Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013. This is the fifth instalment of antidumping legislation this government has presented. It has taken a while to get there, but we continue to go through the process. This piece of legislation does a couple of things. Firstly, it removes the minister's mandatory obligation to consider the so-called lesser duty rule. It also provides closer alignment of retrospective duties provisions within the relevant WTO agreements and introduces new anticircumvention provisions that widen the range of options available to government, including to address the practice of sales at a loss and attempts by foreign producers to evade the full payment of duties.

We have seen in recent weeks the concerns that industry players have expressed in relation to their competitiveness—particularly in the Shepparton district of Victoria, where SPC Ardmona has requested emergency assistance and consideration of emergency duties under the WTO provisions. I think that particular action by SPC Ardmona—their concern about their competitiveness and their concern that there may be countries who are dumping product into Australia—demonstrates the importance to this country of having effective antidumping measures.

Although I do accept that the government has made a number of changes—as I said, this is the fifth in a series of changes this government has made over the last couple of years—concerns exist in the broader community that the current regime remains expensive to access. The opposition has for a considerable period of time had an antidumping policy on the table. As with previous incarnations of changes made by the government, they go some way towards meeting the policy we have put in place. So we welcome them and we support this piece of legislation and the measures within it. I do not need to go into the details of the opposition's antidumping proposals. But I, along with a couple of others, was part of the task force that Mrs Mirabella put in place and I was really pleased to play a constructive part in the policy development. It is good to see that the government is slowly moving down the track of putting in place measures that could provide the capacity for protection.

In the case of SPC Ardmona, one of their concerns was that the New Zealand industry have had measures in place to support them against dumping for a period of time. So there has been a lot of discussion about whether or not there might be retaliatory action against Australia or Australian industry if we were to put in place emergency measures or countervailing measures under these emergency provisions and about what those emergency provisions might actually mean. But the rules exist under the WTO for a reason and that is that, if there is a problem there, it can be addressed. We should not be frightened of using the rules if there is a bona fide case. It is pleasing to note that the government has referred the request by SPC Ardmona to the Productivity Commission for review. The review will take about three months, as I understand it—and we did have some questions to the Productivity Commission at estimates a few weeks ago. It is pleasing that the government has taken the action of making that reference but it is disappointing that it has taken about six weeks.

I have had the opportunity to spend a bit of time in Shepparton over the last few weeks. I was there about a month ago talking to some really smart young farmers who had taken the effort to set themselves up and plan for their business. They realised that the industry they were in is not really a long-term one and they had set themselves up to turn over about 10 per cent of their orchard on an annual basis so that they could move with the times. But the SPC decision had completely gazumped their plans. They were bringing in new varieties. They had set up a nursery. They were providing plants and trees to other growers in the region so that they could build a critical mass to develop markets locally and internationally if they were able to get into those markets. But this decision by SPC Ardmona, because of the pressure they are under, particularly from imports, really gazumped them. They were in a situation where, rather than turning over 10 per cent of their orchard on an annual basis, they were going to have to take 50 per cent of it out. And that had made a really big impact on their business plan and how they were operating.

We have had discussions in this place over the last few weeks about the government's farm assistance program, which still is not up and running. I talked to those young farmers about the opportunities that might exist under the low-interest loans the government is proposing but which it still cannot come to an agreement with the states about. The protection and the assistance they might have been looking for could be drastically assisted by a progression of the case SPC Ardmona currently has in front the Productivity Commission. That could put assistance in place, as I understand it, for a period of 200 days, to provide some temporary protection—to give SPC Ardmona breathing space.

This piece of legislation does not specifically deal with those particular issues, but it is part of the broader package providing the protection that Australian industry might need when businesses from other countries might be dumping product on the Australian market. We often hear the term—I think it has even been mentioned in the chamber here today—of 'fair trade'. We like to see, as much as possible, fair trade take place, but we know that, in the broader rough and tumble of the market, businesses often take the opportunity to sell below the cost of production or below market value. It is in those circumstances that we want to give the Australian business community some protection. So where a business is selling below the cost of production in their local market, or below what a reasonable market price might be, it is reasonable for an Australian industry to expect some support. That is the circumstance that exists with SPC Ardmona. They are concerned that there is product coming in from other nations—I have seen the retail prices—which might be selling for $1.60 or $1.80 per can when the SPC Ardmona price is closer to $4 or $5 per can. That is a particular issue. We need to provide the industry the time and the space to transition.

It was interesting that the young farmers I was talking to talked about the process of canning as being something that was not necessarily going to be around the Australian market for long. That says to me that SPC Ardmona need to do some work on their technologies and put some investment into their business. They say that they have invested a lot but they need to be progressive about that. We need to give them the space to do that so that they can put new products into the market and so that they can change their packaging regimes and provide more attractive products to the local market.

These farmers said to me that, if the dollar got down to about 80c, they could not grow enough fruit. So we also know about the general economic conditions that exist. We have talked about this in previous debates. The cost of government applied to industry is a problem but the dollar has also had a significant impact. So how do we make sure that when we get into a circumstance such as the one we have just seen, where the dollar has been well over US$1.00 or US$1.10 for a period of time, those core industry assets survive through that time? It is a really difficult problem to consider because the rest of the community—the non-rural community, or the non-manufacturing community in a lot of senses—get a benefit from that value of the dollar. They receive lower priced product coming in from overseas. How do we maintain those assets into the long term? How do we give producers the capacity—how do we encourage them—to survive through those periods of time so that they can maintain and sustain the industries, and the businesses that supply them, into the longer term?

In the context of this piece of legislation the changes to the lesser duty rule will ease the current restrictions on the minister's ability to choose whether to apply the full margin of duty in order to remedy the impact of a dumping activity. The coalition supports that. Under article 9.3 of the WTO agreement on dumping, antidumping duties may not exceed the dumping margin calculated during an investigation. But under Australia's laws, as they stand, we have been limited by further provisions that force the minister to consider the lesser duty rule in every case. So we support the changes being made in this circumstance.

The changes to the retrospective notice provision essentially gives the minister more scope and discretion in making decisions about the level and timing of duties to be retrospectively applied to companies that have dumped goods in Australia. Again, the opposition supports those measures.

The new anticircumvention provisions are chiefly aimed at more aggressively countering the practice of sales at a loss, where a foreign producer off-loads excess stock in Australia at a loss. They also target various other flaws in existing arrangements relating to circumvention, including by adding scope consideration of the export price as a variable factor in relation to reviews and providing anticircumvention inquiries with new means for calculation of the export price.

The changes give the minister increased scope and discretion in considering the level of duties and the timing of their application and to impose duties on companies found to have dumped in Australia. Importantly, they reduce inconsistencies between the approach in Australian and other jurisdictions.

I have had cause to have discussions with officials in estimates over recent years about Australia's antidumping regime. We have been told, in a number of those conversations, that we were regarded by others outside as having global best practice. There are many in Australia who would interpret that as Australia being a pretty easy touch—that it is pretty easy to get things past us. There is no question in my mind that we need to have legislation that is compliant with our WTO requirements. And we need to be prepared to use the rules that exist for our benefit under those WTO requirements. We ought to do all of those things.

To make our approach more consistent with other countries' jurisdictions, I think is a positive move. In our own policy we have stressed the aim of more closely aligning our rules here in Australia with other jurisdictions and to crack down on those from overseas who do not cooperate with Australia when we are investigating dumping claims. That can be a very difficult part of the process. Trying to get information in another jurisdiction, getting through their local processes and getting into their systems can be extremely difficult. That can be used to string out a claim, it can be used to make it very difficult to investigate, it can be used to delay the process and it can even be used to prevent a proper investigation. If people are going to make it hard for us to genuinely investigate a claim, there should be some way for us to deal with that. I think that is only reasonable.

The coalition will be supporting the legislation. We do note that there are a number of amendments that will be placed in this debate by other members. We certainly acknowledge the work that Senator Xenophon has done on this. We know that it is a concern of his. We appreciate his cooperation with the shadow minister, Mrs Mirabella, and the work that he has done in talking to us in developing his amendments. We do not support all of the amendments that Senator Xenophon is putting up, because we consider that they are largely dealt with through existing laws and that WTO agreements provide the necessary scope and discretion to make the kinds of changes and enforce the kinds of decisions at which governments are aimed. But we do recognise the importance of having a very sound antidumping regime for Australia.

As I have said, we have a circumstance right now where SPC Ardmona feel that they are under fire. In my home town of Devonport, Simplot are looking at their plant—the last place in Australia that snap-freezes vegetables. We will not be able to buy Australian grown snap-frozen vegetables if that plant closes. It would be a crying shame if that happened. That business is, right now, conducting an intensive review of its operations to decide whether it will survive beyond the next three to five years. We need to be doing everything we possibly can, and getting out of their way where we should, to ensure they can survive. It is even worse for that company in Bathurst, where they are looking at perhaps 12 months survival. In Devonport, where I live, $18 million goes into the rural sector from that plant, from peas, beans, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower and brussels sprouts—one of my favourites; I like my brussels sprouts—and even broad beans, which look like they could make a comeback. That would be a bit of a test for some, but I do not mind broad beans either.

We need to make sure that the appropriate protections are available for those businesses and industries through our antidumping measures, so the opposition welcome this piece of legislation. We indicate our support for it. There will obviously be further debate through the chamber today. We note that it is the fifth small set of antidumping changes that have been made over the time of this government. We have supported all of those. They bring the government progressively closer to the coalition's policy. We look forward to the further debate and the amendments being put, particularly those being moved by Senator Xenophon. We thank him for his work on those amendments.