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

I note the member for Chifley is sitting at the table. I hope he will show some leadership and condemn his fellow New South Wales state parliamentarians, and say what a disgraceful scare campaign it is. I hope the member for Chifley will show some leadership in that respect and not join the throng of those who are carrying on with this nonsense—this misleading scare campaign.

We then heard from Rod Sims, Chairman of the ACCC, that if the privatisation goes ahead, electricity prices will be lower. We have had Bob Carr, the former New South Wales state Premier—and very highly distinguished foreign minister well known for his requirements of fine-quality pyjamas on first-class flights—also agreeing that electricity needs to be privatised.

We have had the former New South Wales Treasurer come out and say that costs will be lower. We have had ex-Labor Party member after ex-Labor Party member come out and say: 'Costs will be lower, if we privatise electricity.' Perhaps the member for Chifley sitting there at the table could come and add his voice to his former colleagues like the former resources minister, Mr Martin Ferguson, who came out today and said he was ashamed of the Labor Party for not doing the right thing and standing up for the privatisation of electricity. I see the member for Chifley has let this opportunity go. I cannot say that I have not given him the opportunity.

In lowering our costs, we need to look at our tax rates. We currently have a corporate tax rate of 30 per cent, which puts us out of step with our near neighbours. If we look at countries like Hong Kong, it is 16.5; Taiwan, 17; and Singapore, 17. At 30 per cent, we are simply out of step, and again that puts more pressure and makes our industry less competitive.

I know some on the other side would like to raise company tax because they think it would raise more revenue. I suppose if you sit down and think of it on a very basic level, which I know many members of the opposition do, you could come up with that. They think that if we raise the rate of tax we will get more money in and that will give us more money to spend. But our history has shown the exact opposite. Over the last 50 years, every single time that we have lowered the rate of company tax, do you know what has happened? We have not got less revenue; we have got more revenue. We have got more revenue not only in gross terms but also—the most important measure—as a percentage of GDP. Every time our corporate tax rate has been lowered the Treasury has received more revenue as a percentage of GDP. So, even if you like the idea of big government and plenty of money to spend, the best way you can get that is by lowering the corporate rate of tax, because that will also assist in making our Australian industries more competitive.

This bill works to get the balance right. If your antidumping provisions are too generous, too easy to bring claims under, you have some of the situations which we have seen in America. Many American companies in the furniture and bedding industry brought claims against Chinese manufacturers and very punitive dumping duties were placed on those manufacturers. But that did not actually do anything to protect or save American jobs. It did not do anything to reduce the flow of imports of Chinese furniture into the United States. It simply worked as an anticompetitive tool. That is why I support the bill—because it works on getting the balance right. That is what we need to do—get the balance right in this dumping area.

There are a couple of things that the bill does. It establishes the Anti-Dumping Information Service and increases the number of international trade remedy advisers to better support business engaging with the system. It directs an Anti-Dumping Commissioner to impose provisional duties at day 60 of an investigation where relevant conditions are met. That is most important, because where there are cases of dumping it is very important that the legislation and the system we have in place work quickly. There is no point in bringing in countervailing duties or taking action months and months after the action has occurred, because by then the horse has bolted and the damage has been done. So reducing that to 60 days is a very important provision. The bill also provides less tolerance for uncooperative exporters. If companies do not respond to requests for information, the Anti-Dumping Commission will proceed with their investigations on the basis of information which could be from an application brought forward by Australian industry. Again, this is an important provision.

In the final minutes left I would like to quickly say that I do not support the amendment proposed by the opposition. The amendment involves the International Trade Remedies Forum, which was set up by the previous Labor government. For all intents and purposes that forum is redundant. We know that it is stacked. By its regulations, it is compulsory that it has a discriminatory provision where four members must be union members. I know that the opposition likes to have these things to give jobs to their union mates. This is an unnecessary, redundant provision, and I oppose the amendment. All up, I commend this bill to the House. It is a good piece of legislation. It works on getting that balance right, without going too far as we have seen in countries like the United States, to make sure that we give Australian industry the ability to bring claims and to act quickly where a dumping case comes up.

As I have said, ultimately, we need to make sure that in government we work to get the costs off Australian industry. We cannot save Australian industry through antidumping legislation. The only way we can save Australian industry is to get their costs down—to get their electricity costs down, to get the taxes down, to get the red tape off their back, to let them get out there and compete on an international playing field. I know from my own personal experience before coming to this place that our Australian companies are good enough to go out and compete internationally and win export orders. That is what we can do, and that is what we want to encourage them to do. We want to encourage our businesses in Australia to get out there and fight on that international playing field, to take the risk and to use their innovation. We have done that with the trifecta of free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China. That is what we want to do: incentivise our industry, incentivise our exporters and incentivise our entrepreneurs to get out there. We want to make sure that if they set up a business in Australia—and that is what this bill does, too—they will have effective provisions against dumping and there will be a quick remedy. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context