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

The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission Transfer) Bill 2013 is a non-controversial bill. It provides for the Anti-Dumping Commission to be transferred from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to be administered instead within the Department of Industry under Minister Ian MacFarlane. This is where it more obviously belongs.

What is dumping? It occurs when an exporter sells goods to Australia at a price below the so-called normal value of the goods. The normal value will usually be the domestic price of the goods in the country of origin. The margin of dumping is usually the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price of the goods. The Australian industry or business which brings an allegation of dumping forward for investigation must demonstrate that there is dumping or subsidisation and that the industry has suffered material injury as a result. Remedial action may then be taken where dumping and/or subsidisation causes or threatens to cause material injury to an Australian industry or business. The Australian industry usually needs to show a real reduction in selling price, profit or market share. If there are reasonable grounds for an antidumping action, duties can be imposed on the incoming dumped or subsidised products equivalent to an amount that reflects the subsidy or the difference between the normal price in the home market and the price it is sold at in Australia.

The normal value of the goods is something that has to be calculated. The problem is that it is very difficult for an Australian company to go to a managed economy—like that of China, for example—and work out what the price of the goods in that domestic market actually is. This is especially the case if an identical product—a 150-gram plastic container of preserved peaches, say—is not to be found. It is also difficult for the industry to nail what level of subsidy might be embedded in, say, a European Union marketplace or, again, in a managed economy like that of China. Perhaps that accounts for why there has been an extraordinary dropping off over the last 10 years in the number of businesses or industry sectors bringing antidumping actions.

This is a problem for Australian manufacturing, given that we are already in a difficult situation with the very high dollar. We have watched much of our food manufacturing industry leave the country. We only have one fruit manufacturer still standing—the SPCA preserved fruit and vegetable company in Shepparton. SPCA very recently brought an antidumping action against imported Italian canned tomatoes. One of the things about a dumping situation is that the material injury accumulates day after day, so the longer it takes to get antidumping duties—or countervailing measures, if it is a case of subsidisation—put in place, the more damage is done to that home industry.

The request for an antidumping investigation went forward from SPCA in April this year. The matter has still not been resolved in relation to preserved peaches imported from South Africa, but there has been a preliminary finding in relation to the Italian canned tomatoes and a provisional antidumping measure has been imposed. What the new Anti-Dumping Commissioner found was that Italian tomatoes were being imported through a dozen or more separate firms and that antidumping duties of between six per cent and nine per cent should be imposed.

You can imagine that a lot of our supermarkets are quite saddened that they will no longer have the dirt-cheap dumped product to put in their home brands. Not only have they been able to offer product, in the case of tinned tomatoes, at about half the price of the much better tasting and much safer Australian product but, even if they have chosen not to put the dumped product on their shelves, they have been able to say to a company like SPC Ardmona, 'We can bring this product in from Italy for 40c a can and you are telling us that you want to sell yours for 90c or $1.10 a can to cover your costs of production?' So the dumped product is having a dampening effect on the price the Australian producer can obtain, as well as itself filling up the shelves of Coles, Woolworths, ALDI, IGA and so on. It is very sad that we now even have a very large label on these cans of imported Italian tomatoes saying 'Australian organic certified'. Clearly this is a ruse to bamboozle the shopper into thinking that if the big sign on the side of the can says 'Australian organic certified' perhaps the origin of those tomatoes is some glorious open paddock in Shepparton growing world-best tomatoes.

There is an extraordinary set of statistics demonstrating how we have pursued antidumping actions in Australia over the last 10 years. I have mentioned that it is extraordinarily costly and takes a lot of time for an industry to bring an antidumping action given that the industry has to go out there into the marketplace and find the data from some factory in Yunnan or some other part of outback China or perhaps in South Africa. They have to get data which stands up to objective and independent scrutiny. Of course the antidumping officials, who were before in Customs and who now will be in the Department of Industry, assist with that process but it is extremely difficult and it takes a lot of time to bring an action. Companies like SPCA talk about the hundreds of thousands of dollars involved. So we should not be surprised that in the 10 years up to 2008-09 Customs—then the auspicing body but under this bill it will be Industry—initiated about 12 new antidumping actions each year. By contrast, the number of cases investigated in the 1990s was about 40 a year. The amount of new WTO sanctioned antidumping measures imposed has, in parallel, dramatically fallen, from around 14 cases each year imposed in the 1990s to only about five cases each year imposed in the last 10 years. So, about half of all cases brought to the antidumping investigator succeeded in the last 10 years and about one third succeeded in the previous decade.

You might wonder whether Australian businesses have simply given up because they have felt they could survive despite the dumped product. No; companies like SPC Ardmona, with dumped product making it very difficult for them to survive, simply do not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue a case. They also know that by the time they get an outcome it may be too late. SPC Ardmona took to the Anti-Dumping Commission in April this year the allegation that peaches from South Africa were being dumped, and there still is not an outcome. That is appalling. We still have peaches coming in from South Africa. You might say that at least Coles, Woolworths and ALDI have said they will no longer put imported preserved fruit into their no-name brands—hallelujah for that—and they are responding to the Australian public's demand that Australian product only be put into their cheaper brands. The trouble is, the price pressure is still there. Coles and Woolworths are still saying to the various Australian food manufacturers that they are only going to pay them such and such an amount and that they want that product on their shelves at a particular price because they can get an import equivalent product from South Africa or Chile or Italy or China for half what Australian companies are offering their product at. I understand Coles, Woolworths and ALDI are eventually only to put Australian origin product in their no-name brands, but they are still expecting the prices paid for Australian product to be at or below the cost of production. Clearly this is not a sustainable market strategy for the long-term survival of the food manufacturing industry in Australia. I am hoping that our new voluntary code of conduct for supermarkets will do something about that unconscionable use of market power and lessen the pressure put on prices for our Australian product.

It is not just food about which dumping allegations are made. Measures have been taken against polyvinylchloride, or PVC, homopolymer resins from Japan and the USA, and these antidumping measures have been in place since 1992. Brandy from France has had antidumping measures applied to it continuously since 1995. When we do get it right, we do persist with antidumping measures and so—I hate to use the 'P' word but I will—we can protect our Australian brandy industry or our own PVC industry from unconscionable and unfair behaviour like dumping or subsidisation.

Compare the measures put forward by our Anti-Dumping Commission—it has only been in business only since July this year, but there was the Customs regime before that—when addressing antidumping allegations with what happens in New Zealand. Why is it that New Zealand has an extraordinarily different set of outcomes? They have had an antidumping action against preserved fruit from China for more than five years, and they recently reimposed that regime. They do not hesitate to carefully and properly look at an allegation and, if it is found to be upheld by the data brought forward, they will impose an antidumping, WTO-sanctioned, lawful measure against the dumped product coming into their country. They therefore have a whole range of vibrant and sustainable industries, particularly food related industries, while in Australia those industries have a real struggle. I keep thinking about the Girgarre tomato sauce factory owned by Heinz, which shut up shop about 12 months ago. Girgarre is a town of about 300 residents in my electorate and the Heinz tomato sauce factory employed about 90 people. You can imagine the impact on that small country town. Where did Heinz go to? Heinz took their tomato sauce manufacturing to New Zealand, where the government is much more flexible and dexterous when it comes to looking at subsidised or dumped product coming in which could unfairly compete. So the Heinz tomato sauce factory is now in New Zealand—where they do not even grow the varieties of tomatoes which are turned into sauce. How extraordinary!

We have another extraordinary situation in Australia. In New Zealand, if there is not an identical product produced in the home country, say South Africa—if there is not a can of peaches or a plastic container of peaches sold there identical to the one that they are selling in New Zealand; in other words, if it is purpose produced just to sell in New Zealand and is not sold in supermarkets back home in South Africa—they work out surrogate prices to establish whether this product is being dumped in New Zealand according to the costs of production and prices of like product back in South Africa. In Australia we take a weighted average, which is extraordinary. We will take two or three different South African preserved fruit products—maybe a small can, then a larger can and maybe a plastic pack—and we average the dumping or subsidy proportions in each of those prices across those three products. They call that a weighted average, and, obviously, when that averaging is undertaken as a means of working out whether or not a single product is dumped you have a much smaller chance of the dumping being proved. This is a bit of a mystery. Why do we do this in Australia? Why are we using this weighted average, rather than using the system that New Zealand uses, which is absolutely WTO consistent?

With our new Anti-Dumping Commission and our antidumping regime—which both Labor and the coalition know needs strengthening—we have got to look at just how we go about this business, because Australia does not play unfairly. We want a level playing field. Whether a product is car tyres, or steel rims for tyres, or PVC or glass, we do not think it is right that an Australian manufacturer should have to compete against product that is brought in here at a fraction of the price it is sold at back home or that is subsidised. That is not fair. Why aren't we standing up and using the measures that the World Trade Organisation allows? We are a signatory to the World Trade Organisation. Let us start to get with the strength here, rather than be naive or shy or nervous about applying measures that other countries use with a great deal more rigor. They actually—I am using the word again—protect their home industries from unfair practice, and they give them a more level playing field. I commend this bill to the House. It is an important bill. It transfers antidumping from Customs to Industry. I commend the bill. (Time expired)

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to speak on this antidumping bill because this bill builds on the very good reforms and the very good work that Labor did in government for many years to ensure that Australian industry has a fair go and is not the victim of malicious dumping actions by a whole range of particular producers from countries all over the world. It is not particular to any one nation, and I will probably restrict myself from naming any particular country, although there are some industries and some particular dumping behaviours from a range of countries that have been ongoing for many, many years. We will not be opposing this bill, because this bill, as I said, does build on the reforms that we put in place. And they were significant reforms. It should not just be brushed over as though nothing had been happening in this space. In fact, quite significant things have happened.

It reminds me of the complexity that is involved in this particular area of policy. Some people listening to government members speaking on this might make the assumption or the assessment that it is all very clear and simple; that it is just black and white: something is clearly being dumped, and we should take immediate action on the spot and the dumping will cease. If only it were that easy; if only it were that clear; if only there were no other prices to be paid, then we might have resolved this ongoing issue much earlier, not just for Australian but for the rest of the world.

But the reality is somewhat different. It is a very complex set of actions and determinations and measures to determine that there is a particular dumping behaviour going on, to determine how you then deal with it in a proper, fair manner, and to determine how you then rectify it and ensure that it does not continue to happen. We were not slouches in this area. We actually did a lot of work. I was involved with quite a bit of that work and realised how much we had been left behind in some of those areas under previous governments.

The idea of antidumping is not so much about protection per se. It is about ensuring a playing field that is as fair as possible for our industries, our companies, our business and our workers. Government, opposition, state governments and territory governments ought to all be on the same page on this, because the ultimate goal, and what we all desire in this, is the same outcome: that we grow Australian industry, and that we give Australian businesses, companies and workers a fair go, so that they are not the victims and they are not being injured by the malicious behaviour of certain industries and companies and countries that would want to do us harm by dumping their products on to our markets.

As I said, it is a complex area of policy because initially you might think that everyone would agree that we just need to stop these products coming in, or to get rid of them the moment that we know that they are there. But you will actually find that there are a whole heap of people who want them. This is the controversy of cheap versus dumped, because sometimes it is hard to tell which is which. It is hard to tell a consumer that they cannot have that really, really cheap product because it is being dumped on our markets and it is injuring one of their neighbours who happens to have a small business up the road that is producing a similar product but cannot compete on the basis that the market is being flooded by not a cheap product but a dumped product—and there is a significant difference. In there lies a whole range of complex policy positions that you have to take in order to best provide that consumers—and that includes industry, right through the supply chain—can access good cheap goods and inputs to their businesses and so that consumers, in the end, can get value for money. We see it across a whole heap of industries. It is pretty hard to argue against a consumer who wants to buy a really cheap car. Why should they be forced to pay for a more expensive car?

Using examples of New Zealand and other countries in terms of how they might deal with things I think belies the reality of what happens in individual countries like Australia with a much more complex economy and which are much more complex in terms of some of the industries and some of the things that we produce here as a manufacturing nation. We are not just a nation that digs holes, although predominantly that is what we are. We dig holes and export resources; that is the backbone of our economy, the strength of our economy. But it is much more complex than that as well.

We have the potential to be the food bowl of the world, not just of Asia but of the world. We have the opportunity to take agribusiness and make that a key underpinning economic piece of infrastructure for Australia. But there is a lot of work to be done in that area. It is not the old bizarre thinking of Left and Right in terms of where these things lie, because anyone who spends five minutes to look at these things and the benefits they bring to all of us understands that it really is in all of our best interests to go down these paths.

When Labor were in government, we did not sit on our hands. We did not just look at this and say it was too hard. We said, 'We're going to tackle these very difficult issues and we're going to do something about it because we want a fair, effective, antidumping regime.' We implemented some of the most significant reforms in Australia's antidumping regime in more than a decade. In 2011 we announced the comprehensive WTO-consistent improvements to Australia's antidumping system, as detailed in the Streamlining Australia's anti-dumping system policy statement. We also established the International Trade Remedies Forum, the ITRF, to provide advice on antidumping matters, with members from industry, unions and government, and in December 2012 we announced a package of reforms to Australia's antidumping system to deliver stronger protection for Australian industry against unfair competition from overseas.

Our reforms delivered much stronger protection for Australian industry—and there is nothing wrong with using the word 'protection', because it is protection against those who are doing us injury unfairly. It is not a protectionism principle or policy; it is about protecting us, our industries and our economy, from those who are deliberately trying to do us harm.

We did not just make statements and create bodies without investing some money in it as well. These reforms were enshrined in Labor's Industry and Innovation Statement in February this year, which included $27.7 million to ensure that these things would move forward. We streamlined the system. We made it faster, fairer and more timely in order that when somebody is taking some action, when there is some dumping happening in Australia, we can move fast. I know personally where there are significant areas of damage that was done in different industries, from the aluminium extrusion industry to steel to food products. Right across the gamut, there are a whole range of areas where our reforms made significant difference. They made the difference for some industry participants between surviving and not surviving. In one case in particular in the aluminium extrusion industry, they literally made the difference between whether the last manufacturer in Australia would survive or not survive.

We did some significant things not only to protect Australia's best interests but to protect industry, to protect those jobs that existed in those industries and are significant and also to protect the underpinning. There are some industries where, if you lose the capacity within those industries, if you lose the skills and the expertise, you cannot rebuild them, or it is exceptionally difficult to rebuild them after they are gone. So there are some very important reasons why our antidumping reforms ought to continue to be supported and enhanced in this particular way.

We also made it easier for small to medium enterprises to access and use the system. We invested $24.4 million to increase the Customs and Border Protection Service's investigative capability, almost doubling the number of investigations. Australia is an export country. We are a trading nation. We import and export. You would expect that, with all of these activities that take place, we would need to have a stronger Customs and Border Protection capability to make sure that we are not the victims of very unfair practices, dumping practices, from other countries. We strengthened remedies against overseas producers that injure Australian businesses by dumping and those that try to circumvent Australia's antidumping rules.

The central objective of Labor's Industry and Innovation Statement was to build an economy which prospers into the 21st century. We wanted to make sure that the things that we did, particularly in the antidumping area but right across industry, were to protect jobs and grow the economy—grow jobs, protect jobs and make sure that we can continue to do that. Our reforms to Australia's antidumping system were designed to support local business by ensuring, as best as possible, a level playing field.

But I am not kidding myself, and I do not think anybody else in this House should be kidding themselves either, that somehow this will be the panacea to all of our problems in this area, because it will not be. We have to continue to be vigilant. We have to continue to improve policy and update policy on a regular basis and update the laws in this country, because no-one in this area will be standing still. Those who want to dump products onto the Australian market will not be standing still and saying, 'Oh, well, there are the new rules in place; we'll just observe those.' They will not be doing that. They will be flexible and they will be moving, and they will find more innovative ways to get around our laws. We heard some about tomatoes from the previous speaker. We know we have these continual arguments about: what is 'Australian made'? What is dumped versus what is cheap? Those debates will continue to take place.

Labor also made an enormous commitment right across industry, a $1 billion commitment, in fact, through a range of measures to support and create Australian jobs through our Industry and Innovation Statement. This included a series of measures, particularly to allow Australian business to gain access to major domestic projects. We did that through Australian industry participation plans. This is one of the best ways that you can not only support industry but ensure that, in matching up with your antidumping regime, you have industry that can survive—survive the onslaught of dumping and survive the onslaught of cheap imported products which are not illegal, which are not part of dumping, but which cause serious injury to our industries.

The underlying message has to be the same. It was the same when we were in government. It will be the same when we are in opposition, and it will be the same when this government has gone. That message is that to build a really strong Australian economy, with a small population of just 23 million people, with a large geographic mass, we need to build our industries. We need to be competitive. We need to be productive. And we need to ensure that all the things that we do at a Commonwealth level, at a federal government level, support that. Whether it is support for Australian industry through investment, whether it is support for innovation programs or clean technology, or whether it is support of our financial services industry and continuing to push in positioning Australia to be a financial services hub for our region, because these are where our strengths lie, I think that work just needs to continue.

Labor in government not only believed in that, spoke about it and created policy in those areas but invested money. We invested a whole range of moneys in this and put in place changes to ensure that Australian businesses, Australian companies, get a fair shot at the work that is created here in Australia. We also provided $350 million as part of the venture capital initiative for a new round of industry innovation funding to attract private investment in high-risk venture capital markets, and we continued to invest in the Buy Australian at Home and Abroad program. We also established the Manufacturing Leaders Group to provide advice to government across priority areas. We understood that governments do not know everything or have all the answers. Therefore they have to turn to industry leaders and experts; they have to consult. In government you have to believe that they can contribute something as well. We gave the Manufacturing Leaders Group $5.6 million to progress projects that would help improve productivity across Australia.

We also invested $9.9 million in a clinical-trial reform program to support the pharmaceutical and medical research sectors. In contributing to this anti-dumping bill, I wanted to highlight the importance of the anti-dumping work we did in government. We will not be opposing this bill, because we believe we need to continue to strengthen the work that is being done here. It is work that is never done and it will need to be improved continually. I also wanted to highlight the important help we gave our manufacturing industries to survive. None of us, certainly not industry, should rest on our laurels, because simply having strong anti-dumping measures does not protect us. If you do not compete on price or quality or innovation and if you do not become more productive, you will be left behind. There is no question about that. The keys have never changed. Continual productivity improvement and improvement in quality are our strengths in both domestic and international markets. They are what we have built our economy on and they will continue to be our strength in the future. In conclusion, I note that this government will do some damage, because they are about to cut funding to the clean technology programs. Furthermore, they will not commit to a jobs package and they will cut under the guise of budget savings in a whole range of areas in manufacturing. In these ways they will do damage.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Oxley was going really well; I was in furious agreement with him until the last 10 seconds. He missed by so little, but he made some really good points. I will leave aside his comments on investment in the clean energy sector, which we have to remove because we pledged at the election to remove the carbon tax and associated spending—a commitment we made because it was a job destroying tax and an economy-wide crippler. I think Labor needs to get on board with us and allow us to carry out our mandate. The member for Oxley talked about a fair go for our manufacturing industries, a fair go for our citrus growing industries and our agricultural sector—those last two especially affecting the Riverina, the electorate I represent in New South Wales. He talked about Australia's ability to dig holes and export resources, and I would like to think that he meant things apart from mineral wealth, because our agricultural wealth will hold us in good stead as the mineral sector flatlines, which, unfortunately, it is doing at the moment. Agricultural wealth is going to make this country great again. Food security, food availability and our ability to feed the world will be the greatest moral challenges in the next 50 years and beyond.

The member for Oxley talked about the malicious behaviour of other countries towards Australia, contravening the World Trade Organization treaties and how we need to do whatever we can to protect ourselves from such behaviour. He talked about Australian farmers needing to ensure quality, productivity and innovation. With those things in place price should come, though that is not necessarily so, because Australian farmers are price takers not price makers. Therein lies the big problem. Dumping is the act of charging a lower price for like goods in an international market than is charged for the same good in a domestic market for consumption in the exporter's home market of the exporter. It is often referred to as selling at less than normal value on the same level of trade in the general course of business. Under World Trade Organization agreements, dumping is condemned by governments that are party to those WTO agreements, but those agreements do not always bind growers and manufacturers who want to get rid off excess product and even stored product. Such activity leads to countries like Australia being hurt.

I listened very carefully to the member for Oxley say this legislation will not necessarily be the panacea to fix this worldwide problem. He is right, because it is sometimes very difficult to stop importers dumping their goods in Australia. You have to prove that they are sending in the goods at a cheaper price than it cost to produce them and to prove the imports are killing domestic producers. Australia plays by the rules, but, unfortunately, other countries do not. Manufacturers and growers in other countries do not pay by the rules. We need to protect our domestic markets and our farmers and manufacturers. Sometimes we spend a lot of time just talking in this place. I do acknowledge the work of the previous government did in this area, and every time these measures came before the House I spoke on them. I am sure you did too, Mr Second Deputy Speaker, because I know how important agriculture and manufacturing are in your electorate. I know the good work that you did on the Murray-Darling Basin inquiry to bring about a better outcome for our farmers. They are the ones who get hit hardest when illegal dumping happens on our shores.

In our August 2013 policy to boost the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing, the coalition said it was determined to bolster Australia's antidumping system. This legislation is doing just that. We want Australian businesses to have access to an effective antidumping system to ensure that they are not unfairly injured or dumped upon by subsidised imports. It is important that this legislation passes, and I am certainly pleased that the Labor opposition is getting on board with us in this respect. I do acknowledge the work that the previous government did in this space.

A genuine level playing field is needed to keep our economy strong and to provide greater certainty for business, but we know that there is never really going to be a genuine level playing field. We hear about it so often and we talk about it so often. In an ideal world it would exist, but in the real world in which we live it just does not happen. That is why we need good policies and good legislation, such as this bill, to ensure that we get as close as possible to a level playing field for our manufacturers, for our farmers.

This bill implements the first step in the government's plan to bolster the antidumping system by permitting the Anti-Dumping Commission to transfer to the Department of Industry. I know the good work that they have been doing in the first months of the coalition's stewardship, and I know the good work that they will do in the future under the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, who is at the table. The object of this bill is to align responsibility for antidumping matters with responsibility for Australian manufacturing, including agricultural growers—citrus growers, certainly those in the Riverina.

The Anti-Dumping Commission will benefit from the considerable knowledge and experience in the Industry portfolio. Industry has made this country great, as the previous member acknowledged, and industry will continue to make this country great. We in this House need to put in place parameters to ensure that we remain competitive, to ensure that we are able to make the necessary investments in research and development and to ensure that we provide as close to a level playing field for our manufacturers and for our growers that we can to enable them to be the best that they can be.

The government will be implementing a range of complementary reforms to give effect to our remaining antidumping election commitments. We, the coalition, mean what we say, and we are doing what we said we would do before the election, and that is important. All too often people get very cynical about governments going into an election campaign saying things, promising others and not delivering. Through this antidumping legislation we are going to carry out what we said we would do prior to the election. I am glad that Labor agrees and is on board. We acknowledge that people on the other side recognise the important work that industry performs. Again, I recognise the important work that Labor did in this space. These reforms will further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the antidumping system and will assist Australian manufacturers and producers who are severely injured by dumped and subsidised imports.

Just about every day I get an email from a Griffith citrus grower by the name of Bart Brighenti. He is a good fellow. When he is not producing wonderful oranges and other citrus products in the marvellous area of Griffith in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, he is tapping away on his computer sending emails to senators and members outlining how they can strengthen antidumping laws and what we should be doing to try to get as close as possible to a level playing field. He is on an advisory group I have which talks about agriculture and about what we can do to enhance the situation of the growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area.

The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area is a very important part of the world. You have been there, Mr Second Deputy Speaker, and I know that you have seen what a great job they do, not just on behalf of the Riverina and the state of New South Wales but indeed on behalf of the nation. The amount of produce that comes out of that area is truly phenomenal. They will continue to be able to produce at such high levels if they get good antidumping legislation and certainly if they get good, sensible water policy.

One of Bart Brighenti's recent emails talked about the ability of farmers to strengthen their businesses. He talked about—I almost hate to bring it up; I hope you do not mind, but I am going to digress—the carbon tax and the costs it imposes on farmers and the food manufacturing industry. It is a crippling cost on the industry, and it is important that it is removed. He talked about the cost impact on electricity prices of subsidising renewable energy and the cost of electricity in running efficient irrigation systems. Because of the higher power costs, many irrigators turned off their electrical systems and put their diesel generators back on to get their irrigation systems flowing. That defeats the whole purpose of putting in place measures to lower greenhouse emissions, but they had to do it because it comes down to cost. They cannot spend more on growing the food than they are going to receive from exporting it. The difference in electricity prices in the country and the city is significant. The cost of power is the same but the infrastructure costs are very different, as Bart Brighenti pointed out.

To keep Australian growers competitive, they need more and better export market access for all commodities. Again, that is where this important legislation comes into play. Bart Brighenti says that bureaucrats need a greater understanding of market access negotiations and they need to be better at it. He says that we need relationships to get trade deals done, but we send a different bureaucrat each time. That is really crippling for Australian industry. There are no key performance indicators for bureaucrats to get good deals done. In farming, if you do not get the job done, if you do not reach your KPIs, you do not make money. If you do not make profit, you do not have the ability to grow food and get it out the door so that you can bring money back in. Bart says that, because their backside is not on the line, there is no incentive for bureaucrats. He is right. These good farmers in Griffith and elsewhere in the Riverina and Australia are the ones with the dirt under their fingernails and the sweat on their brows. They get in and do a great job on behalf of our nation. I do not think they are fully appreciated. I do not think their work is acknowledged highly enough, certainly not in this place.

It really disappoints me when union officials such as Paul Howes talk about the fact that there is no need for ma-and-pa farmers into the future and that we should get on board with America, with their large-scale and wide-scale farming practices. How insulting for the farmers who help grow this nation. How insulting for the farmers who struggle with antidumping and struggle with the lack of effectiveness of antidumping regimes. How insulting for farmers who went out to Griffith and parts of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area 100 years ago when it was nothing more than a desolate plain, nothing more than an arid, barren wasteland. They turned it into a veritable garden of Eden. They turned it into one of the largest food bowls in Australia. How insulting to hear somebody who you could almost call an Australian leader—and certainly a union leader—come out and say that there is no need for ma-and-pa farmers. No wonder they were so irate. No wonder my incoming emails has increased in volume over the past few days, with people asking, 'Why would he make a comment like that? What is going to be said in response?' I am glad that the Minister for Agriculture made such strident remarks against those ridiculous comments, because they were ridiculous. I am sure you would acknowledge that too, Deputy Speaker Mitchell—not that I am trying to put you on the spot.

But this is important. Farmers are important. Certainly ensuring that they get the very best value for the hard work that they contribute and the very highest price for their product is important. That is why I commend this bill to the House. I am pleased that the Labor opposition are getting on board with it. I am glad that we have not got a Green in the House chirping away about how damaging this might be to our international relations or the environment or something else. I am sure that we as the major parties in this place—the Nationals, the Liberals and Labor—are all on board with it because we recognise the important role farmers play. We recognise the important role that manufacturers play. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that Australia is protected from other countries and other players who do not play properly in this space on dumping matters.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to provide the summing up of the bill that has been introduced to the House. The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission Transfer) Bill 2013 amends the Custom Act 1901 and other legislation to give effect to the government's commitment to transfer the administration of Australia's antidumping and countervailing systems from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to the Department of Industry. Through this legislation, this government is signalling that it intends to provide the strongest possible platform for Australian manufacturers to boost their competitiveness. Moving the Anti-Dumping Commission to the Department of Industry will benefit Australian manufacturers, as decisions in antidumping matters will be made in a portfolio that recognises the pressures and the demands the industry faces. The industry portfolio is also better placed to consider future reforms and what improvements will provide the greatest benefit to business.

As we have heard from the other speakers, Australia is a great trading nation. This government is committed to ensuring that Australian manufacturers are competitive in global markets and benefit from our commitment to free trade. This includes making sure that Australian industries can lower their costs through access to imports that can be produced more efficiently in other countries. However, this trade must also be fair. We do not accept that it is appropriate for other countries to dump goods into Australia that are unfairly injuring Australian manufacturers. We cannot expect Australian manufacturers to thrive, let alone survive, while they are being injured by goods that are being sold into Australia at unfairly low prices or that are unfairly subsidised by foreign governments.

The World Trade Organization recognises the damage that these actions can have and allows governments to take antidumping action to remedy the injury to their industries. The government will ensure that Australian manufacturers being unfairly injured by dumped or subsidised imports have recourse to the strongest possible remedies permissible under our obligations to the World Trade Organization.

This bill fulfils the first step in the coalition government's plan to improve Australia's antidumping system. We will be implementing a range of further improvements to strengthen the system. We are committed to ensuring that Australian manufacturers and producers who are injured by dumped and subsidised goods have access to the most effective relief possible.

We ask ourselves: what will this bill do? The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Commission Transfer) Bill 2013 will continue the commission within the department responsible for antidumping matters—currently the Department of Industry. The commission will continue to be responsible for administering the antidumping powers and all other functions associated with the Customs Act 1901. This includes the receipt and screening of applications for antidumping measures and conducting investigations and inquiries. The bill replicates, to the greatest extent possible, the current delegation powers of the commissioner and minister associated with antidumping matters.

The bill also ensures that the commission can disclose information to Customs for relevant purposes, such as ensuring compliance with measures imposed under antidumping legislation. The bill ensures that all applications and submissions made before the commencement in relation to matters yet to be decided will remain valid from that time on. On commencement of this bill, the Minister for Industry will become responsible for any future appointments to the commission's role.

This bill will not just simply move the commission from one administration to another. It is important to look at a snapshot of the manufacturing industry in Australia. This move is important to the manufacturing industry in Australia as Australian manufacturers rely on antidumping legislation, and this government realises the importance of that.

Apart from protecting Australian manufacturing from dumping, this government wants to boost the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing. According to the September 2013 Department of Industry manufacturing update, using the latest statistics from the ABS, the contribution to Australia's gross domestic product of manufacturing as an industry declined from 9.7 per cent to 7.1 per cent between 2002-03 and 2012-13. There were 117,000 fewer people employed in manufacturing in September 2013 compared with September 2003. There were 1,038,500 people employed in manufacturing in September 2003 and only 921,400 in September 2013. In fact, the manufacturing share of total employment went from 11 per cent to eight per cent in that period. Australian manufacturing is in a period of transition away from the more traditional, capital-intensive heavy industries to niche sectors centred on intellectual capital and innovation, sectors with the potential to provide long-term returns to our local communities.

This government's aim is to encourage the development of high-value-added, competitive manufacturing industries to ensure a future manufacturing industry. We want to promote investment and jobs growth and, in particular, reduce red tape to make our industries globally competitive. That is why the coalition government is committed to an effective antidumping system to help keep our economy growing and provide greater certainty for businesses. Those considering antidumping action, including on steel, aluminium, chemical and paper products, processed food, machinery and machinery components, amongst others, will now have access to the extensive knowledge and expertise held within the portfolio in relation to these industries. The strength of the domestic and global economy at any point in time will influence domestic manufacturers' need to access the antidumping system.

We know that Australian manufacturers are currently doing it tough. This is indicated by the sharp increase in investigations undertaken by the commission. Over the period 2011-12 to 2012-13 the total number of investigations undertaken by the commission increased by around 34 per cent. This comes on top of sharp increases in the previous financial years. Where imported products are dumped or subsidised they are not necessarily the most efficiently produced, and where dumped or subsidised imports materially injure our businesses we need to have an antidumping and countervailing provision to level the playing field. Allowing overseas companies to dump goods into Australia at prices below their normal value undermines the strength and competitiveness of Australia's businesses and, therefore, our employment and our economy. Australian manufacturers are under pressure and are seeking improvements to the antidumping system. Australian businesses that are injured by dumped and subsidised imports will benefit from the government's reforms to strengthen Australia's antidumping system.

The establishment, on 1 July this year, of the Anti-Dumping Commission was recognition of the importance and the priority of antidumping functions to Australian industry. The commission will ensure a high level focus on antidumping and countervailing activities into the future. Victoria has the largest manufacturing employment base in the country, which is why the commission has its head office in Melbourne, an important hub for Australian manufacturing industry and business. This will facilitate closer links with industry partners. The commission also retains an office in Canberra.

We have seen already a number of benefits flow to Australian industry from the establishment of the commission, including an enhanced engagement service to provide guidance on dumping and countervailing measures to all parties involved in the antidumping system and help businesses, whether large or small, access the system; a stronger focus on further enhancing the capability and expert skills of the commission's investigators, which will be built upon by access to the expertise within the industry department; an improved electronic public record to promote transparency of the commission's investigative processes and access to critical information by all parties to an investigation; and, finally, dedicated resources to conduct anticircumvention inquiries in cases where the effectiveness of antidumping and countervailing measures are undermined by the non-payment or avoidance of duties.

The commission has been working hard to increase the level of awareness about antidumping systems and is working more closely with Australian businesses to enable them to access the system. As a result, we know that there are many potential cases out there and expect that we will continue to investigate dumping to continue in the short to medium term. Moving responsibility for antidumping matters to the Industry portfolio sends a clear message that we are focused on combating dumping and is part of a broader plan to boost Australia's manufacturing sector. An effective trade remedy system is an integral part of a robust international trading system and is essential to the government's broader plan to boost the competitiveness of Australian businesses. However, we intend to ensure that Australia's antidumping system remains robust, transparent and evidence based and that we continue to comply with our obligations under World Trade Organization agreements.

The coalition government firmly believes that the Industry portfolio is also better placed to consider future reforms which will improve benefits to businesses and industries. They also support the move to the Industry portfolio. This government intends to go further. We have already announced that we will reverse the onus of proof in antidumping investigations, in line with international practices. We will have more rigorous enforcement deadline for submissions in antidumping and countervailing investigations. We will crack down on non-cooperative overseas exporters and we will strengthen the enforcement of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Where legislation is required to implement these reforms this government will introduce it at its earliest opportunity. As a first and important step, moving the Anti-Dumping Commission to the Department of Industry will benefit manufacturers as decisions on antidumping matters will be made in a portfolio that recognises the pressures and demands they face.

I feel confident that the Anti-Dumping Commission is on the right track. I know this because I have met with our commissioner, Dale Seymour. I have met with a number of affected industry groups and businesses, and it appears that everyone is working together towards ensuring an even playing field for Australian manufacturing and businesses selling products to Australia. They know that we, the coalition government, will act in Australia's best interests while working within the confines of the WTO agreements. Again, it is about ensuring there is an even playing field in Australia for business.

In conclusion, before recommending this bill to the House, I thank the honourable members for Makin, Hughes, Throsby, Murray, Oxley and Riverina for their contributions to this debate. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.