Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. To start, I want to commend a number of organisations and individuals for the work they have done in relation to this: my good friend the member for Oxley, the Hon. Bernie Ripoll; the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Justice; the Australian Aluminium Extrusions Association for their advocacy; and the Australian Workers Union, particularly Paul Howes. Locally, out my way, I would like to thank Sven Gade, the business manager of Capral Ltd, and Phil Jobe, the managing director of Capral; and G James Glass for their advocacy in relation to this issue. This is a national issue that has big resonance in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland where Capral is located. Capral is a major manufacturer of aluminium products. The legislation here will make a big difference that will protect the jobs of hundreds of people living in the western corridor between Ipswich and Brisbane and the rural areas outside. I want to thank those people and those organisations for their wonderful advocacy in relation to this bill.

Dumping is a particularly iniquitous practice that affects Australian jobs. Dumping occurs when an overseas supplier exports goods to Australia at a price below their normal value. The normal value is usually based on the domestic price of the goods in the exporting country. Tragically for Australian jobs, this has happened all too often. It is not a matter of free trade versus fair trade. We believe in free trade; as an exporting country we believe that it is in the best interests of Australia to export to countries like China, South Korea, the United States, Japan and Europe. But we also believe that trade between countries needs to be based on a degree of justice and fairness. When a company engages in dumping, it really seeks to have an unfair advantage compared to local Australian companies, and it will materially impact on local Australian jobs.

The improvements summarised in this legislation are the result of extensive stakeholder consultation, and some of the organisations and individuals I mentioned here have been major players in that consultation. There has been consideration of the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No. 48 of 18 December 2009, Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system. The consideration of this legislation comes very much out of that. The changes, we believe, will improve access to the antidumping system across the country. It will improve the timeliness of decisions in relation to this. We believe it will improve decision making over the whole process. We do not believe these are protectionist measures. We believe they are in line with our obligations, particularly our obligations under World Trade Organisation arrangements. We think also that we are doing what other countries comparable to us, the United States, Canada and other countries in the EU, are doing to protect local jobs and to make sure that there is a level playing field in relation to this particular measure.

There is a raft of improvements. I welcome the package of 29 improvements to the system. They will have a big impact on not only employment but also the social fabric of our community. There will be better support to industries in our area. The AWU supports this. We have had companies like Capral supporting this. We have even had the National Farmers Federation coming out in support of the measures we are undertaking here. David Crombie, the chair of the National Farmers Federation Trade Committee had this to say:

Agriculture is one industry that is particularly susceptible to dumping, where foreign products are exported to Australia at a price below cost price.

The NFF believes it is very important that industries like agriculture, that have legitimate claims against dumped exports, have the opportunity to seek a remedy for this through Australia’s anti-dumping system, ensuring unfair trading practices can be challenged.

He went on to say:

This means that the emphasis remains on whether goods were exported to Australia at a price below the normal value of the goods, thus making it harder for our farmers to complete, rather than on any perceived short-term consumer benefit.

When you have a situation where the National Farmers Federation, the AWU and business are in support of these changes, I think we have got it right.

In my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, which has a very large farming community and a very big manufacturing base in Ipswich, this will be particularly important—also for smaller businesses as well because they have found the cost, the expense and the complexity of antidumping action prohibitive in taking actions. So these amendments, which will make an impact nationally, will make an impact locally in my electorate. There are a number of improvements. The minister said in his second reading speech on 6 July 2011:

These improvements will improve the way we administer global anti-dumping rules in Australia and better align our laws and practices with those of other countries.

I agree. This will make a difference locally.

I will go through the amendments which will have an impact in my electorate and in communities across the country. Improvements include the following. There is an improved timeliness in relation to this issue. We will have a 45 per cent increase in Customs staff working on antidumping issues over the next 12 months to ensure cases are dealt with more efficiently and effectively. I think the 30-day time limit for ministerial decisions on antidumping cases will make a difference, for a start.

I think one of the biggest problems in this area is that it is extraordinarily complex. It is very difficult for the average person to get their head around. It is difficult for small companies to take on these types of cases. One only has to read anything prepared in relation to this issue, including reports, advice from QCs given to me, reports from companies involved in these types of cases, and analyses by Access Economics, to see this. It is extraordinarily difficult for the layperson to get their head around. This is very complex law. The whole practice and procedures here make it very difficult to identify whether a company overseas is dumping. We have not had the expertise, in my view. We have not had the staff in Customs to take this on. I think the commitment to boost the monitoring measures to ensure compliance will be very important. With companies from overseas, particularly in the case of Capral, the competition and the dumping have been from Chinese companies. For too long we have found it difficult to identify that dumping has actually occurred. The indexes, the criteria, the factors and the circumstances make it very difficult, particularly when companies overseas are often state-owned companies, which are heavily subsidised in countries like China. We need stronger compliance. The idea that we can combat these measures is really important. I think we need improved decision making. (Quorum formed)

Obviously we on this side of the House are concerned about protecting jobs and helping farmers, but those opposite are not listening to those sorts of speeches. They are not interested in protecting jobs, protecting workers or protecting farmers in our economies across the country. I mentioned before the complexity of this issue. For example, on 22 March 2011 Deloitte Access Economics undertook an analysis of antidumping measures in aluminium markets in 2008-09 for Capral. It is extraordinarily complex analysing the approach of Customs and Border Protection to substituting the London Metal Exchange prices with Shanghai Futures Exchange prices over 2008-09. Capral have been involved in a number of pieces of litigation, including an application they made on 11 May 2009 for the publication of dumping duty and countervailing duty notices in respect of aluminium extrusions exported to Australia from China. That is just one of many measures that the company and other companies in the country have been involved in. As at 30 June 2011, there were 24 measures in place against 18 products and 12 countries in relation to antidumping.

This is not some academic exercise. This is about protecting jobs and making sure that we have got a fair system across the country. We want to make sure that, while our local economies are strong and our national economies are strong, workers are protected, and that is what we believe in the Labor Party. We are not the party of Work Choices; we are the party that protects jobs and makes sure that we stand up for the living standards of people across the country. The reforms here ensure quicker and better dumping decisions and greater consistency with other countries. This is doing what the Americans and the Canadians are doing, in large part. There is stronger compliance with antidumping measures. We have accepted 15 of the 20 recommendations in the Productivity Commission report I referred to. Some of the Productivity Commission report recommendations make it more costly and more difficult, and we did not adopt those.

We have made a big difference here. As I say, there is improved decision making through greater use of trade and industry experts in investigating complaints. There is a more rigorous appeals process supported by more resources from government, providing flexibility in allowing extensions of time to complete the complex cases, which makes it easier to expedite, and there is better access to the antidumping system. I think increasing the standing of individuals, companies, unions and other people to take these cases on will improve the capacity to stand up for local jobs, local companies and local farmers. That is important. We need to clarify who can participate in these investigations. It has been difficult in the past. A lot of small businesses and small farmers could not do it. I can imagine industry associations, large trade unions and downstream industry standing up for workers and farmers in this country.

I think it is important that we have these measures. It is important nationally and it is important for local jobs. Once again, it is a federal Labor government that stands up for workers' rights, as it has been in the past and always will be in the future. I commend the legislation to the House.

See this speech in context