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

In rising to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013 I point out that these bills represent a fifth set of anti-dumping changes introduced by the government in reasonably quick succession. I will therefore happily use the opportunity to return to a number of points I made in previous debates; however, it is certainly not my intention to exhaustively retrace a lot of old ground or to speak for a particularly long time on these bills. I also will not use this debate to extensively restate the coalition's policy on anti-dumping that preceded any significant government action in this area. In short, we have actively been pushing for a series of revisions to the anti-dumping regime since before the 2010 election—in other words, long before Labor finally started to signal its own intentions to make changes.

We have also consistently said that we support changes to the current anti-dumping regime, wherever those changes are sensible and practical. We are happy to accept the government's assurances that the changes embodied in these two bills meet those tests. We are comfortable about supporting the changes that free up the minister's powers and decision-making scope in connection with the lesser-duty rule. On the surface, there is also nothing wrong with the principle of amending the operation within Australia of the retrospective duties provisions, particularly if that means—as is implied by the changes in the legislation and the description in the explanatory memorandum—the main intent is to make sure that those provisions work more like those in other countries.

We also do not object to the stated reasons for the introduction of new provisions relating to anti-circumvention, given that it has essentially been said the logic behind these changes is to extend the range of options available to the government to deal with anti-circumvention, including addressing the practice of sales at a loss and other attempts to evade the full payment of duties. In other words, we are taking the government at its word—albeit it is usually an unwise approach when dealing with the current government—and accepting that its changes will provide the minister with enhanced discretion in considering the level and timing of the application of duties to those companies that are found to have dumped goods in Australia as well as allow for a greater uniformity of approach between Australia and other countries.

All of that said, it is worth restating the point that I have made many times on several anti-dumping bills over the course of the past two years—namely, that effective administration of the national anti-dumping system relies far more on political will and common sense than it does purely on legislative change, in and of itself. The coalition has a strong record on this. We have just heard from the member for Murray specifically about local concerns in agriculture and food processing and the issue of dumping there. It has had a very serious impact, particularly in our home state of Victoria.

It has now been over a month and a half since the case for the application of WTO emergency safeguard action was submitted to the government by SPC Ardmona's managing director, Peter Kelly. As far as we know there still is no decision from the trade minister, Mr Emerson, about whether the government will enforce those emergency safeguard provisions. This is an issue of critical importance to our region and also for Australia—it is an iconic company. Also, it is critical for the orchard industry as a whole. It will affect a much wider range of jobs that are linked to fruit growing, particularly in Victoria. So it is an urgent matter and I press the minister to expedite his deliberations and give us a decision in the next couple of weeks if not in the next few days. I hope the minister can take time away from the distraction of the dysfunction and division within the government, which cannot even decide who should be their leader and our Prime Minister.

There are pressing issues that this country wants the government to make decisions on. The issue with SPC Ardmona, the dumping and the urgent decision required from the trade minister are decisions far more important than the playing of games behind closed doors, continuing the dysfunction and division within a truly embarrassing government. For a moment just take a day out from that and make a decision for the people of the Goulburn Valley, for the people of Victoria and in the interests of food processing and the orchard industry in this country.

If a policymaker's heart genuinely is not in addressing the cumbersome, expensive and confusing processes that have often plagued our anti-dumping system, then it is very unlikely that serious improvements are going to be delivered. To its credit the government has finally come to the party and tried to catch up on the coalition's plan to significantly improve resourcing of the anti-dumping system, and that is eminently a good thing and something that at long last is welcome from this government. Although, it brings a wry smile to my face to recall that when the opposition released its policy there were howls of protectionism from some government ministers, including Mr Emerson, only to be silent when the government followed suit, albeit with their B-grade copy of our policy.

This is a triumph for good policy and the national interest, because anti-dumping and enhancing the quality and integrity of anti-dumping investigations are critical steps that should help to bring cases to speedier and more effective resolution. That is something we on the coalition side have said for a very long time.

But, to go one step further, let us remember that sensible policy in this area of anti-dumping represents only one part of a much wider response that is now needed to the problems and crises that are besetting Australian manufacturing. I despair when I see the statistics that say more than 140,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Australia over the last five years. That is an unprecedented record. It is one job lost every 19 minutes. People say, 'But we have been losing manufacturing jobs for a long time,' but listen to this statistic: under the whole term of the Howard government there were over one million people employed in manufacturing and we had a net loss of under 7,000. So there is a crisis and there are many businesses in crisis, and anti-dumping is but a small and critical part in addressing some of the issues faced by many manufacturers. On top of that, we can add the broader loss of 243,000 small business jobs under Labor, another indicator of atrocious economic policy. And possibly, from all that I can see and hear, there will be even worse to come in manufacturing and small business between now and the end of the year.

In the meantime, and against that backdrop, I reaffirm that the coalition will be supporting these two bills. Any changes to legislation that are genuinely likely to improve the decision-making process and strip away unnecessary cost and time delays from the system should be allowed to pass, and the coalition will continue to facilitate that. If we are privileged enough to win the next election, we also look forward to the potential opportunity to implement our own anti-dumping policy and agenda that we publicly announced 18 months ago to deliver to this country a world-class anti-dumping regime.

See this speech in context