Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to continue my remarks on this matter. The anti-dumping legislation before us is a significant improvement on what we had before. I recommend, though, to the chamber, the coalition anti-dumping policy, which goes even further towards giving Australia a modern, flexible, cost-effective system of anti-dumping and countervailing measures.

The fact is that Australia has been lagging for many years behind other countries in steadfastly refusing to consider what imports were unfairly competing against our Australian products. There were 189 anti-dumping and countervailing cases initiated around the world in 2005-06. The highest number of initiated cases were by India, with 30 cases. Then came the EU with 26 cases, followed by China with 16 cases and Argentina with 16 cases. South Korea and New Zealand were not far behind. They were in the top 12 users of anti-dumping actions.

The three countries with the most measures in force were the USA, India and the EU. Measures usually last five years but can be extended. The number of new anti-dumping or countervailing cases initiated by Australia has been low over recent years, especially compared with the early 1990s. We turned our back on our manufacturers and primary producers when it came to their pleas for anti-dumping or countervailing actions that would give them a fair go—some sort of evening-up of the duties—so that they could compete, employ, create value, generate income for their nation and export, themselves.

The petroleum, coal, chemical and associated products industry has been the largest initiator of anti-dumping and countervailing actions in Australia. China is the largest target of the largest number of anti-dumping initiated measures around the world. Around 40 per cent of all cases involve China. China also brings a lot of cases against others.

As far as food is concerned, most countries respond to Chinese imports by imposing higher food safety standards through the sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreements. In Australia we have done neither. So there is clearly a situation where we have often seen our own food manufacturers go to the wall. We have seen numbers of them go off shore, given the combination of high costs in Australia and their belief that it is too hard, too unfair and impossible to bring an anti-dumping action.

There is only one investigation reported that relates to measures by Australia imposed upon China or South Africa with respect to food products. This was in relation to preserved mushrooms imported from China. Interim measures were imposed on 12 January 2006. The USA has a number of anti-dumping measures in place in respect to China, including crawfish, shrimps, prawns, preserved mushrooms, fresh garlic and honey.

Interestingly, in Australia's case, we are most concerned at the plight of SPC Ardmona. They are competing with imported product grabbed by the supermarkets Coles and Woolworths and which is put into their name brands, competing unfairly on the shelves. New Zealand has long had an anti-dumping measure against China and South Africa with respect to canned peaches. Anti-dumping measures were introduced against South Africa, for canned peaches, in 1996 and continue to this day after the 2008 and 2010 reassessments. Anti-dumping duties on imports of preserved peaches from China were introduced by New Zealand in 2006 and reassessed and reimposed in July 2012.

Quite simply, our competitors, our neighbours and other signatories of the WTO have been very active in defending and supporting their own country's manufacturing or fresh-food imports. It is about time Australia got with the strength. It is a case of maturity on the part of our country. Too many people scream: 'Subsidies!'. They scream: 'Protection!' when someone talks about lawful, WTO consistent, legal, anti-dumping or countervailing duties being imposed. It is time we grew up—before we lose all of our manufacturing sector.

I commend this bill and the various elements of the bill, and I commend our coalition policy. We obviously support these amendments and look forward to a stronger regime following the next election. We say: may our manufacturers and primary producers—our fresh-food producers—take heart.

See this speech in context