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

I am genuinely delighted to have the opportunity to debate this bill. It gives me and other members of the opposition an opportunity to highlight the problems that the Labor Party has had with this very important policy area. This bill gives expression to quite a mea culpa from the Labor Party. This is because the government is playing catch-up with a B-grade copy of coalition policy.

It is very good to see the current Home Affairs minister, Minister Clare, having had completely overridden the former Home Affairs minister, Minister O'Connor, and effectively repudiated Mr O'Connor's quite embarrassing attempts, in 2011, to slag and bag the opposition's approach on the issue we are debating today. It has taken the Labor Party over a year to recognise that a better way was needed in anti-dumping administration, to follow the coalition's lead in moving responsibility away from the International Trade Remedies branch of customs. Eventually, it finally got there.

For a party with all the resources of government at its disposal to have taken so long and so laboriously to get to that point, with only a B-grade copy of coalition policy, can manufacturers, the agricultural sector or the Australian public expect this government to deliver the policy, details and personnel that are required for a robust and effective anti-dumping regime? Of course not. How could they? This is the government that cannot deliver free fluff in people's roofs without causing disasters. No doubt it has cost the government a lot of money to get to a similar position as the opposition.

What it needed to do was go through some sort of charade. It went through an unnecessary process of appointing yet another failed Labor premier, John Brumby, to another nice little earner in the process, to oversee a review of whether there should be a change in the body that administers the anti-dumping regime. It should have come a long way since ministers O'Connor and Emerson said all sorts of inaccurate things about coalition policy in their panic not to be seen as lagging behind in this very important policy area of anti-dumping. One of the key parts of that policy was to have a greater focus on anti-dumping investigations and to commit more funding to additional resourcing of the system.

I might take this opportunity to highlight some of the things that were said at the time by then Minister O'Connor. He said, on 28 November 2011, 'It is not practical, as the opposition proposes, to expect employees of an agency to have the skills to tackle every fact or situation that may present itself.' So what have we got? This bill is creating a new agency, the anti-dumping commission, and moving it from Canberra to Melbourne. This is a new agency. And yet we do not hear any apologies from Minister O'Connor. We had another criticism at the time, when Minister O'Connor said, 'The opposition's headline reform'—and I interrupt here as it was not our one headline reform; we have announced many policies in this important area to assist manufacturing and will announce many more—'was to do a bureaucratic soft-shoe shuffle befitting Yes Minister, moving responsibility for investigations from Customs to the department of industry.' He has criticised it as a non-important policy, yet claimed it was a headline reform for the opposition. What did we have last year, on 4 December, when the government accepted the Brumby recommendations to create this new agency? We had another big headline announcement, with ministers Clare and Combet and Prime Minister Gillard. What they have criticised the opposition for doing, they are quite happy to do themselves. These are the sorts of cheap stunts and attacks that the Australian public are absolutely sick of.

We know that the anti-dumping regime in Australia has had significant problems. It has been unworkable with excessive costs and time. There has been difficulty for those wanting to pursue an anti-dumping applications to access the system. These concerns have been voiced to us by industry for a long time. I have been shadow minister in this portfolio for just over three years. It was an important priority for us and we came up with a comprehensive world's-best-practice policy back in 2011. The government has panicked, followed suit and introduced a whole series of bills regarding anti-dumping, trying to play catch-up. We have not opposed those bills, as we will not oppose these ones.

Our approach has been to genuinely consult industry—to understand and feel the anxiety and difficulty it has had in accessing a system that did not work. We set up a task force of frontbenchers, we consulted extensively and from that we drafted our policy. I am quite satisfied that the coalition has set the agenda in this very important area. When the coalition starts getting accolades from the trade union movement for the initiative it takes in policy, as happened in this area of anti-dumping, you know that the Labor Party is very embarrassed about its inability to listen to industry's concerns of the day.

What we see here is the moving of responsibility for anti-dumping from the International Trade Remedies section of Customs to a separate, new anti-dumping commission based in Melbourne. We heard Minister O'Connor say, back when he was criticising the opposition, that it was just bureaucratic reshuffling to move the administration of it to another section. Then we had the hypocrisy and the waste of money of paying a failed Labor premier to conduct an inquiry to come to a similar conclusion. That occurred last year when the government announced that it was going to establish the Anti-Dumping Commission and commit $24.4 million to the new commission as funding. We do not know where this funding is coming from, and given past practice it is quite possible that this money has again—as has occurred in the past—been found from cost shifting within Customs.

So the opposition will be looking very closely at where these funds are coming from and whether they have indeed been shifted from elsewhere in Customs—an arm of government that has suffered serious stress because of extraordinary, historic ineptitude in border control by this government. We have seen many other cuts to the Customs budget by the Labor government over recent years, and they implied on a number of occasions throughout 2011—and again in 2012—that they had made changes during those years to increase the number of staff working on anti-dumping cases. They said at the time that they were increasing staff from 31 to 45, but later it emerged that these changes were not based on extra financial investment in the system but were merely predicated on the redeployment of resources from other areas of Customs. Indeed Minister O'Connor had invoked that renowned British series Yes Minister, but perhaps he should look closer to home for a more appropriate application of life imitating art.

We know that Australian manufacturing is facing very challenging times. But, unlike the government, we are not going to pretend that the government has no role. The first and primary role of government is to ensure that it removes those things that do damage to business and to manufacturing because of its policies. That is absolutely a first principle. We have not seen the government adopt any policies or any statements that acknowledge or accept responsibility for policies that are doing harm to manufacturers. There is the carbon tax, with increased energy costs and extraordinary, historic escalation of regulatory costs. Just speak to any business sector and you will hear that. There is work to do in those areas as well.

In this area of anti-dumping, there should be a proactive approach. In having a system that did not work for so long, it was doing harm by giving a false sense of security that there was a mechanism to ensure that dumped goods were adequately dealt with and there were appropriate duties placed on them. So, although the Labor Party has taken some time to follow the policy initiatives of the coalition, we have supported legislation in this House in making improvements to the anti-dumping regime. We do not have complete faith that this government can deliver the world-class anti-dumping regime that this nation deserves and that exists in other jurisdictions like the United States of America and the EU. We need a world-class anti-dumping administration because we are an open economy, and we take great pride in being an open economy, and that is why legislative regimes like anti-dumping need to actually work and not just exist to give the false sense of security that there is something in place.

We saw the new minister's, Minister Clare's, tacit recognition that his ministerial predecessor Mr O'Connor was wrong to criticise the coalition's proposal to move administrative responsibility for anti-dumping away from the International Trade Remedies Branch of Customs and that such a shift should, in fact, be initiated. If only others in the government could follow the lead of coalition policy, perhaps there could be some redemption for this government for the damage that they have inflicted on industry and manufacturing. Sadly, I doubt that will happen, but I do want to assure manufacturing workers, the manufacturing sector and Australians listening to the debate on this bill that the coalition is committed to a strong five-pillar economy—of which manufacturing is an important pillar. We do that because we understand that, in order to have a strong, growing, diversified economy, manufacturing is important. That is why we will not stand for other nations and other companies dumping goods in our jurisdiction below cost when our manufacturers are doing it tough. They are being slugged with a tax, the carbon tax, that is not applied to imported manufactured goods. They are being slugged with additional regulatory costs, unprecedented in our history.

They are being slugged by a poor outlook for our economy. Confidence is at record lows, and can you blame people for lacking confidence in the sideshow that is this government? They are suffering.

Yes, there are tough international economic conditions, but the actions of this government make it even harder for workers. So, in the months ahead, and leading into the next federal election, I hope that the voice of manufacturing workers, their families and the communities who have suffered—who have laboured under the damaging policies of this government—stand up and are heard. We hear, time and time again, from the government, stunts and announcements just to fill the void of the 24-hour media cycle. Then a year later it all fizzles away.

We had an announcement last year during the budget about a new manufacturing technology innovation centre, and how this was the answer for manufacturing. There was much fanfare about $29.8 million. Guess what?—it has not materialised. There is not even a hole in the ground. There is nothing; it was just another stunt.

So I say to those Australians who are concerned about the future of manufacturing: do not listen to the empty promises. Do not listen to the stunts and the announcements. Look at the track record of this government. There will be more stunts—I can promise you that!—and there will be fanfare. There will be grandiose motherhood statements but the government have not been able to deliver on basic policies for manufacturing. And they will not deliver the economic growth and the economic conditions and policies within which manufacturing can not only survive but flourish.

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

I speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission) Bill 2013. Please!—the member for Indi claims that she is a friend of the manufacturing sector and the workers who work in it. She is a person, on that side of the House, who voted dozens of times for Work Choices to be imposed in that sector. If she was on this side of the chamber she would rip away the schoolkids bonus so that manufacturing workers would struggle to educate their children. She would raise their taxes. She would take away the family tax benefit increase and she would take away, from the parents of the manufacturing sector workers, their pension rises. So, the member for Indi should not come into this place and tell us that she is a friend of the manufacturing workers.

What support did the coalition give us in relation to the $300 million steel transformation plant which supports investment in steel manufacturing? They opposed it. They opposed the $5.4 billion new car plant. They opposed the $1 billion clean technology program. I spoke in this chamber in relation to 2,000 workers in my area who work in the manufacturing sector at JBS Australia, the meat processing plant. The coalition opposes the assistance that we are providing. The member for Indi has come into this place pretending to be—posing as—a friend of the workers. Please! Give us a break!

This legislation that is before this chamber is an important reform, and it responds to the Productivity Commission recommendations and analysis in relation to dumping. According to the Productivity Commission:

Dumping is said to occur when an overseas supplier exports a good to Australia at a price below its ‘normal value’ in the supplier’s home market. If dumping causes, or threatens to cause, material injury to local producers of like goods, then remedial action—mainly the imposition of special customs duties—can be taken against the imported goods concerned.

Similarly, countervailing duties can be imposed on imports which benefit from certain subsidies from an overseas government and which cause or threaten injury to a local industry producing like goods.

Similarly, countervailing duties can be imposed on imports which benefit from any of the specified group of subsidies 'and which cause or threaten injury to a local industry producing like goods'.

I set out that definition because that is what the Productivity Commission said in relation to dumping. We have signed a couple of World Trade Organisation agreements in relation to this, and they form the basis on which we carry out our obligations. They are article 6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, and an agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures which regulate measures designed to remedy material injury caused by subsidised imports, similar to the antidumping agreement I just mentioned. So we have some trade obligations in relation to this. There are those opposite who claimed that China was a market economy, and signed an agreement to that effect. In large part, we are dealing with the consequences of that.

I see the member for Oxley is here. He and I have visited a particular plant in my electorate on numerous occasions. Capral employs 330 workers across my electorate and his electorate in the Ipswich region. In the Blair electorate 13.5 per cent of the workforce is employed in manufacturing. And I think it is almost identical in the electorate of Oxley. So it is an important industry in the whole western corridor between Brisbane and Ipswich.

This legislation is important, and it comes about because we have taken a number of steps. There have been a number of tranches of legislation introduced and passed in this place—I accept that that has been done with the concurrence of the opposition—in relation to antidumping measures.

So we are supporting jobs in the manufacturing sector. We know that they are under significant pressure from the high dollar and international competition. And we know there have been developments in the global markets which make it difficult. But in this debate we should not get the idea that it is free trade or fair trade. It is not either-or; it is both. We want our manufacturing sector to be strong and prosperous. We are talking of about a million workers who work in this sector, particularly in states like Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.

We have taken a number of measures. I have spoken in this place on numerous occasions on previous bills in relation this. We have boosted the capacity of Customs and Border Protection Service investigations by putting in serious money. We have seen investigations almost treble in the last two years in relation to this particular issue.

We believe that international trade should not disadvantage our domestic markets and disadvantage Australian workers. We are undertaking this particular measure. The genesis of this comes back to the referral to the former Victorian Premier the Hon. John Brumby who conducted an inquiry into this issue and came back with a recommendation to Minister Clare that we establish an anti-dumping commission. We are doing so by this legislation. This particular legislation is going to be located in Victoria and it will make sure that there is a commissioner with staff, and we are also going to provide additional assistance by way of financial support. The review into anti-dumping arrangements recommended what we are doing by way of legislative changes today. This is part of the package of reforms that we are undertaking. We announced in December last year that we would make some further changes, and I know that Minister Clare announced on 6 February a new Australian anti-dumping commission. He introduced legislation to establish the anti-dumping—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to take a point of order on the member for Blair's speech which I have been enjoying as I listen intently. He has referred to a minister as Minister Clare. He knows that under standing orders ministers should be referred to by their title, or they can be referred to as the member for their constituency. If I could also add that I think that it is a very pernicious development to start referring to ministers as Minister Smith or Minister Brown.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. I remind the member to refer to the other members in this place by their correct titles.

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

Perhaps the member for Wentworth would like another title rather than the shadow minister for broadband and telecommunications. Perhaps he is aspiring to another one, rather than just the member for Wentworth. The member for Blaxland is also a minister with responsibility for this particular jurisdiction and introduced this legislation. He happens to be the Minister for Home Affairs and Justice, something that you may aspire to someday yourself, Mr Turnbull.

There were 400 stakeholders who contacted the inquiry that was conducted by former Premier John Brumby in relation to this issue. The report found that the workload of administration in this particular area had increased significantly and we needed to get this out of the customs and trade measures area and into a stand-alone commission with legislative guidance for the commission's work with increased resources.

We did announce that package in December 2012 and the minister said in a press release when introducing this particular legislation that we would do this, we would create a commissioner's role with legislative guidance and that:

The Commissioner will be responsible for decision-making and other anti-dumping related functions that currently rest with the CEO of Customs and Border Protection.

I think that enhances the legal and financial status in relation to this particular area.

This is very important for my electorate. It is very important for not just many plants across the country, but the Ipswich and West Moreton region has a very important company called Capral, which is a manufacturer of aluminium extrusion products. It is about a 77-year-old Australian company which employs over 900 people across the country. At Bremer Park industrial estate in Ipswich there are 330 workers. Capral can take a 400-kilogram aluminium billet—traditionally it sources that from Australian smelters and turn it into an everyday product—extruding, ageing and finishing that aluminium into numerous shapes and sizes. I had the benefit of seeing that and being there on many occasions. In fact, I can recall I went to a dinner at that particular plant with the member for Oxley, if I remember rightly, where Capral showed what it can do. It was extraordinary capacity. That plant is currently running at about 60 per cent capacity.

The business manager there, Sven Gade, has done a great job and that particular business was honoured on 8 November 2011 in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Business Awards. He was named the Ipswich Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year at the Ipswich Civic Centre. Sven thanked the Capral team and made the point in his speech that night, that over the past years—talking about the employees—they have been instrumental in steering Capral through one of the toughest manufacturing environments imaginable. Despite the ailing building construction market, Capral has gone from strength to strength. I am pleased that they have increased the number of workers there from 300 to 330.

I have taken the member for Blaxland and the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs to Capral, and I have taken his predecessor to Capral. Phil Jobe has been the CEO of Capral nationally, and I want to pay tribute to Phil's advocacy in relation to this issue. Phil said when he was the managing director of Capral—relating to the reforms that the minister had put in place and what the federal Labor government had done—he was 'pleased with the reforms the government has announced'.In the Queensland Times he made the comment:

The plant at Bremer is world class. It has got the latest technology, it has got a highly skilled workforce and can compete with the best plants in the world. What it can't compete against is products in countries where they are subsidised by governments and where they manipulate their currency. We've been campaigning strenuously for three years for major reform in the anti-dumping regime in Australia that would allow a company such as Capral to put either new cases in or revised cases in that would improve the remedies available to us.

The fact that he happened to thank me and the member for Oxley is neither here nor there. I want to pay tribute to Phil. On 19 December 2002, the board of Capral announced that Phil, whose contract as CEO expires on 15 April 2013, advised that he will not be extending his contract. He did tell me in an email that he would remain as a non-executive director and that Capral had asked him to continue his advocacy in anti-dumping reform. He said he remained passionate about that particular role, and he would continue to do so.

I am sure that the minister will continue to hear Phil's advocacy for reform. I know that the minister has said that this is yet another part of our reform process and that there is much more to be done.

We are determined to make sure that injurious dumping—which is inconsistent with the international trade rules, reduces competition and afflicts our markets and affects our workers—cannot continue. We have built on the reforms that we announced in the past through the streamlining of this legislation announced when Minister Brendan O'Connor was the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs back in June 2011. We have made sure that there is a requirement for the minister to make decision in 30 years. We have improved the locus standi of organisations to bring applications in court. This is a particularly complicated area of the law. I have read on numerous occasions advice from Queen's counsel about cases that Capral have been fighting in relation to anti-dumping.

A more effective anti-dumping scheme will support jobs nationally and in Queensland, particularly in the large manufacturing areas around Brisbane and Ipswich. I support this legislation. We on this side of the House are supportive of free trade but we want to make sure that that trade is fair as well. This legislation is good for the local economy and for local jobs in my electorate.

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

I am speaking in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission) Bill 2013. I have to say that it is deja vu in the parliament on this issue. Last year, I spoke on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill No. 3 2012 and said that the government was predictable if nothing else. It does nothing on an issue. Then they try to ridicule the coalition for coming up sensible, sound and needed policy proposals. When they are unable to make that stick, they then turn round and adopt our policy. This is pretty much what they are doing here, so obviously we are going to speak in favour of it. It is needed.

In fact, when you think about, you hear the government bellowing about why the coalition is not coming out with its proposals for the election that, we are told, is on 14 September. They ask why we are not coming out with our costings, totally ignoring the fact that we cannot until they come up with a few budget figures that we are probably not going to see any time soon. The real reason they want us to come up with policy proposals, costings et cetera is so that they can find some policies that they can adopt and sound sensible on—that is a fact. The government is so bereft of ideas that it is desperately pursuing the coalition, trying to get us to release our policies early not so they can ridicule them—which they will do—but so they can adopt them.

Let us get back to this issue of anti-dumping. If you speak to industry, as we have—and I was privileged to be part of the panel that looked at it—the issues become obvious. As always, there are a few different views within industry. But there are issues that stand out. Our anti-dumping system is widely regarded as being far too costly to access and as unworkable in its present form. Perversely, its processes also impose a greater burden of proof—and this has always been true—on local industries than on the competitors who wish to take advantage of our market. Yet the government ignored the issue, so the coalition set out to put in place a robust process to address the problems.

As I said, we set up a task force. The shadow minister for agriculture, Senator Richard Colbeck, Michael Keenan, Sophie Mirabella and I were on that task force, which had the task of extensively consulting a range of stakeholders and of drafting a policy. As a result, our anti-dumping policy was publicly released just over two years ago in November 2011. Further, on 7 November 2011 we said that the provision of extra resourcing for anti-dumping administration was a critical step in facilitating improvements to the system. In short, increased resourcing will almost certainly pave the way for the use of stronger interpretations and evidence in prosecuting dumping cases. It will also be likely to better align Australia's system with those systems in countries such as the USA and EU member states. The USA has always had very strong anti-dumping legislation. In those nations, it is common for the relevant authorities to apply countervailing measures as soon as they are able, within WTO rules, to argue that subsidised imports or potential imports threaten to cause harm to a local industry or industries.

Labor initially slammed our proposals, primarily through its then home affairs minister, Brendan O'Connor, who said over two years ago on 7 November:

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.

However, in 2012 the government announced that it had commissioned former Victorian Labor Premier John Brumby to oversee a review of the merits of transferring responsibility for anti-dumping administration. It was Brumby, in fact, who ultimately recommended the establishment of the Anti-Dumping Commission. That is a little different from saying that it should not be taken away from Customs.

The purpose of this bill is to legislate for the establishment of an Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. The commission will inherit from the international trade remedies branch of Customs the responsibility for investigating and pursuing—and that is very important—anti-dumping cases.

But the critical point is that the Anti-Dumping Commission will be accompanied by increased resources and, as articulated in our policy, this will lead to substantial improvement in the quality of the economic and legal analysis that underpins Australian anti-dumping investigations through a significant sharpening in the skills and qualifications of those people conducting them. In fact, it will be a different mindset and, hopefully, a fresh look.

The government's intention to establish the commission and to inject new funding into the system has generally received strong support from our Australian manufacturers. Principally, they believe that the move will help to enhance the quality of anti-dumping investigations and increase the focus on an issue that is becoming increasingly problematic for a range of our businesses. How do we know that? We know that because we consulted with industry and they told us so. The coalition should be rightly proud of its work on anti-dumping and having played a central role in publicly shaming the government into implementing changes after several years of trying to avoid the issue. I again commend the member for Indi for being so passionate in her pursuit of the issue and her commitment to working with stakeholders to resolve this, and I was very pleased to be part of the panel that did so.

The Australian processing industries have taken a beating in recent years; and, while the high Australian dollar is a significant factor, it is clear that dumping from other countries is certainly also a factor. As a result, many food processors in Australia have closed or shifted operations offshore. That has had a dramatic effect on the farm sector, especially horticultural production of tomatoes and other foodstuffs. If we actually look at the tomato processing industry in Australia, it has been devastated in recent years by cheap imports, particularly from Italy. Thirty years ago, 400 growers supplied seven canneries; now, I think there are only about nine growers supplying just one processor. If anyone ever goes into a supermarket, it is very obvious that that is a fact. Recent media reports suggest that the EU has protected the processed tomato industry with subsidies since 1978 and currently, for every dollar an Italian farmer makes, the EU puts another 41c in their pocket, which means they can sell to canneries more cheaply than an Australian farmer. That is a fact. The dumping of tinned tomatoes was last reviewed by customs in 2002. They found no 'material injury' to the Australian canned tomato industry. But that was over 10 years ago and I believe that with extra resourcing it is now time to have another look at this issue. We need to look at it soon or customs will again find no material injury to the Australian industry—not because they are not dumping but on the grounds that there is no Australian industry left.

I congratulate the government for adopting our policy even though they could not initiate the solution themselves, but I am very pleased that they have taken this position. I again reiterate that I understand why the government want to release our policies: not so that they can be costed but so they can adopt them. At least they are looking forward a bit and looking for policies that they cannot find themselves. These are policies—I am sure the member for Wentworth would agree with me—that we think about that are meant to be for the nation in the future, not for the party that is adopting them. I support this legislation as it is our policy, and I congratulate the government for finally realising that if they cannot come up with policies for the good of the nation then they can at least adopt ours.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians like to think of ourselves as being fair—being fair minded, playing by the rules and allowing a fair contest of skill or ideas. We like to think of ourselves as upholding that value of fairness and consider our desire for a 'fair go' in any contest a part of our national character. Some go further than this. Some think that there should be a home advantage in certain cases—that is what you see and hear anyway. I think that in many people's minds local industry and local jobs, as opposed to those overseas, should enjoy a slight home advantage. This has been Australian history for much of the 20th Century. This is a theme that is very close to the hearts of a great many of my constituents that I speak to in the electorate of Hindmarsh and of course the hearts of those of other areas around Adelaide, South Australia and, I am sure, the rest of the nation.

That contest between Australian products, primary and manufactured goods and those from overseas is a topic which gets a lot of attention in the community for two principal reasons: it concerns fairness and it is pretty fundamental to our individual and collective incomes—to all of us—our livelihoods and our survival. Over recent decades and certainly this century, most Australian governments look to fairness and look to a level playing field as being the goal for business and industry. There will always be factors that differ in the production, distribution and costing of manufactured products and primary industries. But, given these differences, fairness in the marketplace is the absolute goal. We want fairness in a competition between Australian businesses, and that is why we have those rules against practices which are clearly unfair which are enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or the ACCC as we all know them.

Predatory pricing is where one business sells a product at below cost for a sustained period with the sole purpose of driving a competitor who cannot afford to sell below cost out of a particular market. That is against our rules, and we would all agree that it is very unfair. We do not abide by such practices between Australian competitors. We do not abide by such practices of foreign competitors either. For that matter, neither does the World Trade Organisation. Hence our anti-dumping rules, implemented by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—our umpire.

Australia's anti-dumping rules and enforcement is necessary so our local industries and businesses are not disadvantaged or forced out of business by an imported product sold below the normal value and cost and dumped on our shores with the sole purpose of putting other businesses out of the marketplace.

This is a period when there is a very high Australian dollar and local producers and manufacturers in Australia are having a tough time against overseas competitors. This is something which Australian businesses have been battling with. In this period, unreasonably cheap competition can be especially dangerous to local enterprises and local businesses. Anti-dumping rules and enforcement are even more important in this climate. The government knows this and has acted.

In 2011 this government announced reforms to improve the timeliness of anti-dumping investigations, improving the access of small and medium-sized businesses to the complaints system and establishing a closer alignment of our systems with those of other nations. Implementation of these reforms is almost complete. Labor has also established the International Trade Remedies Forum to advise government on anti-dumping matters, and elements of the bill before us today stem from discussions between that forum and the government. As we heard earlier, the former Premier of Victoria, Mr Brumby, has also reported to the government on the Australian anti-dumping system and has made recommendations for change. Further improvements to our anti-dumping system have been identified and it is our absolute duty and responsibility to see them through. The minister has introduced the bill to further improve the responsiveness, the efficiency and effectiveness of the anti-dumping system and to reduce its costs and complexity for industry.

Through this bill we will establish the new Anti-Dumping Commission to investigate dumping complaints, to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of our anti-dumping system and to make the anti-dumping system easier for small and medium-sized businesses to use the system and increase the resources, including investigators from Customs, to enforce those rules. We will also be increasing the scope or intensity of the potential penalties and remedies in instances of established dumping, which will better protect our businesses. The Anti-Dumping Commission will report directly to the Minister for Home Affairs and will utilise the system of Australian Customs and Border Protection. Australians will approve of these changes. It will be the same principle of fairness but with the help of a firmer and stronger umpire.

We will have further legislation, probably in the winter session, to enact the next step: changes to the size of penalties, the review processes, appeals, infringement notice schemes and other measures to strengthen the anti-dumping legislation. This is all about fairness and giving Australian businesses, Australian producers and manufacturers a fair go. And who could object to that? Absolutely no-one, we hope. This is a very important bill that will strengthen the anti-dumping laws and put more power in the area of Customs to ensure that people and businesses who are affected by the unfair practices of overseas companies and exporters will be able to go to a particular place and know that their complaints will be thoroughly investigated and that there will be stronger penalties if people are found guilty of dumping. I commend the bill to the House.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to talk about the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission) Bill 2013. This is a most important area of legislation for Australia, given that we export a huge proportion of our production. We have a very small domestic market—only some 22 million people. When it comes to our agriculture, we export some 60 per cent of all that we produce.

On the other hand, we have an environment where the very high Australian dollar and our tariff regime—which has minimal or non-existent tariffs, except in a few favoured industry sectors like automotive—means we are exposed to product from other countries that is often being offered at prices below the costs of production in the home country.

In 2011-2012, the total imports of foods and beverages, for example, exceeded total Australian exports by $2.8 billion. That represents a huge volume of product coming into this country, most of it from places where there is subsidy embedded in the agricultural production or where there is state managed or state owned enterprise. When it comes to bringing a case against, for example, the importation of canned tomatoes from Italy or canned peaches from Greece, it is extraordinarily difficult for an Australian manufacturer or group of growers to demonstrate quickly and clearly that they have suffered material damage and that the product they are trying to compete against in Australia has in effect or fact been dumped.

I have just come, in the last hour, from a huge meeting of dairy farmers in Tongala. This was a cry from the heart from those producers saying that it is now almost beyond their capacity to continue to produce at below the costs of production. The two major problems are the domestic market failure, with the big two duopolies, Coles and Woolworths, squeezing the price, and the imported product they have to compete against. That product is often disguised or repackaged, in Australia or New Zealand, and the price of the product—whether it is a cheese, an ice cream or some other dairy based confection—is often so low you wonder how it can possibly represent the true value of production, including the cost of its transportation into this country.

This bill tries to produce a better anti-dumping regime in Australia by introducing a new, so-called Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. The commission would take from the International Trade Remedies Branch of Customs the responsibility for investigating and pursuing anti-dumping cases. That, of course, could not be a bad thing. I am sure most people would say that, on the surface, it sounds like a reasonable idea. But it supposes that the relevant Australian industry sectors, whether they involve the manufacture of food, clothing or footwear—not that we have much of that industry left—or the production of software, have the capacity to investigate the costs of the product that they believe is being dumped. It also supposes that they are going to get sufficient assistance from the Australian Public Service to support their investigations into the true price of production in the dumping country. We cannot take any of that for granted at all.

There is a suggestion of direct additional funding of $24.4 million for the anti-dumping administration, but we are not told where this money might come from or when it might come. We know that this government is in deep, deep strife when it comes to its borrowings. It dissipated the surplus it inherited at the change of government, when John Howard's government was replaced, and there will be no surplus in this coming budget. We are deeply concerned that the $24.4 million, small as it is in the scheme of things, will not be readily found for the new anti-dumping administration. We have already seen the effects of the huge slashing and burning of the Customs and biosecurity agencies, including the corruption that is now being investigated in the importation of contraband product, particularly drugs, in Sydney. Maybe that would not have occurred if the funding for surveillance and proper scrutiny of incoming product had not been so reduced over the period of this government.

We are told that there is an expectation that the commission will be operational by the middle of 2013. Let us hope that is the case. But, if it is to come without at least $24.4 million to support the anti-dumping administration, including the prosecution of cases and tracking down of product costs in other countries, then what is the point of yet another block of administrators or public servants sitting in new chairs in a new office and calling themselves a commission?

We are a naive country when it comes to how we handle our import-export business. We pretend there is such a thing as a level playing field; we pretend there is such a thing as fair trade globally. These are great aspirations, and I would think there are few in this chamber who would not aspire to the glorious ideal of free trade, but the reality is that no such thing as free trade exists around the globe. There are growing subsidies and the use of child labour and slave labour for the production of products such as cocoa. Subsidies are not reducing. We have to have an anti-dumping regime which gives the Australian industry, company or small business all the teeth it needs to prosecute its case and to do it quickly. Too often, when I have been investigating one of these cases, they have cost too much, have taken too long and, by the time there has been some movement, the damage has been so significant that the company cannot survive.

We have here a bill which has borrowed coalition policy, of course, in establishing the commission, but it is different in that we would have had the resources to strengthen our anti-dumping regime. I also hope that someone someday will look at the business of reversing the onus of proof when it comes to establishing a case of anti-dumping for Australian enterprise. At the moment we expect the business or company that alleges antidumping to do all the hard yards: to go and investigate in a country like Thailand or China, for example. Let us take a country where states typically own the enterprises, like China.

We expect a transparent and readily revealed lists of costs—all of the details—so that the case can be built against that nation, in order for the Australian enterprise to prove the case of antidumping. Quite obviously, that is almost impossible to do. If there is a reversal of onus of proof, however, where an allegation is brought, the allegation goes through a preliminary check and is found to be worthy of investigation, then it is up to the business accused, or where the antidumping is alleged, to prove its costs to the satisfaction of something like the new Anti-Dumping Commission, and so life can go on.

At the moment it is almost impossible for an antidumping case to be brought in Australia. We pay lip-service to the concept, but it is expensive to bring a case and it is extraordinarily long-winded. The chances of you getting true costs from another country to prove your case are almost impossible. You usually have to retreat and become a less viable business, as you are overwhelmed by the unfair competition. A change in food labelling laws would assist us in this whole business of making sure that the consumer is at least more informed about where a product comes from, so if they see an extraordinarily low price they can at least check the label and see where that product came from.

At the moment our food labelling laws make it almost impossible for a consumer to know if the Australian content is just the water in the can, if it is just a little bit of food colouring added at the end of the process or if it is just the crumbing or the curing of the ham that occurred in Australia. It is impossible to really know, if you simply scan the label on the product. All of that plays into the hands of those who aim to dump product on our market.

I think we have to be more grown up about all of this. I am not implying that we wheel back in all of our tariffs; I am suggesting, though, that we live in a climate where we have to manage our trade better. We have to understand that, while we are constantly being told that there is a growing demand for fine food and manufactured food in our region, we have to be realistic about the fact that, at the moment, many Australian farmers are unable to feed themselves and they are unable to pay their bills because of unfair competition.

As I said, I have just come from a rally at Tongala, a town of just 2,000 people, and there were 600 people in the hall. They are people who have been working for nearly 18 months milking their cows seven days a week twice a day with huge costs from additional energy bills brought about, of course, by the carbon tax, the additional pharmaceutical costs and massive increases in their water costs—all of that, and they are being paid below the cost of their production as they bring some of the world's cleanest and most food-secure milk product onto the domestic market. You can understand their despair. They keep being told that if they just produce a good product, if they just work harder, they will have a future. Well, no they will not, because you cannot keep working—whatever your enterprise—when you are not able to meet your basic costs. And, of course, eventually the body wears out and your future generation of dairy farmers turn away and say, 'Why would we bother?'

This antidumping legislation, the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission) Bill, is a very important part of the process of making a fairer and better place for our own home-grown enterprise. It is hard enough to survive in our own domestic economy, where we have such a small market and where we have such concentrated buyer power, but then there are also the unfair practices of those whose products are imported—taking advantage of our high Australian dollar and taking advantage of our more poorly resourced Customs checking at the border and our less resourced biosecurity regimes. If companies and individual enterprises keep bringing product into Australia which is below the cost of production, we are going to have to expect that there will be less home-grown product available for our shoppers to choose from in the future.

I do not think that is a very sensible prospect. I think food security has to be one of the most important issues that any nation addresses. Australia has come late to understand the concept of food security. The Labor government has produced the National Food Plan. I am afraid that antidumping did not have much of an outing in that plan. Certainly, the plan fails to address the extraordinarily difficult economic environment that our food and fibre producers must struggle in to make ends meet in this country.

So I do not oppose the establishment of a so-called Australian Anti-Dumping Commission, but I am concerned that the $24.4 million actually materialises and is dedicated to this commission if it is to be established by the middle of 2013. It will be a farce if all we get is another name on a door and another lot of highly paid, specially appointed commissioners while Rome continues to burn.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since the early 1980s there has been an almost bipartisan position in this parliament that Australia's best interests lay in being an open trading nation. It has been the reason that we can now purchase a TV set for less than we could 20 years ago. It is the reason that we now are able to purchase computers and all manner of other electronic goods for a fraction of what were able to 10 years ago.

It is the reason many Australian working families can afford to have multiple pairs of shoes for their children. When I was growing up if you had more than two pairs of shoes, you were considered to be a wealthy kid. The benefits of having open trade and being an open trading nation have not been without cost. It is absolutely true to say that an open and freer trading arrangement has also been a source of enormous dislocation and restructuring within our own economies, within our manufacturing industries and within our agricultural industries. It is also true to say that those changes have had greater impact on some regions than others. As a trading nation we understand that it is in the broad interest to engage with the rest of the world and enjoy the benefits of open trade.

However, as the minister said in his second reading speech, there are some things that cannot be accepted as part of an open trading scheme, and one of them is cheating—bending the rules. Dumping is cheating. It is not free trade; it is not fair trade; it is an abuse of the system. Industries, companies and workers are injured when goods from overseas are dumped into the Australian market. That is why it is important to ensure that we have a strong, fair and effective dumping regime. Manufacturing employs over one million Australians and is a key part of a broad based Australian economy, and, whilst there has been enormous restructuring in the economic base of the region that I represent, manufacturing is still an important part of the economy and certainly an important source of jobs for workers within my electorate.

A more effective anti-dumping system will support jobs in our manufacturing sector by ensuring competition happens on a level playing field. That is why I was so pleased when, on 4 December, the Gillard government announced a package of reforms to Australia's anti-dumping system to deliver stronger protection for Australian industry against unfair competition from overseas. Elements of that new package, which built upon three rafts of reforms that have already been introduced into this parliament, are already assisting Australian industry, but key parts of the new reforms include the establishment of a new anti-dumping commission to investigate complaints, and that is the subject of the bill before the House today. It will further boost funding to Customs by an additional $24.4 million over four years, so that it has the staff, resources and expertise available to deal with cases speedily and fairly. That amount will almost double the resources available in the anti-dumping area of customs. Further, it will make the anti-dumping system easier for small- and medium-sized businesses. It is a key reform for small- and medium-sized businesses—particularly in the fabrication sector in my electorate—that do not have the benefit of in-house lawyers. They are often ably represented by industry associations, but this will make it easier for them to negotiate, to make an application, to keep the doors open until that application is determined. These are key parts of the reforms. The bill will also introduce stricter remedies against overseas producers who deliberately circumvent Australia's anti-dumping rules. Those remedies include the capacity to apply for retrospective penalties from the date when an application is made.

These are important reforms. Establishing a new commission under legislation was a primary recommendation of the review into Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system by the Hon. John Brumby, the former Victorian Premier and treasurer. The Brumby report found that in the last 12 months prevailing economic circumstances—including the strong Australian dollar, surplus product on world markets and increased competition—have led to the number of new investigations more than tripling over the past two years. Mr Brumby also found that this trend is likely to continue with the expectation that applications for anti-dumping and countervailing measures will continue to rise. The government has recognised that as global economic circumstances change—and Australia is facing intense and in some cases unfair international competition from dumped goods—more needs to be done to ensure that Australia continues to have an effective anti-dumping system.

In many respects this package of measures assists in bringing Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing provisions in line with those of our major trading partners and with the new context in international trade. The government has recognised that, as global economic circumstances change and Australia is facing intense and in some cases unfair international competition from dumped goods, more needs to be done. The new reforms will deliver stronger protection for Australian industry against unfair competition from overseas and, in addition to the significant streamlining reforms to Australia's anti-dumping system which were announced in 2011, will provide some relief, particularly in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors.

The bill represents the next step in the Gillard government's support for manufacturers where dumping is injuring local producers—the creation of an Australian anti-dumping commission. Establishing an anti-dumping commission will increase the profile, status and priority of the anti-dumping system. The commission will be principally located in Melbourne and is expected to commence in July this year. The bill also amends the Customs Act to create the role of and set out the matters in relation to the commission. The commission will be responsible for decision making and other anti-dumping related functions that currently rest with the CEO of the Customs and Border Protection agency. The establishment of this commission will ensure a high level of decision making and reflect the significance of the anti-dumping system in Australia. It will not, however, change or alter the responsibility of the minister in his determination powers in respect of anti-dumping matters.

The bill also amends the Customs Administration Act to allow the CEO of Customs to delegate to the commissioner powers to disclose certain information to the extent that those powers apply in connection to paragraph 15(2)(b) of the act and provide that the prohibition of disclosure of certain information will also apply to the commissioner.

Finally, as the commission will be established as part of the Customs and Border Protection agency, the bill amends the Criminal Code Act and Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act to ensure that the commissioner is treated consistently with the CEO and Customs officers. This means that, like all Customs staff, the commissioner will be subject to a range of integrity measures, including drug and alcohol testing—although I hope that is never necessary—the mandatory requirements to report serious misconduct and termination for serious misconduct.

Importantly, Labor's tough new anti-dumping measures have been strongly welcomed by Australian manufacturers, including the largest manufacturer in my electorate—BlueScope in Port Kembla—and the Australian Steel Institute. In Australia it is not a secret that steelmakers have had to make a series of tough decisions to restructure, reduce costs and refocus on the domestic steel market. In the case of BlueScope in Port Kembla, this situation has meant large-scale redundancies and big reductions in spending, including the closure of one of its two blast furnaces at the Port Kembla plant. These changes mean that BlueScope will focus on supplying the domestic market, which is around 2.6 million tonnes per annum. To put that into perspective, China now produces something in the vicinity of four to 4.5 million tonnes per month, which is about twice Australia's annual output. They are producing more than twice as much in any one month as we produce in an entire year. This is important in a business which is all about scale.

With global growth still in the doldrums, the oversupply of steel is growing. It is growing on a monthly basis because many of these plants simply do not have the same responsiveness to market pressures as our steelmaking plants in Australia. The Chinese government, for example, have estimated that they have around 150 million tonnes of excess steelmaking capacity. Other analysts put this excess capacity somewhere in the vicinity of over 200 million tonnes. That means that a whole heap of excess steel is going to be pushed onto the international market.

We need to ensure that, when steel from other steelmakers around the globe enters international markets, it does so in accordance with the rules of fair and free trade, and that it is not dumped here. These new measures will support local steel industry jobs in the Illawarra and beyond. This new anti-dumping approach is about fairness. We do not allow unfair trade practices by our own businesses and we should not allow Australian jobs to be jeopardised by unfair trade practices from overseas.

These rules for free trade are set out in the general agreement on trade and other bilateral agreements. These rules allow signatories to impose corrective measures to respond to dumping of goods and certain subsidies, known as countervailing measures. The World Trade Organization oversees the rules, and in Australia there is also oversight by the courts. Some in debates such as this argue that the imposition of corrective measures or an effective tariff in response to dumping is a retreat to protectionism, that the efficient allocation of resources in Australia simply props up inefficient industries. Others in the debate go even further and argue that, if a company or a country is willing to subsidise Australian consumers by selling us goods which are heavily subsidised or at below cost, then we should just grab this with both hands. I argue, and the Australian government argues, that this is very short-sighted.

Importing goods at below cost might provide some short-term windfalls for some consumers but this comes at the price of long-term headwinds for open trade; what the Productivity Commission describes in its reports on our anti-dumping and countervailing measures system as 'a system preserving benefits of our anti-dumping regime'. Put simply, the factory worker who loses his job and the farmer who loses access to a local market will turn their sights on a bigger target: the whole system of open trade itself. So, without these measures, and without the capacity for us to turn to local workers, local businesses and industry as a whole and say that we have a free but fair system of trade rules, we lose confidence in the whole system of open trade.

Australian manufacturers know that competing on price alone in this global marketplace is not easy. It is harder still when companies sell their goods at below cost with the objective of injuring a domestic producer and wiping out a whole market. As a country with a strong commitment to free trade, Australia cannot be seen as a soft touch for those seeking to dump their goods into our markets. As I said at the outset, strong anti-dumping measures are about fairness and they are a buttress for a free trade system.

This government has shown a strong commitment to our manufacturing sector by these and other measures. We believe in the future of Australian manufacturing, which still employs around one million workers more than the mining and resources sector. Open trade remains a cornerstone of our economy, but to ensure the integrity of our global market in which we trade our goods, we also need to continue to ensure Australia has a tough and responsive anti-dumping system, to ensure that our policy meets its national as well as its international objectives. I commend the legislation to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to be given an opportunity to discuss this important and critical issue of dumping, to provide an update on some of the prevailing issues and to consider their relevance to the establishment of an independent agency with the responsibility for monitoring and combating dumping in Australia, as this bill seeks to do.

Dumping is an important issue of concern across many sectors in the Australian economy. That is reflected by the fact that this House has considered some five tranches of legislative improvements over the term of this parliament. However, I must state that this piece of legislation before us today is certainly somewhat better than the piecemeal approach contained in the previous tranches of legislation this parliament has dealt with over the past 48 months.

What we see before us in this legislation is a bill to give effect to the establishment of an Australian anti-dumping commission, with funding of $24.4 million over the forward estimates. However, there remains the question of the source of this money, and I am yet to hear a clear indication from any government speaker about how this will be funded. Hopefully, the minister will enlighten those listening to this debate when he makes his speech in reply.

I feel compelled to note my surprise at this move, the most coherent and direct of this Labor government's attempts to deal with the issue of dumping, to establish a dedicated agency to deal with the problem. Of course, the former minister responsible criticised this very policy when the coalition announced a very similar policy last year, with the coalition's anti-dumping task force. So the government seems to have achieved a degree of clarity in this fundamental policy area, which is good, albeit piggybacking on a previously announced coalition plan. Once again, we see the coalition taking the lead from opposition.

The government certainly must feel embarrassed following their relentless negativity and hysterical response to the coalition's anti-dumping policy, which they now seek to copy. Indeed, at the very height of their shrill response to its release, the minister for trade, in a performance comparable to his off-key singing, said the coalition's policy indicated a 'willingness to breach the world trading rules and tear up trade agreements with neighbouring Asian countries'. Now Labor seek to adopt almost that very policy for themselves. Quite an embarrassment indeed.

Another point that is interesting to note was the necessity for the Labor government to hire an old Labor mate to draw up these recommendations. It is just another example of Labor waste, but you have to ask how Mr Brumby earned his pay cheque. It was not hard because he could have got this entire policy by downloading it from the Liberal Party website.

We might ask ourselves: why has the government decided to finally copy many parts of the coalition's policy? Perhaps it has something to do with other government policies that have made Australian manufacturing uncompetitive, such as the government's carbon tax. By imposing a carbon tax on Australian manufacturers when such a tax is not levied upon our foreign competitors, we are simply putting our Australian businesses at a competitive disadvantage. It is natural that many of these companies with all these high costs of producing goods onshore in Australia are seeing goods produced offshore flooding into the country at prices lower than they can manufacture them at. It is not because they are doing anything wrong or because their business models are uncompetitive; it is simply because this Labor government is burdening them with taxes and extra expenses that they have to pay but overseas competitors do not. Is it any wonder that we have seen hundreds of thousands of job losses in the manufacturing sector under this Labor government?

I would like to correct something that the good member for Throsby said. He mentioned that dumping is selling below cost. That is not correct. According to the World Trade Organization's definition, dumping is not simply selling goods below cost and nor is it selling them for an anticompetitive purpose. The World Trade Organization's definition of dumping includes merely selling a good at a lower price in a foreign market than what is charged for that same good in the exporter's domestic market. Effectively, anti-dumping legislation attempts to ensure that a company makes the same levels of profit in the export market as it does in the domestic market.

We need to be careful that this legislation does not set off trade disputes with other countries. There is hardly an exporter in Australia also selling their goods on the local market that does not go in with a slightly sharper pencil when competing in more competitive overseas markets. Under World Trade Organization rules, that could be deemed as dumping.

When it is all boiled down, dumping is merely geographic price discrimination on an international basis—selling the same good in different markets, segmenting those markets by international boundaries and charging different prices.

If speaker after speaker on both sides of this parliament comes in here and condemns international geographic price discrimination, we also must condemn geographic price discrimination when it occurs within our borders, especially when it causes or threatens to cause material injury to an Australian business. If we fail to do so, if we fail to include geographic price discrimination in our own laws, we are nothing more than hypocrites. For while it is important to have an effective law to deal with geographic price discrimination when it occurs across political boundaries and internationally, it is equally important to have such a law when it occurs within Australia’s regional boundaries.

In the home of free-market capitalism, the USA, the Robinson-Patman Act has a specific provision to deal with geographic price discrimination within America. That act says in part:

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce … to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor.

These competition laws simply do not exist in Australia. Where we experience geographic price discrimination within our boundaries, affecting regional parts of Australia, we simply have no provisions to deal with that, but there are provisions in place for goods that come from overseas. We need to address both issues.

We should not be concerned only about goods being sold substantially below cost or below the cost at which they are sold in international markets. Another issue this parliament should be addressing is the reverse of international geographic price discrimination; it is what you could almost call international price gouging. One only has to look at the higher prices paid by consumers and businesses in Australia for goods that are available much more cheaply overseas. I will give a couple of examples.

In the Adelaide Advertiser today is an article titled 'The great Aussie pricing disparity'. Under the heading 'Highway robbery' were listed several items that Australian consumers pay higher prices for because firms are engaging in international geographic price discrimination against Australia, charging much higher prices in the Australian market. A stunning example is Levi's 501 jeans. News Limited analysis is that Levi's 501 jeans in Australia sell for $109.95, yet those same jeans are available in the USA for $62.18. So Australian consumers are paying almost 50 per cent more. We need to ask: what is the cause of this higher price? Is it the manufacturer overseas? Is it Levi's engaging in international geographic price discrimination? Or is it a lack of competition in the Australian market? These are the issues we should be looking at in this parliament. Another example is Colgate toothpaste. While consumers in America pay a little over $2, it is $3.15 in Australian supermarkets—again 50 per cent higher. Again we should be asking: what is the cause of this discrepancy?

It does not stop with those products. A two-litre bottle of Coca-Cola sells for $3.79 in Australian supermarkets. That Coke is made using the same method around the world in highly efficient automated plants.

Yet last year, when I was on a delegation to Taiwan, at a small 7/11 supermarket that same two-litre bottle of Coke was selling for the equivalent of $1. You only have to look online and you can see that same two-litre bottle of Coke being sold in the USA today for around $1 to $1.20—yet it sells in Australia for $3.79. So we need to ask ourselves: is Coca Cola engaging in international geographic price discrimination against Australia? Or is it a lack of competition in the Australian market?

A few other examples of geographic price discrimination, or reverse dumping, in Australia are in our tech sector, for IT products. A few examples have been drawn to my attention of how Australians are paying much higher prices. It is not only Australian consumers; it is Australian businesses as well, which puts those businesses at a competitive disadvantage. For example, for Creative Cloud, from Adobe—which is something you actually buy online, so there are no additional distribution costs whether they are selling it here or in the USA—Australian consumers pay $62.99 whereas in the USA they only pay $50. A worse example is Adobe CS6 Master Collection, again something you can buy online, so there is no additional costs of distribution—we cannot argue about any different cost in freight. If I were a US citizen I could buy it for $2,599. But if I am based here in Australia, and I download exactly the same item, Adobe will charge me $4,344. That is almost 50 to 60 per cent higher in price.

The same goes for Microsoft. An example: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium to Professional upgrade—again, a product that can be downloaded, so there are no different costs to Microsoft in whichever market they sell. As a citizen of the US I could download that and pay $89.95. But downloading that in Australia I pay $104.99—more than 20 per cent more.

These are some of the issues we need to look at. If we are going to look at international geographic price discrimination, where goods are being sold too cheaply in Australia, we should also look at the complete reverse—where Australian consumers and Australian businesses are paying higher prices, because that makes us uncompetitive.

In my few remaining minutes, I would also like to draw the attention of the House to how some of the anti-dumping regulations can actually be used against consumers and against industry and be ineffective. The example I would like to give is bedroom furniture, and the dumping regulations that were applied in the USA from Chinese bedroom furniture manufacturers. Since 2004 the US Department of Commerce imposed strict anti-dumping penalties on wooden bedroom furniture that was imported from China, deeming that those products had been dumped into the US market for less than their fair value. These products had an additional tariff on them from one per cent to more than 200 per cent of the import value. But this did not save the US furniture manufacturing sector. Despite these dumping duties the US have seen a massive decline in jobs in the furniture industry, a massive decline in the number of local sales and imports take up to 80 per cent of the market—a complete reversal. So we need to be very careful and not overplay these anti-dumping regulations, because sometimes they can be used against our industries. Also, there are many Australian companies that rely on components in their production chain, that produce those goods here in Australia. We have to be careful that, as these anti-dumping regulations come in, they are not adversely affected and there are not delays or additional costs put on those companies— (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.