Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight, I rise to speak about Australia's antidumping regime and its effect on Australia's food manufacturers. The Prime Minister has made it clear that our government will be pragmatic and focused on measurable outcomes. This is a refreshing change from the previous Labor government. However, the prolific and ideological commentary over the past week around the defining decision of the federal government around assistance to manufacturing has obscured constructive debate concerning key factors in the food processing supply chain.

Subsidies stifle innovation and adaptation. They shield companies from competitive forces which ensure efficient practices. Governments should not be in the business of propping up businesses which are making products nobody wants to buy. That includes cars and canned peaches. However, assuming that price is the only variable that consumers value in making their decision at Autobarn, Ford, Holden or the local supermarket is not useful either.

A combination of factors have created a perfect storm for food manufacturers. They include the high Australian dollar and previous government policies, which those opposite still refuse to acknowledge and to assist us to get rid of. Those opposite know the cost impost of the carbon tax on food manufacturers, yet they sit here, day after day, week after week and, I imagine, month after month, holding onto a policy for some ideological purpose. They are ignoring the fact that business after business comes before our nation's attention. More tragically, small business after small business is closing down and laying off two, three, four or five workers apiece in small communities and capital cities because of the high cost of doing business in this country. Yet those opposite sit in here and bleat about their care for workers while they refuse to remove the impost they placed on our manufacturing industry.

A combination of factors have resulted in high input costs throughout the supply chain and an international trading environment which favours our competitors. We are lucky in Australia. We are able to purchase very clean, high-quality, sustainably produced local product. I cannot say that our international competitors are able to do the same.

The dumping of cheap products into Australia is an area of concern. Dumping occurs when a product is imported and sold below its normal cost, which is usually the price it sells for in its country of origin. According to the Anti-Dumping Commission, dumping is not illegal and is not prohibited by international trade agreements, but when dumping causes 'material injury' to domestic industry the commission can intervene.

From paddock to plate, the Australian consumer can be guaranteed a locally sourced product which is high quality, grown in a sustainable manner with very efficient—world-leading—water and land-use practices. According to the National Farmers' Federation, for every government dollar invested farmers are estimated to have invested $2.60 in natural resource management and environmental protection. That bells the cat, if you like, on claims from those in the community and sometimes in this place that farmers are environmental vandals. That is not the case. The regulatory regime that gives confidence to the Australian consumer also adds cost to the manufacturing of the product. For example, in 2007, the cost of regulation compliance for farmers was over $22,500, or 14 percent of average net farm profit. This is before the product leaves the farm, so it is not hard to imagine the cost burden of regulation throughout the supply chain, once we go through the processing, transporting and retailing of the product. This is because Australian consumers expect high standards—so they should.

I just want to touch briefly on some great news for those of us in regional Victoria and, indeed, right around the country. Last Sunday was SPC Sunday. It was a social media campaign right across the country for people to show their support for the embattled SPC Ardmona company that is based in Shepparton. Australians right around the country would actually commit to buying, eating and sharing on social media their favourite product purchases from SPC Ardmona. We all tweeted and shared our support. It was through a range of these public campaigns that the issue of SPC Ardmona got the support it received from the wider public. Woolworths saw an increase of 24 per cent in purchases of SPC Ardmona products. Public support has highlighted the need to support those producers and those processors that are manufacturing our local product.

There is the great news today that the Victorian government is supporting the processor with $22 million, in addition to CCA's own $78 million, to guarantee 500-plus effective full-time workers through the course of a three-year loan. That is to ensure that if after five years—unlike the automotive industry and unlike those that are making decisions in Detroit—they decide to leave, then that money has to be paid back. That was the negotiation that was done by Deputy Premier Peter Ryan, the Nationals leader, and the Premier, ensuring that taxpayers' money in that negotiation was spent efficiently and effectively. There is some onus on the company. They cannot take the money and run. They had to commit to stay, commit to ensuring workers had ongoing work and commit to making the infrastructure investments that would result in the change of product that they are producing and ensure that the 21st century consumer has access to high-quality product—a product that is not just in a can but that is presented in the way we actually like to consume it and travel with it in the modern era.

What was highlighted through this whole debate with SPCA was some structural things around the way we conduct our international trade, our antidumping regime and our environmental standards et cetera. I do think that we need to take a look at how that research and development—the nexus for business model innovation between our universities and our hubs of product and process—interacts with industry. How do we support that? How do we look at the risks associated with that and who bears those risks? I think they are important concerns for us. Other countries do it well; there are things to learn. I look forward to an ongoing conversation over the coming period, where we can drill down into some of those wider matters.

I just briefly also want to touch on the antidumping commission result, with respect to the tomato importation case that came before it recently. Unlike the Productivity Commission safeguards inquiries into imported processed fruit and tomato products—which found that there had been serious injury, that people were not behaving well and that the supermarket private label strategy had been a problem for SPC Ardmona, as had the high Australian dollar and other input costs—the dumping commission found that 15 Italian tomato exporters needed to have the commission's tariff the applied to them. There were another 90 uncompliant exporters. Overall, the commission found that 56 per cent of all Italian tomatoes imported into Australia were dumped. Two importers will have dumping tariffs of 26 per cent applied to their products as an interim measure. That is great news, because it means that there is integrity in the international trading regime if we choose to—like Peter Kelly, managing director of SPC Ardmona, did—take the case forward and prosecute it.

With the backing for local produce by the Australian public and the Victorian state government, I am very confident that fruit growing and food processing and manufacturing has an extremely strong future in the Goulburn Valley. I look forward to supporting that community and its endeavours.