Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say I am not really sure what the point of that ministerial statement was because it was largely a rerun of the same themes from the speech of the Minister for Justice on the Customs Amendment (Antidumping Improvements) Bill 2011 a few weeks ago. There was nothing new in anything we have just heard although there was an interesting statement when he said that the changes would bring Australia's antidumping regime into greater alignment with the practices of comparable trading nations. If only the government would apply that standard to the current carbon tax proposals they are wanting to introduce. If we were to have a system comparable with our trading nations then we would not be having this job-destroying, economy-crushing carbon tax. So that is a welcome standard that the minister has applied.

I do find it curious that the minister is becoming increasingly aggressive in his language around these issues and everyone else is apparently to blame including now blaming the Howard government. We have mentions of the high dollar but we have no mention of the IMF and the RBA both saying that if we were in surplus then interest rates would not be as high and of course the dollar would not be as high. So getting the basic fundamentals of the economy right does affect Australian manufacturers.

It is actually quite ironic that, given all these criticisms, given the Rudd and Gillard governments did everything possible they could to evade making changes to Australia's antidumping system until they were shamed and panicked into it in June because almost every single affected stakeholder was demanding that they lift a finger and finally do something about it, we had the announcement at the end of the day trying to perhaps hide the announcement, not maximise its publicity and be proud of it.

From 2008 to mid-2011 they strenuously avoided any action. Let us bear in mind that the minister who is now complaining about inaction is also the same minister who did everything in his power to defer any government decision about all of this until both the 2010 election and the 2011 budget. Now methinks he doth protest too much. What I suspect the statement is all about is that the government is now desperate to try to appear as if it is doing something to help Australian manufacturing, with the tidal wave of criticism of its obviously atrocious record in this area and its refusal to subject its record to examination in a formal national inquiry. Sadly, it appears the government also wants to hide its rejection of the eight-point plan on manufacturing policy that the opposition last week invited it to adopt in a bipartisan effort to immediately improve the current policy framework for Australian manufacturers. In trademark style and with trademark spin, its main aim seems to be simply to be seen to be doing something, and the customs minister's increasing interest in playing the role of a wannabe hard man is an obvious pointer to the ALP's increasing frustration about its complete lack of success in the area of industry policy.

Anyway, he has effectively decided to rehash the debate on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill. Let me take the opportunity to restate the coalition's position as well. In general terms, we are happy to support the changes the government is making, not least because many of them are obvious and represent a long-overdue response to the pleas that key stakeholders have been making. If we do not agree to these modifications to the system now, you can also be sure that it will take years for the Labor Party to do anything about the issue of anti-dumping again. So the timing to do something now is obviously preferable.

It is also worth restating that there has been considerable and growing frustration over recent years in Australia with the lack of timeliness and effectiveness of the investigation process undertaken in Customs and the significant costs imposed on businesses which wish to raise possible cases for consideration under the current anti-dumping regime. The system is widely regarded as being too expensive to access and largely unworkable. The minister says he is providing additional resources to Customs, but essentially he is shifting employees in Customs from one area to the anti-dumping regime. What will happen with increasing border protection problems is what has happened elsewhere in the world where the anti-dumping regime is administered by customs departments: resources get taken out of the anti-dumping section to be applied to border protection. I am sure we will see that pattern followed here, as has been the case.

The current structure of the system also typically works against the best interests of Australian manufacturers. It represents another burden on them at a time when they are already encountering a range of unwanted costs and pressures, a series of poor and clumsy policies from a government that simply has no empathy for their plight, and a Prime Minister who says, 'Manufacturers will just get on with it; they'll innovate; they'll do what they've always done,' without having a genuine understanding of the problems these businesses face at the coalface of their industry. They want a system that works for them, not one that thwarts them, especially at a time when they are already confronted with so many pressures and so many regulatory costs.

Against that background, anything that can be done to strengthen the integrity and quality of the administration of our anti-dumping regime, of course, should be supported. However, there is still plenty of work to do, and I am disappointed that the minister's statement today provides no indication of when most of the proposed changes will be legislated. I am worried that the government, despite promising change, has again reverted to its normal modus operandi and is now intent on dragging its feet again.

I had also hoped, when I heard last night from the member for Gorton that he was planning a ministerial statement on anti-dumping, that he might finally be relenting on the government's decision to not allocate a single extra dollar to Customs as part of its anti-dumping changes. I had heard that he was providing a ministerial statement, and I had great hope. I was bitterly disappointed—but, then again, we must always have some hope that eventually something positive will come from this government in a real sense, in providing real resources to this very important issue of anti-dumping. It would have been appropriate for him, rather than continuing to pretend he is increasing Customs resources, to have been upfront today and specified exactly where the cuts were being made to other parts of the agency to fund the changes to the structure of the trade measures review branch.

Today's debate on this ministerial statement also represents a good opportunity to point out that, in the time since we were here debating the anti-dumping improvements bill, new figures released by the ABS show that the total number of manufacturing jobs in Australia has now plunged to 945,000; that over the past 3½ years 136,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Australia; that over the past year, from August 2010 to August 2011, 53,800 manufacturing jobs have been lost; and that over the last six months almost 49,500 manufacturing jobs have been lost. Over the past quarter, from May to August, 30,700 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Australia. That is a rate of more than 2,500 manufacturing jobs lost a week. That is one gone every four minutes. The new Treasury modelling released this morning also points to even worse outcomes under existing policy settings for sectors like aluminium than have been admitted previously.

It is a record of unutterable shame, and the ALP must move beyond its modest and straightforward anti-dumping changes to embrace a more comprehensive industry policy—indeed, any industry policy at all. Australian manufacturers are suffering and the government remains paralysed in responding to their problems, whether in the area of coming up with a robust and genuinely reformed anti-dumping regime, in axing unnecessary regulatory costs or in actually engaging in genuine tax reform. Wasn't it ironic yesterday when there were reports of the Prime Minister saying she wanted to help manufacturing and industry with genuine tax reform? I have an idea for her: she can start with a very simple action. She could axe the carbon tax. That would be a very simple, very commendable first step in tax reform in helping industry and the manufacturing sector in this country.

See this speech in context