Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bendigo for her motion. Some of the issues she raises are real issues and we should all listen to them, but there are a few things I will point out. I want to spend most of my time talking about anti-dumping as averse to inferior product. I do not think the two should be confused. We have anti-dumping legislation. Anti-dumping legislation is to stop subsidised product coming into Australia and being sold below the cost of production from where it is sourced. It is not necessarily inferior product at all. The issue of inferior product is another one. Of course, there are laws in place and bodies in place to deal with it now because it is illegal in Australia for retailers to sell products that are not to standard.

If consumers have problems they should be going back to the places where they bought the product and taking them to the line, because that is the quickest way to stop it. If people are hit with the appropriate lawful action then they will cease to supply inferior goods and make sure they get up to scratch. The last thing Australia needs is some kind of wide team of inspectors all around Australia trying to judge the quality of things when they open up the box and putting a rubber stamp on it. That is the kind of red tape that the economy cannot stand. In fact, if you were going to do it for imported products, you may as well do it for locally produced products as well. We need people to produce the quality product to the demand.

When it comes to anti-dumping, Australia has thrived, not in spite of trade but because of it. Often people say to me that we do not make anything anymore in Australia. What are our children going to? But the lesson of history is that, as economies mature, a lower proportion of the GDP is used in providing essential services—that is, food, shelter and clothing. For subsistence, we do not need much more. As we become wealthier, we like better food and we have nicer houses and more clothes.

Then as we become wealthier again we spend money on entertainment, leisure, pets, cars, restaurants and labour-saving gadgets. More people are doing less productive things, inasmuch as they are providing the services and the luxuries in our life by recycling the primary income that is sourced to the nation by our very successful export industries—to the point where we have fitness classes, we have grooming for our dogs and we pay cafes $4 a cup for coffee when we could well be drinking water. There is nothing wrong with any of these things, and it does not really matter as long as some sectors of the economy are earning enough export income to recirculate through the system that keeps everything else afloat. In Australia's case that means allowing our most efficient industries to get on with the job.

It should be government's role to reduce the impediments, to cut red tape. This government has already reduced red tape in Australia by $2 billion. We will keep working on about $1 billion a year, which is our target, so that businesses can flourish and provide the export income Australia needs to underwrite our lifestyle so that our luxury industries—and I do not mean that in any derogatory sense, as I said earlier—can prosper and provide jobs and we can all live well. Australia excels in a wide range of areas: obviously the resources industry, agriculture, education, tourism and services generally. However, there is still a substantial manufacturing industry in Australia and increasingly it will focus on high-end manufacturing, the things we do very well: high technology and innovation. It is an area where Australia can compete well. In fact in my electorate—at Booleroo Centre, let it be said—I think I have the biggest exporter of Australian farm machinery in Kelly Engineering. Jo and Shane Kelly run a fabulous business. They have exported over 1,000 tillage units to the US and their business is running strongly. It just shows what can be done with a good business plan and a good workforce.

Our industries have demonstrated time and time again that they can compete if they are given a chance and if they have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. But they will not compete successfully against unfair practices. I was privileged as the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry to recently table a report on the circumvention of anti-dumping rules, Circumvention: closing the loopholes. While there are not a great many significant recommendations in that report it is because things have changed so much in the last little time. I congratulate the previous government for appointing a dedicated Anti-Dumping Commissioner. The Anti-Dumping Commissioner has shown an appetite for reform, and the number of rulings that has come down in recent times is really encouraging our industry.

See this speech in context