Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 in the debate on the second reading and on the amendment moved by the member for Makin. I see the member for Gorton is here. He grew up in Victoria, like I did—in a manufacturing state. Now I live in Western Australia, which is a state that is a net exporter of goods. To manufacturing states, this is a bill that will be highly important to them. The member for Gorton mentioned the previous work done by the Labor government and also congratulated the current government for the work they are continuing to do.

We do not have a lot of manufacturing in the electorate of Swan, but we do have a freight rail and head that is very important to the north-west and the export of iron ore which is then turned into finished goods overseas. What I would like to do is go slowly through the bill for the benefit of members and the people of Western Australia—which is not as strong a manufacturing state as Victoria and all the other states. The antidumping reforms will implement the outstanding four election commitments. The bill will also abolish and reform less useful and underperforming features of the antidumping system, including fixing the merits review process. It will improve support services to provide better advice, assistance and information to Australian businesses engaging with the antidumping system. It will also see a range of other technical amendments made to the antidumping system that will simplify and clarify aspects of the antidumping investigation processes.

Also for the people in Western Australia who do not know what dumping is: dumping is the sale of goods by overseas exporters into our market at a price lower than the normal value, which is generally the price payable for those goods in the exporter's domestic market. Australia can apply antidumping duties up to the difference between the export price and the normal value where dumped goods cause or threaten material injury to the Australian industry producing like goods.

I am sure the member for Gorton has travelled overseas, like I have. I travelled extensively when I was working for a manufacturing base for a commercial industrial air-conditioning manufacturing company in Victoria that originated in South Melbourne and then moved out to Cheltenham. We not only produced our own goods but also relied on importing products from other manufacturers from overseas. This bill not only affects Australian manufacturers but also affects manufacturers in other countries who export to Australia and play by the rules. It is not only the Australian manufacturing companies that are affected by dumping; companies that play by the rules, meet the Australian standards, meet the antidumping laws and produce goods within the restrictions of the anti-dumping laws are also affected.

To give an example, the company I worked for was an importer of Sanyo air-conditioning equipment. On many projects that we supplied to around Australia, they would always make sure that they did not discount the pricing. They had to maintain their factory, the quality and standards for their workers and their profits. During the 20 years that I worked for their company while I distributed Sanyo products in Australia, the Japanese never discounted or dumped into Australia. One of the side effects of that was that they eventually closed down their operations in Australia, because their sales had reduced due to other companies that probably were not playing by the rules and were dumping products based purely on price for sale and not on quality or anything like that. That is another example of how it affects the manufacturers of Australia and the manufacturers of other countries who meet our standards.

The company I worked for—for nearly 50 years—had to cease production because it could not compete with overseas products. Whether there was any hint of dumping into Australia was very hard to prove in those days, back in the eighties. When I finished working for that company there was a potential for not only the loss of manufacturing but also the loss of jobs and all the workers who went with it. There was the engineering department, the guys who unloaded the stock that came in for the manufacturing component and the loss of goods being supplied to the company by metal manufacturers. There was no work for the trucking companies anymore either. These types of things can affect everyone across the manufacturing industry. So it is important that we have these new anti-dumping reforms put through.

When the government investigated this issue, on coming into government, it was clear that no jurisdiction had reversed the onus of proof, in the legal sense, as this would have been a breach of the WTO guidelines. However, the policy intent of this bill was to increase the onus on exporters to cooperate with anti-dumping investigations. This is certainly being implemented. Our reforms place a significantly heavy onus on foreign exporters to cooperate with anti-dumping investigations. If they do not cooperate then we reserve the right to impose antidumping duties sooner in the investigation process and impose heavier trade remedies.

The member for Gorton would have travelled to manufacturing plants, as I did quite often, throughout Asia. We had a manufacturing facility in Singapore and relationships with Chinese companies. He would have seen, as I did, when we went to those particular places that their factories were always full of stock. To clear that stock, particularly the companies that had products which were not well-known brands, they would reduce the price—with the sweep of a pen—by up to 25 per cent.

Any company that can afford to do that is either rorting the system already or they need to turn that stock over as quickly as possible. They need to keep manufacturing. They build in their manufacturing programs for the year, they forecast and they pre-buy their components 12 months out. If that stock is not cleared off the floor, it means they will have to pay extra money to house the stock that is still being manufactured.

The anti-dumping laws hopefully will prevent those types of companies from slashing their prices purely to clear the stock off the floor. More often than not, there is a quality relationship with some of the stock that goes, because it is not always designed for Australia. That is not the issue here today, but sometimes we see products come to Australia that do not meet the standards of the anti-dumping laws. Why should we not just take advantage of those low prices offered by cheap imports? The anti-dumping and countervailing duties cannot be applied just because imports are cheap. Such duties can only be applied where dumped or subsidised imports cause or threaten material injury to Australian industry producing like goods. Countries that have low barriers to trade, like Australia, need to have recourse to effective anti-dumping action. This is to prevent damage to our local industries by overseas producers who use profits generated by subsidies and protected domestic markets to persistently sell cheap goods into our markets.

What is expected to be achieved by introducing more stringent deadlines? It is important to industries injured by dumped and subsidised goods that they have access to the quickest relief possible. More stringent deadlines will mean the Anti-Dumping Commission gets access to information quicker, allowing the commission to resolve matters sooner. What is expected to be achieved by modernising publication provisions? Removing the requirement to publish notices in the newspaper and the gazette represents savings for the government. These savings will fund better access to the system for potentially injured businesses, particularly for small and medium businesses. Stakeholders will have increased certainty that all anti-dumping notices will be found on the Anti-Dumping Commission's or the Anti-Dumping Review Panel's website.

How much will business have to pay to seek a review on this decision? I am sure many businesses would like to know that. Applications to the Anti-Dumping Review Panel will be subject to a $10,000 fee. Small- to medium-sized businesses will be eligible for a reduced fee of $1,000. Applicants who withdraw their applications will be eligible for a partial refund. The fee reflects that providing merits review of anti-dumping decisions comes at significant cost to the government and can destabilise confidence in anti-dumping decisions. The fees will be prescribed by a legislative instrument.

What is expected to be achieved by removing the legislative requirements for the International Trade Remedies Forum? The forum is a rigid and inflexible method of consulting a narrow range of stakeholders. Removing the legislation establishing the forum will allow the government to adopt more flexible administrative arrangements for consulting anti-dumping stakeholders. The legislation that establishes the forum is unnecessary. Stakeholder consultation can operate under administrative arrangements.

We have heard from the member for Gorton, the member for Grey and the member for Makin, and I see the parliamentary secretary is here. He is keen to get on his feet to talk to this bill before we—

See this speech in context