Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I take note of Productivity Commission report No. 64, Safeguards inquiry into the import of processed fruit products. I think anyone who has paid any attention to my views—and I am sure some on the other side would not want to pay much attention to them—would be aware that I have been extremely concerned about the Productivity Commission's views on a range of industrial and economic matters. Some reports that the Productivity Commission do—such as the one on the National Disability Insurance Scheme—prove that there is always an exception to the rule. But the rule for the Productivity Commission seems to be that workers are the problem, unions are the problem, excessive wages and conditions are the problem, and if we simply get more 'flexibility' everything is going to be okay. When they look at issues such as the dumping of products in this country, they always take an extremely conservative approach to protecting industry, enterprise and jobs. That conservative approach always leads them to the argument that trade is inviolable, free trade is even more inviolable, and you cannot ping anyone for dumping product even if it is costing jobs in this country.

The coalition say they are going to look at some of the dumping provisions. I would welcome that. I think they should be honest in relation to some of the things that Labor did in government. We did move to try and tighten up on some of the dumping issues but probably not enough. Decent jobs for decent workers and decent families end up on the scrap heap because of goods dumped into this country. One of the areas where we have to look at dumping is with SPC Ardmona. SPC Ardmona sought protection from dumping. But this report does not give that protection. SPC then said, 'We can't keep going the way it is, we need some financial support to make significant investments in our company to continue SPC Ardmona as a viable proposition into the future.' This is a company that has suffered from unfair dumping for years. The company made that decision—and then what did we get? A focus on the company as if they are some sort of industrial vandal because they actually negotiate decent wages and conditions for the workers. SPC Ardmona is one of the few companies in the bush that actually provide decent wages and conditions.

Then there was a queue of coalition members and ministers saying, 'It's not a dumping issue; the problem is the workers' wages and conditions.' They gave the impression that workers at Ardmona get nine weeks annual leave. They conflated the rostered days off and the annual leave, adding them together and saying the workers get far too much leave. Yet SPC Ardmona went through these arguments forensically and debunked all of them. Senator Abetz was one of the major attackers of SPC and the workers at SPC. I take the view that sometimes you have to put your ideology behind you and actually look at the facts. Senator Abetz should have been looking at the facts on this one. When the answers to estimates questions come back, I will be keen to see when Senator Abetz was told that the figure of nine weeks was rubbish. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.