Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, I want to make it clear that I support the measures in the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013, but I do not believe they go far enough. An analogy, though perhaps a crude one, is to say: it is a bit like a patient who is seriously ill and needs 200 milligrams of an antibiotic to make sure they get better but is only given 50 milligrams. It might help a little but it will not solve the long-term problems. But I do acknowledge the work of Minister Clare, of his office, his staff—Mr Quadrio in particular—and his departmental officers for the time they spent discussing these issues with me. It was a genuinely good consultation.

I have spoken in this place before about the importance of supporting Australian businesses against dumping. I acknowledge that the government has made real improvements to Australia's antidumping and countervailing system, but there is still much more to be done. I note that this bill is time limited, so I will keep my remarks brief. But I want to put this in perspective.

Dumping is effectively where goods are being sent to this country at a cost below their market cost in their home country. In other words, they are literally being dumped—and that costs jobs, costs opportunities and destroys Australian manufacturing. It is completely unfair. And the WTO rules say that dumping is not allowed.

My concern is that we take such a literal interpretation of the WTO rules that no other country does as we do. I was struck by a conversation I had with Michael O'Connor, a national secretary of the CFMEU who, I think, does have a genuine concern about jobs and manufacturing in this country. What Michael O'Connor said to me a year or two ago, which has stuck in my mind, was that he was at a conference in Sweden talking about the timber industry, trade issues and jobs and that when he said he was from Australia, some of the other delegates from Scandinavia laughed at him and said, 'Australia! We regard you as the free trade Taliban, because you take such a literal, literalist, fundamentalist approach to the WTO rules that no other country does.'

I will give you an example. Solar panels were being dumped in the United States and in Europe. The United States and Europe are acting against China in relation to those dumped solar panels. What do we do? We have just about one remaining solar manufacturer in this country, Tindo Solar in Adelaide—I note the Prime Minister was there a few months ago to open up their facility—and they are operating at something like 10 per cent of their capacity because they have to compete with dumped products from overseas. My fear is that, because Europe and the United States are putting up countervailing duties or, rather, duties in relation to dealing with the dumping from China, those dumped panels will end up here in Australia because we seem to have had an approach to date that has been completely unsatisfactory.

Although I do want to acknowledge the work that Minister Clare and the minister before him, Minister O'Connor, have done on this, I think we need to be more flexible and creative in the way we approach these cases—so that we comply with WTO rulings but still put our own industries first. We should have fair trade. We should have free trade. But it should not be free-for-all trade. That free-for-all approach is putting our manufacturers and industries under ever-increasing pressure.

That has been coupled with an artificially strong Australian dollar—and it is still too strong, compared to what it ought to be, according to many commentators. So our manufacturers are struggling. Look at the level of quantitative easing in the United States; although Mr Bernanke is now backing away from that, it affected the value of their dollar previously. So in the United States there has been a massive stimulus and a quantitative easing package. The yen is lower than it ought to be; it has been artificially manipulated, some would say. And China's currency, the renminbi, is even worse—it is fixed by the government. There is not a level playing field when it comes to issues of currency.

The Prime Minister's Taskforce on Manufacturing released a report in August last year that estimated that 950,000 people were employed in manufacturing and stated that it contributes eight per cent of GDP directly. That does not include the significant amount it contributes indirectly through flow-on effects to businesses. But, as I have also stated, over the last four years 100,000 jobs have disappeared from the sector—and that is a conservative estimate. The report also estimates that another 85,600 jobs, at a minimum, may be lost in the next five years. That is close to 200,000 Australian families that will have lost their jobs in manufacturing. That includes food processing—I saw that Senator Colbeck made reference to that earlier. We are facing a situation where the last remaining frozen food facility in Australia might be closing down in the next three to five years. So, if you are going to buy any frozen vegetables in this country, they will be coming from overseas. How can we allow that to happen in a country that is so abundant in its food production capacity and has one of the world's best reputations for clean, green produce? Yet we are looking at losing that facility.

Between 2008 and 2010, capital expenditure by the manufacturing industry decreased by 20 per cent, or $4.1 billion. There has been a 55 per cent drop in furniture manufacturing, for example, plus a 43 per cent drop in printing and a 10 per cent drop in machinery and equipment manufacturing. Our mining boom has meant that we have taken our eye off the ball when it has come to manufacturing. We have also forgotten that, without a manufacturing industry, we lose something that is incredibly valuable. We lose something as a nation that cannot be replaced. We lose those skills. We lose the ability to make things ourselves. We lose the ability to export to other countries. We lose innovation. That is a key issue and one of the reasons our car manufacturing industry is so important in this country. To the Holden workers who are listening, who worked at Elizabeth in South Australia: I understand, and many others here understand, the importance of your industry.

For each of the major manufacturers that are at risk, there are smaller component manufacturers that depend on them for a living. The multiplier effect, the economic impact and the string of job losses linked to these major manufacturers are huge. It is estimated that if Holden were lost from South Australia that would mean something like 16,000 jobs would be lost. I dread to think what that would do to the northern suburbs of Adelaide. I do not want the northern suburbs of Adelaide to be turned into some sort of industrial wasteland. We must fight against that. We must do everything possible from a sensible policy point of view to make sure that does not happen. But, even further than that, if we lose our manufacturing capability, we lose our independence. That is something I know Senator Madigan has been very passionate about and I have been very privileged to be part of the Australian Manufacturing and Farming Program, which he instigated and leads. We can already see some sectors where skill shortages have led employers to bring in overseas workers on 457 visas, but we do not seem to be doing anything to address why those skills, education and basic training shortages happen in the first place. Protecting Australian industry is about more than protecting the big car manufacturers, which is very important; it is about protecting our skills and our future.

I will be moving a number of amendments to this bill, but this debate is time limited. For those out there listening, I say it is not a good way for the Senate to operate as a genuine house of review to have bill after bill being time limited with the guillotine provision. I agree with what Senator Madigan said previously in this place: if I am ever in a position where my vote as to whether there is a guillotine may count, I can tell people on both sides of the chamber that you can forget about it. If you want to sit here on Saturdays and Sundays, week after week, until we sort out the legislation, so be it. I think Senator Madigan is of the same view—and he is indicating that now.

I will be moving some amendments to this bill and speaking to them. I do need to acknowledge that there is an improvement in the system. We have a situation where, for instance, a company like Tindo Solar, with 18 employees, were quoted $1 million to run an antidumping case. At least now, through the government's initiative, there is a mechanism—a support system or advocate—that they can go to who is very well regarded in the industry. I genuinely commend the government on that because it is an improvement. Those small manufacturers like Tindo Solar would not have had a chance in hell to even look at such a case otherwise, so that is a clear improvement. Minister Clare and his office, and Minister O'Connor before him, deserve to receive credit for.

But this bill does not address some fundamental issues, which is why I will introduce amendments. If I may obtain your guidance, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have amendments to move, but because of the time limits involved Senator Madigan has indicated that he wishes to co-sponsor these amendments with me and I am very pleased for him to be able to do that. But I am not sure whether I should seek leave from the chamber to add Senator Madigan's name to the amendments.