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

Antidumping is critical to the manufacturing sector that is facing all sorts of challenges, including that of sovereign risk due to broken promises. In that environment, it is important to canvass the issue of broken promises and how that impacts on the future viability of the manufacturing sector, and what role antidumping can play. We have seen 130,000 workers in Australian manufacturing lose their jobs since mid-2008. There are other industries in manufacturing—many SMEs in food processing, steel, glass, plastics and chemicals—who are already surviving on wafer-thin margins even before the government clubs them with ridiculous measures like the carbon tax. They are very concerned about antidumping. We have had extensive discussions with them and they are very keen to see the government's policy rolled out before they pass final judgment. The government have an obligation to explain their policies and explain how and why, if policies are so good for manufacturing, they have presided over such a sustained burning of jobs in the manufacturing sector. In the area of antidumping specifically, I have not yet seen the latest iteration of Labor's talking points, but no doubt the member for Fraser will help us out and fulfil his trademark role in his party by parroting them dutifully, word for word, a bit later in this debate. The latest lot included things along the lines that, apparently, the coalition's position was in 'fundamental breach of WTO obligations'. I think we were probably responsible for all manner of other things.

Insofar as I can make any sense of this ranting and raving, most of Labor's criticism has been directed at us because what we said in our policy was that we were determined, where possible, to make better use of preliminary affirmative determinations—and, where appropriate, we would be active in applying them from the 60-day stage of investigations. This was enough for Ministers O'Connor and Emerson to foam at the mouth about how allegedly irresponsible we were and how none of this was allowed under the WTO. In reality, what they were angry about was not that anything we were suggesting was not compliant with WTO rules; what bothered them, what really got under their skin, was that the changes we had proposed would go a long way towards creating a fundamental shift in thinking and emphasis in the way that Australia administers its national antidumping arrangements—real reform, not tinkering around the edges. I am afraid that the government have been humiliated by their own words because, as it turns out, in their own policy document, printed in June 2011, they said the following:

By day 60 (the earliest WTO consistent date a PAD can be considered) the Branch will usually have verified the domestic industry’s data, and will have received data from the exporters.

It goes on to say:

If the data submitted by the exporters shows evidence of dumping or subsidisation, this may be sufficient evidence on which to base a PAD prior to verification.

Ironically enough, that material has also been subsequently reprinted in the explanatory memorandum for this bill. So, at the same time the Labor Party is admitting to the parliament that preliminary affirmative determinations are expressly allowed at the 60-day stage and beyond, it is trying to hoodwink the public about the coalition's policy and pretending otherwise.

Of course, these kinds of double standards have been witnessed over and over again from this government—and it will no doubt continue to happen over and over again, particularly now that the member for Lalor has survived today as the leader of the Labor Party. I am hopeful that, with a new Minister for Home Affairs, we will see a far more constructive and reasonable approach, in the area of antidumping at the very least. I do not have high expectations—I am just choosing this one area of policy to see whether perhaps we could get some greater consistency and honesty in the area of policymaking. But, for goodness sake, the rest of the members on the other side are meant to be part of a government—and it is long past time the Labor Party stopped making up nonsense, breaking promises, breaking faith with the Australian people and trying to blame the opposition for its own internal dysfunctional and disgraceful failings.

See this speech in context