you have ministerial advisers and you should have an interest and a passion in the relevant portfolio areas that ministers have fundamental responsibility for. You have the coalition's policy. What more do you want? Why do you need yet another review and yet another job for a failed Labor premier? It is not only a waste of time and money; it reinforces yet again to business, to industry, to people who have borne the brunt of dumped goods in Australia that this government moves at an excruciatingly slow pace at their expense.

All of that said, it is the coalition's intention to support this piece of legislation. We will be doing so on the basis that it will give effect to a small set of sensible and practical improvements, and in the hope that the government will implement those changes effectively. I also agree entirely with the sentiments with which the minister closed his second reading speech when he said that more can be done and that there are 'other areas where future reform may be required'. We have been saying that more can be done in this area for quite some time. The coalition is not only pleased to see the government accepting the need for change to Australia's anti-dumping system but also believes that further revisions are needed and we stand ready to deliver them.

As I said in my contributions on previous antidumping improvements bills, we need antidumping arrangements that are accessible and that are effective in preventing goods being dumped in Australia. That is the very least that industry and workers expect—a system that actually works and that is not too expensive or too complicated to access. Part of the problem has been that those with primary responsibility for this area have not had their hearts in having a system that works. When you do not have the political will to make a complex policy area work, it infiltrates the culture of those who are charged with administering that policy.

If the coalition is privileged enough to win government at the next election, we look forward very much to the opportunity of implementing the much needed remaining elements of the antidumping policy that Labor has not yet pilfered. We will do so in a comprehensive way with real reform and without jobs for the boys. We know what the problems are. We have looked at world's best practice, we have done the hard yards, and we will implement an antidumping regime that will be the envy of the world and that we can hold up to say, 'You know what? We don't think that dumping should damage our industries and we are going to do something about it.' We will not just talk about it or have yet another press conference or endless inquiries and amendments, but we will have something that actually works in a timely manner that is cost effective and delivers what is so desperately needed by industry.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this important Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 3) today. This is the fourth tranche of amendments implementing the package we put together in 2011 to address some of the issues of dumping in Australia. It was inaction by the previous coalition government that led to many of the problems we are experiencing today. It took the election of a Labor government to look at the antidumping regime and make improvements so that we can ensure that there is fairness for both imported and locally-produced goods in our economy.

Having an open trading system has been an important part of Australia's economic growth. Indeed, opening opportunities to trade has allowed many businesses to flourished by improving their exports. It has been a bipartisan way of moving forward.

I worry that the Nationals are growing more influential in the coalition. I congratulate them for it, but I worry that the bipartisan commitment to an open economy is fast dissipating and that it will be only the Labor Party that is committed to growth and to ensuring that we have an open economy that benefits our exports. Indeed the Liberal Party may well be controlled by the National Party. Won't that be disappointing for so many former Liberal Party members? You cannot imagine that Peter Costello would be celebrating the change to a closed economy that the National Party would take us to. They are making moves towards that. I am sure they can convince some people in their party room, although it might take a little while. Certainly I am worried, as many people should be worried, that the National Party will close down our economy. An open economy has served this country very well and free trade has ensured that we have gained access to many markets around the world, allowing many people, including many wine producers in my electorate, to be able to export their wine. I note that it has been difficult recently because of the high Australian dollar. Many producers in my electorate in these difficult circumstances have still been able to continue to use those markets across the world to sell their product and enlarge their business. It has been very important.

This trade needs to be fair as well. Our antidumping system improvements are all about ensuring that companies are able to get some redress if they feel there have been problems with goods being dumped and to get that redress more quickly. These are very important pieces of legislation that are before the House. The bill aligns the subsidy provisions with the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. It also adds stronger provisions to address non-cooperation and a range of other, more minor, amendments that add to the work we have already done.

It took the election of a Labor government for this to be looked at seriously. It took the election of a Labor government for a package to be put together and for it to be thought through clearly and properly. This group of measures will put us in good stead. The minister has said that more can be done. I am pleased, despite the previous speaker's ridicule, with John Brumby and his role in looking at the feasibility of a Commonwealth antidumping agency. I commend the minister on this announcement. I think it is a good idea to look at this and to ensure that we see what else can be done in this area, who is best to do it and how we can go forward. This needs to be done in a considered way. For its antidumping policy the coalition has merely brought forward a thought bubble that could actually contradict World Trade Organisation rules. Unlike the previous speaker, I do not have a lot of confidence in the coalition's policy. I have a lot more confidence in John Brumby, who has looked at this in a serious and focused way.

I welcome this. It demonstrates our commitment to a proper fair-trading system. We are into free trade, but we want it to be fair. This package of measures, including the announcement made by the minister on 4 July, continues our commitment. I commend the bills to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so glad to follow the member for Kingston, who was worried about the growing influence of the National Party. She should be. The Nationals stand for fairness; we stand for farmers; we stand for regional Australia—

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

Except in Queensland!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and there cannot be anything wrong with that. I can hear the member for Blair crying out. He claims to represent a regional electorate.

Mr Neumann interjecting—

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He will stop interjecting, please.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He knows full well exactly what the Nationals stand for. As I say, it is for fairness, for farmers, for regional Australia and for so many other things. Hopefully, after the next election the Nationals will form government in alliance with our coalition partners. Warren Truss, the member for Wide Bay, will make a fine Deputy Prime Minister and the member for Cowper, who sits at the table, will do all he can to improve regional telecommunications, which have been so terribly pulled apart by this Labor government.

The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 3) 2012 is the last in a series of bills aimed at improving Australia's antidumping system. The uncontroversial changes contained therein address some of the many concerns held by those the bill affects. I refer to the overall unworkability of Australia's present antidumping arrangements. The current system is dreadfully convoluted and accessing the system can be costly and onerous. Concerns about antidumping are shared by coalition members and therefore these suggested improvements are supported. I do wish to note, however, what I believe are some very valid points and also bring to the attention of the House a deeply disturbing daily event occurring right now in my Riverina electorate, which has its genesis, in many ways, in foreign dumping practices that are to the detriment of our nation.

Antidumping regimes allow countries to act against overseas manufacturers and producers seeking to export a product or good who try to export into their markets at a price which is either less than the price it charges in its home market or than its cost of production. Obviously, there are several complexities relating to administering and implementing any antidumping regulatory system. There has been much angst and considerable frustration recently in Australia with the lack of timeliness and efficiency of the investigation processes which have taken place in Customs. Substantial costs have been imposed on businesses wishing to put forward cases for consideration. Our system, rather annoyingly and uncooperatively, typically places a far heavier onus on local industries than on their foreign competitors. Concerns abound about the Labor government's unwillingness to genuinely increase resources within Customs as well as about its decision to finance its changes via cost shifting.

The Minister for Home Affairs recognises that administrative responsibility for antidumping needs to be moved from Customs and that such action should be initiated, something his predecessor, the member for Gorton, disagreed with. This was, in fact, a coalition proposal, and a good one it seems from the minister's tacit acknowledgement. The coalition's antidumping policy was announced on 7 November last year following extensive consultation with a range of key players by a dedicated four-strong frontbench committee including the shadow minister for agriculture and food security.

Labor's introduction of this bill follows its own set of revisions to existing arrangements and was announced in June 2011 after pressure was brought to bear, especially from this side of politics as well as industry bodies and businesses.

During the winter parliamentary recess I took the opportunity, as I often do when I am not in Canberra, to meet with Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area citrus and wine grape growers. They are dreadfully concerned about the state of things at the moment. Whilst I appreciate there are world trade agreements to which this parliament and this nation steadfastly adheres, we are in many ways cruelling our own. One of the ways we are hurting our own farmers and local industries is, as I stated earlier, by having antidumping regimes which could be construed as favouring foreign imports.

At Griffith and Leeton these days—every day—they are dumping fruit by the truckload. It is a terrible sight—piteous. As if ongoing concern about water availability is not a large enough millstone around their necks, embattled citrus growers are being forced to dump fruit at record levels as everything, it seems, is conspiring against them this season.

The usually frenetic frantic navel season has come to a shuddering halt, with growers leaving oranges to rot on trees and packing sheds dumping hundreds of tonnes a week in local paddocks for cattle feed. Let us call a spade a spade; it is dumping. A rising tide of cheap imports, aggravated by the high Australian dollar, is allowing juice companies to offer as little as $25 a tonne for navels, while the fruit is selling for as low as $4 a box in city markets.

This is the worst the dumping has ever been in the history of the local industry …

That is what Tharbogang grower John Sergi recently told Griffith's newspaper The Area News. The report says:

The high dollar is just killing us.

Jason Restagno from Lakesview Citrus said for the first time in many years, his packing shed had not sent a single navel to juice companies.

“I actually had to pay someone to take 120 bins away this morning to dump for cattle,” Mr Restagno said.

Other packing sheds are sending navels back to the growers as they come in.

“I’ve been doing this for 30 years and this is one of the hardest seasons I’ve seen,” Don Centofanti from Golden West Packing House said.

“There’s an oversupply of fruit so the major chains, which control 80 per cent of the market, are pushing hard on price.”

Clear Lake Citrus’ Pat Mancini, who is dumping about 30 tonnes of navels each week, said a lack of confidence in the consumer market was also driving down demand.

“People aren’t spending and when they go to the supermarket they’re buying just what they need and often cutting out fruit and veg,” Mr Mancini said.

That is a problem I hear about wherever I go throughout the Riverina—lack of confidence and people not spending.

Mr Mancini is right about shoppers tightening their belts. People getting their first power bills since 1 July are finding the Household Assistance Package does not do anywhere near enough to offset the carbon tax. But the fact they are forgoing fresh fruit and vegetables is a concern for a nation with farmers who happen to grow the best fruit and vegetables of anywhere in the world. Countries with far lower wage minimums than Australia and far less stringent spraying protocols are getting into our markets and dumping their produce via the back door and any door they can—all in the name of free trade. Fruit Juice Australia's chief executive officer Geoff Parker admits that cheap imports are hurting our farmers. I note that two of the key stakeholders taking part in widespread consultation over the past 12 months in relation to antidumping have been the Australian Food and Grocery Council and SPC Ardmona.

The bill before us legislates for three broad sets of improvements and represents the fourth and final tranche of a series of bills which Labor has introduced over the past year. Separate legislation, incorporating other changes, was previously introduced in August and November 2011 and March this year. Included in the bill are provisions which will lead to: the further amendment of a number of subsidies provisions and definitions in the act to align them more closely with relevant definitions and provisions in the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures; extension of the powers of Customs and the minister to address non-cooperation by any party during the investigation process; and introduction of new provisions relating to circumvention. Essentially, these widen the options available to the minister to act against parties found to have dumped goods in Australia but who then also seek to disguise the level of their dumping activity in order to avoid paying the full amount of payable duties.

Principally, these provisions are aimed at more proactively tackling noncompliance and non-cooperation with antidumping inquiries and decisions. They will also reduce a number of the present inconsistencies in approach between Australia and other countries regarding these issues. The coalition has repeatedly stressed the importance of more closely aligning Australia's approach to antidumping to those of other jurisdictions.

Consequently, the changes in this bill can be considered sensible. In short, they will help to redress some of the in-built flaws in the current structure and operation of the system. However, more broadly, Labor is still baulking at a number of other changes to the present antidumping arrangements which we believe would genuinely strengthen the system.

The government has said, several times, it will increase staffing in the relevant branch of Customs by 14 to 45. These changes are, however, not based on extra financial investment in the system. Instead, they are predicated on the redeployment of resources from other areas of Customs, which is a breathtaking move given the current pressure on the agency as a result of the government's ever-increasing problems in the area of border protection. Hopefully, given the fact that today the government has adopted part of the coalition's Pacific solution, this might be lessened into the future. A genuine increase in the system's resourcing, as we have proposed through the coalition's antidumping policy, would pave the way for the use of better interpretations and evidence in prosecuting dumping cases. It would also provide wider scope for the application of preliminary affirmative determinations. Labor's changes have no overall financial impact. They are being funded through the redirection of expenditure from other areas of Customs.

Any measure which can improve antidumping legislation needs to be supported and, as a member of an electorate with hardworking people and long-suffering farmers who have suffered huge financial losses via foreign dumping over the years, I must support this bill. I commend it to the House.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 3) 2012. Like my colleagues, I am seeing a pattern here in government policy—or lack thereof. The government does not seem to do much except come up with something that is pretty half-baked in reaction to stakeholders' very genuine concerns. I was a member of the shadow minister's committee, and we saw this repeated quite a lot. The stakeholders, when they get no reaction from the government, come to us and, as in this case, we come up with a robust process and balanced policies. The government ridicules us and then, lo and behold, uses our policy. So in broad terms we support Labor's latest adoption of coalition policy. It is worth stating that the changes in this bill effectively represent an endorsement of the key recommendations and points in our antidumping policy.

Dumping is a very real issue for industry, including, as we have just heard from the member for Riverina, many of our agricultural industries and the domestic food processors who value-add to the things that Australian farmers grow. Dumping sees Australian businesses exposed to goods imported into the domestic market at below production cost or through unlawful subsidies—when it comes to exports, anyway—from other governments. It is a tactic that provides an illusion of short-term benefit to consumers. In the longer term, international dumping hollows out our industry, decreases competition, costs jobs and in the end will increase prices as domestic competition becomes non-existent. International dumping seeks to exploit our commitment to free trade. The catchcry of the Minister for Trade, Mr Emerson, seems to be: 'We can't do anything about anything because of World Trade Organization rules.'

It is great that the government seems to have run out of excuses not to do anything in this case and, as usual, has jumped on the coat-tails of the coalition. We have long supported any revisions that can be made to the legislation to sensibly reduce the time and the significant costs imposed on businesses who wish to raise a case. In particular, it is reassuring that there is now a recognition from the government that, across a number of areas of antidumping legislation, Australia's approach should be more aligned with the legislation of a number of other jurisdictions. The current bill is intended to achieve progress on this issue on various fronts.

The changes, after years of inaction, are a belated reaction to stakeholder concerns, which had been largely ignored until we set up our antidumping task force and developed policy on the issue. The government and its ministers have been dragged kicking and screaming into action. I suspect we may see further adoption of coalition policy when the Brumby investigation is completed. The government are trying to clear the decks for an election. If they adopt all our policies—and probably there are another 40 or so they could adopt—then they might be ready for an election, but I somehow doubt their resolve when it comes to serious action.

As others have said, this mirrors the immigration debate and the foreign ownership debate, in both of which we have led the government by the hand. In the same manner that the government used the Houston review to adopt some ingredients of the coalition's strategy to stop the boats—they will probably have to go back for the rest—the government now plan to use the Brumby review into the feasibility of a Commonwealth antidumping agency as an excuse to further adopt the coalition policy. That is right: Labor's own John Brumby has been rewarded with the plum job of undertaking another review, at taxpayers' expense, in order to allow the government—who may think they are saving some face—to adopt more of the coalition's policy. It is a massive about-face—the second one we have talked about today—from the hysterical reaction when the coalition first put forward the proposal to shift the responsibility from Customs.

The coalition is rightly proud of its work on antidumping. We have played a central role in shaming the government into action. I commend the member for Indi for her passionate pursuit of the issue and commitment to work with the stakeholders. As a member of the task force, I saw so many industries come before us talking about how the investigations are too long and too expensive and there is not enough assistance for them in trying to resolve the issues. The Gillard government has embedded a culture of complacency, of 'She'll be right, mate,' and it has only been through stakeholder and coalition commitment to resolve the issue that we have had any movement at all.

Our system would benefit greatly from a decisive change of political attitude and culture, which was one of the principal reasons we advocated the removal of this role from Customs. There simply must be less tolerance of noncompliance and noncooperation, and we stated that very plainly within coalition policy. It is undoubted that changes that generally increase the effectiveness of antidumping investigations in Australia are badly needed, because, as I said before, the investigations are too long, too expensive and there is not enough help for companies—which sometimes are not terribly big; they cannot afford the incredible costs and the time. Quite often we heard of companies that had pretty much disappeared by the time their case looked like coming to fruition. That is how long it takes and how expensive and hard it is for them to deal with.

Anyway, it is good that Labor now agrees with us and is taking some of the correct steps, through this legislation, to close some of the openings and escape clauses that presently exist. It is right across industry. We heard the member for Riverina outlining how devastating it can be for an industry when they go out of business, if they try and wear the losses when it gets too much. They are our people and they deserve our assistance and our help, particularly when antidumping is happening.

I think that most of these issues have been covered by others. I have listened to a lot of industries come across the task force desk. Every time it was pretty much the same issue: it is the time taken and the culture of saying 'we are not sure we can help you with this'. The cost to a medium or small business is prohibitive. By the time anything happens the damage is well and truly done. I commend the changes to the House.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank members who spoke in this debate and I thank the opposition for their support for this legislation. This is the fourth and final bill implementing the reforms to Australia's antidumping system which were announced by the government in June last year.

The bill does three things. First, it will better align Australia's antidumping and countervailing system with those of our WTO counterparts. Second, it introduces provisions designed to address the circumvention of trade measures. These important amendments establish for the first time a mechanism for Australian industry to apply to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service for an inquiry into business practices that are designed to avoid the payment of dumping or countervailing duties. Third, it strengthens our system's ability to address parties' noncooperation during the investigation process. It also makes a number of other minor corrections to part XVB of the Customs Act 1901.

This is the fourth and final bill implementing the government's Streamlining Australia's Anti-Dumping Policy. That policy was released by the government in June. It has been interesting to hear the contributions of members opposite, who put together their own policy and released that some five months later, in November last year, and now, suddenly, apparently the government is adopting their policies. Their policies were released five months after ours and this legislation implements the policies that we have released and announced. It is a peculiar sort of logic and it is an interesting rewriting of history.

The combined effect of these four bills represents the most extensive improvements to our antidumping system in a decade. But more can be done to ensure that the system can respond to new and emerging trends. My friend the member for Blair made reference to one of those. I made the point in my second reading speech that sales at a loss aimed at avoiding the effect of our antidumping system, which is an issue that has been brought to my attention by Mr Jobe, the CEO of Capral, is one of those issues I am looking at closely—it is one of a number of areas. I have made it clear that if I believe it is necessary I am prepared to take more legislation to this parliament for it to consider in this area.

As has been mentioned in this debate, last month I also appointed John Brumby, a former Premier and Treasurer of Victoria, to consider the feasibility of a Commonwealth antidumping agency. Specifically, I have asked him to investigate the current arrangements for considering antidumping cases and policy; the benefits and costs of retaining this function within the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; the benefits and costs of establishing an agency to conduct antidumping assessments and investigations; the functions, including assessments, investigations and compliance, and powers that would be necessary for an agency to conduct effective antidumping assessments and investigations; the relationship between such an agency and existing appeals processes; the organisational structure that would be required for such an agency; and any other relevant matters.

Interestingly, in this debate some members of the coalition have said that this is the government acquiring their own policy. I should take this opportunity to remind members of the opposition what their policy is. The policy of the opposition, which was released in November, is to transfer antidumping responsibilities from Customs to the department of industry. Page 2 of the coalition's policy says:

We will make the Department of Industry responsible for Australia's anti-dumping regime.

One of the things I have done as the minister responsible for antidumping is consult with industry, with the key stakeholders in this sector and with unions. I have asked them whether this is the way to go, whether this is what should be done and whether the responsibilities for managing our antidumping system should be placed within the department of industry, as has been proposed by the opposition. Uniformly, their response has been no. That is why I have brought forward this review and asked Mr Brumby to do this work to consider the establishment of a stand-alone authority, because this is what industry wants. He has already held meetings with a number of stakeholders in Canberra and Melbourne, and many more meetings are scheduled over the course of the next six to eight weeks. A new website, www.antidumpingreview.gov.au, has been set up. An online submission process is also up and running from this website and I would encourage interested parties and members of the public to contribute.

I also would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff at Customs and Border Protection for all the work they have done on all four pieces of legislation that have been presented to this parliament to improve our antidumping system. I recognise in the House two members of that team. It is a distinguished team that does very hard work in an area of the law that members of both sides of the House recognise is extraordinarily complicated. It is very hard work. On behalf of both sides of the House I would like to thank them for the work they do and the work they have done in bringing these bills before us for our consideration. I commend them for their work and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.