Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Fairfax for his contribution. I note that, as he said right at the outset, success has many parents. Of course, I would like to thank the member for Blair for his support; however, I'm not going to quite let go through to the keeper some of the comments that were made, especially in regard to us—or me in particular as the minister responsible—following Senator Carr's lead. I would like to thank the industry for coming to me some three or four months ago to highlight that we had a deficiency in our system. I also would like to thank my senior colleagues, especially the Attorney-General and his department for working so closely with us to draft so quickly a remedy to this problem. The problem, put simply, was that the system as it sat had functioned fine, but no system lives in a vacuum and people operating under the confines of that system, especially when there is dumping involved, and financial gain off the back of that and obviously financial detriment to industry domestically, are forever looking for loopholes—loophole-mining—and they found one. They found that, if they stayed out of the market for a period of time, instead of the duty assessed and attached to it they would revert back to a price that was far more beneficial to them, and, as a result, place Australian industry, and ultimately Australian jobs, at risk. This was brought to my attention strongly by major industrial employers in this country.

So, with the help of the Attorney-General, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and his office, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister's office, we worked very quickly and collaboratively to come up with some legislative changes that will fix this loophole. I would like to thank the shadow minister for his help and any help he may have had in working with the Senate Economics Committee, on their side of the fence, on the fair dinkum front, and for following our lead to ensure that these changes were implemented as quickly as was physically possible.

Because the shadow minister opened this door, I will as well make reference to his thoughts that he wished I would follow my opponent in the Senate on building cladding. I am not a fan of unconstitutional laws. There is a problem, of course, when you rush something out and you don't do your homework and don't think about how our system of governance actually works. If you are to ban cladding and put in place legislative changes that penalise people, then as a federal government, because of our Constitution, you can only do that to federal instruments—that is, companies. If we want to go down the building regulation side, sadly—and I wish it wasn't this way—property rights in this country lie with states. Sole traders or partnerships that are working, as they do, predominantly and largely in the building sector are subject to state laws, not Commonwealth laws.

That said, the problem is complex and we are working through it in a measured fashion. I will have a lot more to say on it—and my state and territory counterparts, who are in charge of compliance and enforcement in the building space. And, again, my shadow minister in the other place had trouble understanding how the National Construction Code actually works. The National Construction Code came about in 1944 when the states and territories agreed with the federal government to jointly administer our construction codes. My shadow minister is of the understanding that we administer the National Construction Code. We do not. We do it in conjunction with our state and territory counterparts. He has had some very derogatory things to say about the code itself, which is sad, because all that does is shake confidence. In the overwhelming majority of examples, our state and territory counterparts are doing the right thing and enforcing the law the way that it is written.

I will say, also, while I have the opportunity—and the member for Fairfax used this exact term, and I said it across the desk to my shadow minister—that we on this side have obviously been, for almost five years, very keen on free trade. However, as the minister responsible for this portfolio, I know it is extremely important that free trade should be fair trade. Why? Because if it's not, Australian jobs will be put at risk.

I do want to quickly say that at the moment, sadly, manufacturing in this great country is getting a dud rap. There is so much happening, and not just the transitioning from traditional blue-collar jobs to more advanced manufacturing. You have heard a lot said about manufacturing employment over the last week, and you'll hear a lot more in the next week, no doubt, as events unfold in South Australia and Victoria. In the last 12 months there has been a net increase of 15,100 jobs in the manufacturing sector in this country; 6,300 of those have come in Victoria and 3,700 in South Australia, with the rest spread around the country.

There are many, many good transition stories. I was at the University of South Australia recently with SMR Automotive, who were traditionally a component supplier to Holden. They are now, with a collaboration that's occurred through a Cooperative Research Centre project—a CRC-P—working with the University of South Australia. They've come up with a new plastic adhesive. The traditional rear-view mirror and side door mirror on the car is now made with their groundbreaking plastic technology. This is a world first—patented and implemented here. They've just signed in excess of $75 million worth of global deals. In South Australia and Victoria the transition that is occurring in the motor industry is from being builders of entire cars to becoming part of a global supply chain. SMR is the classic example of that, and it is but one. I have travelled around Victoria, including Deakin University—the carbon hub there, and the carbon revolution that is happening there. One of the companies in the seat of the member for Corangamite had a 25-person team in Germany in R&D. They have moved those 25 people back here to Australia to do their research and development.

I thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for its recent consideration of the bill, particularly its recommendation that this bill be passed by the Senate. The government will respond to the report they issued during that debate because an effective antidumping system is an essential part of this government's commitment to free and fair trade. The antidumping system is complex. This requires us in government to maintain constant vigilance to ensure it keeps up with the changing nature of international trade as well as the ability to act rapidly when significant issues arise, and this was quite clearly one of those. The government continually monitors the efficiency and effectiveness of the antidumping system and consults closely with Australian industry in evaluating the need for further improvements.

I thank the chamber for considering this bill. It will assist in maintaining the integrity of our antidumping system and provide relief and certainty for Australian industry being injured by dumped or subsidised goods and, most importantly, look after, ultimately, Australian jobs. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context