Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills now be read a third time.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had hoped that the committee stage for this bill would improve it, but that has turned out to be wishful thinking. At the last election the government misled vulnerable businesses. The government told these businesses that they would be well served—and, indeed, that the nation would be well served—if they stepped into the antidumping system, rather than go about their business of doing business.

The bills before us today are the culmination of this grooming of the vulnerable. These are the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015. These bills adjust antidumping procedures. The effect of this will be to make it easier for businesses that are struggling to compete against low-price imports to get the Anti-Dumping Commissioner or the industry minister to impose duties on these imports. This is not in the long-term interest of the businesses facing competition from low-priced imports. Instead, it encourages those businesses to divert their efforts and resources away from being competitive and winning customers towards seeking government assistance. They will eventually get wrapped up in red tape and fail anyway, as we have seen with the Australian car industry.

The businesses that have been encouraged to step into the system of antidumping complaints have been sold a lie. They were told that 'in the longer term, international dumping hollows out Australian industry, decreases competition, costs jobs and increases prices'. Each of these claims is false. It is false to claim that low-price imports increase prices in the long term. For this to occur, a low-price importer would need to eventually sell products well above cost, and also there would need to be barriers to Australian businesses or other importers entering or re-entering the market in response. These barriers do not exist. It is false to claim that low-price imports decrease competition. If an Australian business that produces the product cannot compete and closes down, this is evidence of competition, not a reduction in competition.

It is also false to claim that so-called dumping hollows out Australian industry and costs jobs. When a business closes down, this indicates that it would be more profitable for Australian workers and resources to produce other things. It is well documented that the rise and fall of Australian businesses is a process that supports better paying jobs and more profitable industry. Those who oppose this well-worn capitalist path to prosperity cannot see the forest for the trees.

The purpose of the government should be to improve the competitiveness of the Australian industry by reducing their costs, like red tape and inflexible labour rules. It should not be seeking to prop up uncompetitive Australian businesses by pretending importers are evil and forcing them to increase their prices. Low-price imports help consumers and businesses, and we should welcome them.

I suspect I will be the only parliamentarian to oppose this bill, because I am the only parliamentarian to dare speak in favour of imports. It seems sacrilegious to make the basic point that it is not the exporting of products to foreigners but the importing of products from foreigners that makes us better off. It seems that importers are modern-day lepers, with no advocate beyond a sole Liberal Democrat. Protectionism is alive and well in Australia and will continue to grow while the economic rationalists in this chamber stay silent.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.