Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I started speaking on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011 last night there were no Labor speakers listed. I called on them to come and represent their electorates and speak on anti-dumping. I see this morning there are now Labor members who will speak on this bill.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I reluctantly rise on a point of order. The member should not mislead the House. If you look at the speaking list yesterday—

Mr Secker interjecting—

there were a number of members listed. Those opposite continued to call quorum during divisions—

Mr Secker interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the House has made his point and the Opposition Whip will desist from interjection.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased that, after my call for the members opposite to represent their electorates, there are now speakers to follow. I will call on them not only to speak on this legislation but, given that what we are discussing is about the manufacturing sector, to pressure their government to provide positive policies for the manufacturing sector—not a carbon tax to keep driving investment and jobs out of Australia.

On the issue of this bill, as I said last night, there has been no greater acknowledgement of the failure of equity and trade than the failure through Doha to deliver particularly to the agricultural sector. This process has been acknowledged as not having produced a lot that is concrete. It is important that we have effective anti-dumping laws in this nation. World Trade Organisation Director-General Pascal Lamy is on record as saying that the process of trade liberalisation and equalisation is failing. He stated that the gap between member states 'is not bridgeable'. In addition, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht told European lawmakers 'there is no reason to be optimistic' that negotiations can be concluded successfully. That is why, in framing our debate over this bill, we have said that this is a work in progress. Anti-dumping laws are very important and they need to be continued to be worked on to encourage fair trade and to reflect the needs of manufacturers in this nation, be they in food or elsewhere in the broad range of quality manufacturing that we are capable of in this country. The anti-dumping measure we see here is modest in its improvements, but trade must be fair. This is a work in progress and it is on that basis that I support this bill.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to lend my support to Labor's latest demonstration of its commitment to regional employment and to a competitive manufacturing industry, via the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill. This bill draws and builds upon two of the finest elements of the Labor tradition: our commitment to an open, prosperous and competitive economy and our equally strong commitment to preserving jobs and supporting manufacturing industries, especially in regional Australia.

The bill forms part of the first tranche of improvements to Australia's anti-dumping regime announced by Minister for Home Affairs O'Connor and Minister for Trade Emerson on 22 June. It represents the most important overhaul of anti-dumping measures in a decade. It will provide greater safeguards for Australian manufacturers against deliberately underpriced foreign goods. The dumping of unfairly priced foreign goods has long been a major concern to industry and workers in regional electorates like mine in Newcastle.

Upon our election in 2007, the federal Labor government became acutely aware of the weakness in the previous anti-dumping arrangements. Industry, unions and the communities sustained by manufacturing made very clear their concern that Australia's safeguards against dumping were not up to the task. Even a cursory examination of the evidence available demonstrated that these complaints had some merit. In particular, it was clear that comparable nations, including Canada and the United States, had much more robust safeguards against the types of dumping activity that were affecting Australia.

As a first step to reform, on 3 July 2008 the Council of Australian Governments affirmed their support for a strengthening of anti-dumping arrangements. Accordingly, in March 2009, then Assistant Treasurer Bowen directed the Productivity Commission to review the adequacy and rationale of our anti-dumping arrangements. The Productivity Commission publicly released its report in early 2010 and its recommendations form the basis of the bill we are considering today. Most importantly, the commission concluded there were strong grounds for a robust and effective anti-dumping system. But, echoing concerns from a range of community, business and employee groups, the commission concluded there were a number of serious deficiencies in the anti-dumping safeguards. The government has accepted, either in full or in part, 15 of the commission's 20 recommendations.

The package of 29 new measures announced by Minister O'Connor and Minister Emerson on 22 June represents the most far-reaching overhaul of our anti-dumping arrangements in over a decade, giving greater security to Australian manufacturers from deliberately underpriced foreign imports. The bill amends division 5 of Part XVB of the Customs Act 1901, giving effect to a number of those 29 new measures. It reflects four key principles of the government's package. Firstly, a new time limit on ministerial decisions will give greater certainty to all parties involved in dumping cases. It will require the responsible minister to reach a decision within 30 days of receiving a report or a recommendation on which to make a determination. This will give all parties involved—whether the foreign importer accused of dumping or the business or worker whose prosperity is being undercut by unfair practices—greater certainty about when their case will be resolved. Although it has long been the practice of the federal Labor government to reach a decision within 30 days, this will bind this government and future governments to that time line and provide greater certainty to all parties involved.

Secondly, the government will boost confidence in the integrity of our arrangements by widening the definition of 'anti-dumping' to better reflect its adverse impact on jobs, industry and communities. So, when determining whether material injury has occurred—the key test of imposing anti-dumping duties—the responsible minister may now consider the impact on jobs and investment in industry. This is a commonsense decision that I warmly endorse. We cannot expect workers or businesses to have any confidence in an open and liberal trading system if we cannot protect their job security or investment in their industry from unfair and predatory competition. hirdly, these measures will mean that the set of policy levers in place to respond to dumping are comparable to other nations'. Again this represents another common sense decision. For too long, comparable nations, including the US and Canada, have been able to impose higher duties than Australia on the same goods dumped in the same circumstances. By removing these anomalies and ensuring better consistency with comparable nations we will ensure that Australian industries are competing on a more level playing field with our trading partners.

Finally, we will significantly improve transparency by widening the number of parties that can participate in antidumping investigations. This bill will clarify that industry associations, trade unions and downstream industries who have a direct interest can now be treated as an interested party and participate in investigations. Ensuring that decision makers have access to as much relevant information as possible and making decision-making processes as transparent as possible are fundamental principles of good governance. Widening the range of bodies that can contribute to an investigation will provide all parties greater confidence that the most informed and transparent decision will be made on dumping cases. These amendments will make substantive and commonsense changes to our antidumping arrangements. They are fully compliant with our World Trade Organisation and other international obligations.

It should be noted there was one important recommendation from the Productivity Commission's report that the government does not accept and that is its proposal for a bounded public interest test. We understand the Productivity Commission's interest in ensuring that broader public interest, especially that of consumers, is taken into account on antidumping decisions, but under present arrangements the responsible minister already has more than adequate scope to take account of the public interest implications of any decision to impose antidumping duties—and I think that at this stage that is working in a satisfactory way—nor is there a compelling case, at least as far as I am aware it, that our present antidumping safeguards have in any way impinged substantially on consumer or other unrelated public interests. The Productivity Commission's proposal, although very well intentioned, would simply have placed an unnecessary brake on the government's ability to apply remedies to proven dumping activities.

It is no surprise that these changes have been widely applauded by unions, businesses and communities. Australian Industry Group Chief Executive Heather Ridout stated:

These improvements will help create a stronger, more credible and transparent anti-dumping regime for Australia. They are critical for Australian business to effectively combat the predatory sale of under-priced product on the local market and to support the ongoing health of domestic industries.

The 45 per cent increase in Customs staff under this new system working on antidumping issues over the next 12 months is an important part of that improvement.

Of course there have been some armchair commentators who continue to regard antidumping measures as an offence to the supposed purity of true free trade. For example, I note that just last week Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs described antidumping laws as nonsense and pure protectionism. The federal Labor government and I reject that view entirely. Rather than detract from liberal trading systems, a robust and effective antidumping system actually reinforces community confidence in free trade and puts more rigour into competitive trade internationally. One of the fundamental principles of any free trade system is that it be based on a level playing field. Measures against dumping ensure that such a level playing field is maintained.

The simple reality is that no government, no business, no community and no union anywhere in the world can or should tolerate domestic industry being undercut by unfair trading practices. If such predatory undercutting was allowed to run rampant, it would serve only to strengthen support for protectionism and undermine the very system of open and competitive trade upon which our prosperity depends. Under the government's package a new support officer will support small and medium businesses and domestic manufacturers and producers to actively participate in investigations around dumping.

Dumping also has particular significance for regional areas like Newcastle and the Hunter. Although the incidence of dumping has decreased in recent years, the sectors where it still occurs—paper production, aluminium and other related industries—are overwhelmingly concentrated in regional areas. By implementing these measures, the government is recognising the increased pressure faced by many of Australia's manufacturing industries. Although, sadly, the federal government cannot influence many of the factors putting pressure on manufacturing, such as higher commodity prices and the value of the Australian dollar, we can do something about policing unfair foreign competition.

I note that many members of the opposition have, for I suppose all sorts reasons, recently discovered a belated interest in the manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, despite all of that, the opposition are yet to put forward a single positive policy to provide support to Australian manufacturing. Yes, I am pleased that the coalition will be lending their support to this vital bill, but this will not be the last test of their resolve to support manufacturing jobs. In the coming months, federal Labor will present bills to effect our industry assistance programs under the Clean Energy Future plan. This will provide members on the opposite side of the chamber with a very clear and very unambiguous opportunity to demonstrate whether they genuinely support assistance for jobs in manufacturing and in regional Australia. I wonder whether the member for Warringah, with his oft-stated concern for the steel industry, will vote for or against support for steelworker jobs in Whyalla, the Illawarra or Newcastle under the $300 million Steel Transformation Plan. On 11 August, Senator Joyce waxed lyrical in a press release about the continued threat of unemployment in his home state of Queensland. So the question for Senator Joyce is will he vote for or against the $9.2 billion Jobs and Competitiveness Program, which will provide direct support to industries in Queensland? The member for Paterson, Mr Baldwin, will have a clear choice to support or oppose assistance to mines and mineworkers in his own electorate under the $1.3 billion Coal Sector Jobs Package.

This bill demonstrates very clearly Labor's ongoing support for manufacturing jobs in Australia. It is not about spin and it is not about getting a good visual of a leader on the evening news wearing a hard hat and feigning interest in regional jobs, which is the Leader of the Opposition's wont these days; it is about enacting real-world measures that will make a tangible difference to the pressures currently faced by our manufacturing industries. I commend this bill to the House.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is important and long overdue legislation, and it does a range of things which are in the interest of all Australians and Australian industry. This is the first legislation to implement the changes to anti-dumping measures that were announced on 22 June and they are the most important improvements to our anti-dumping regime in probably more than a decade. These changes will improve the administration of anti-dumping measures in Australia and will better align our laws with the laws of other nations. Even more importantly, they will rebalance the playing field to ensure as best as possible that dumping does not take place. Anti-dumping can be complex. Dumping of products in Australia can be a very complex matter, but the very fact that there are a number of anti-dumping cases where anti-dumping measures have been taken and the significant measures taken over numbers of years demonstrates that dumping in Australia actually does take place, so I think we should acknowledge that fact upfront. In fact, it takes place in many countries around the world.

We should not be afraid to support our industries, and we should not be afraid to do the right thing in terms of Australian manufacturing and jobs where there is clear evidence of dumping taking place. I am not a protectionist. I do not believe that protectionism in the end is good for anybody. It is certainly not good for Australian industry and it is not good for Australian jobs. Protectionism, in the end, means that everybody loses. I think consumers ought to have the right to the best available products and the cheapest available prices and that we should all compete on those grounds. However, dumping is not about that. It is not about cheap products; it is about dumping products. It is where a product is dumped into this country at a rate cheaper than it is in its home country. There is more than enough evidence and there are more than enough cases to demonstrate this. What this government has done is look at those matters and a number of cases across the country very closely to ensure that we do not penalise our own industries through a lack of robust rules and regulations around how this takes place.

There is the argument that it can be quite a complex set of circumstances, but no minister in this or any other government should be tied to legislation that prevents that minister from acting in the best interests of this country or in our national interest through poor legislation. What the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, has done by the introduction of these amendments, the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill, is redress that imbalance and those irregularities. Not only will this improve the regulatory framework and give the minister the right platform to operate from, but the regulatory frameworks that we will now have in place with the legislation will mean that other countries importing goods into Australia have a clearer understanding of how our rules work, what our expectations are of them and also that they should meet their WTO obligations, as we do. I am very confident that what we have put on the table is good for everybody in the industry.

I want to make it very clear that I am a supporter of consumer protection and I am also a supporter of consumer value. I do not believe we ought to protect an industry where it cannot compete or does not innovate and do everything that it can to compete and properly deliver value to Australian consumers. In the end, that should not be what we are about. The short-term gain that somebody might have by paying a few dollars less for a particular product can actually mean long-term pain for our economy, for industry and, in the end, for consumers. At the same time, that should not equate to seeing whole businesses and whole industries wiped out completely because another country or a particular company decides it is going to dump product in Australia for whatever purpose but often for the purpose of actually destroying those particular industries in this country and our capacity to complete. As complex as this is, at the same time, I think it is quite simple: we need to get that balance right, and I believe that is what we have done.

It is also important to stress that where a particular industry is under threat from competition government ought to help and assist in whatever way we can, within the WTO rules, because we expect the same of other countries. We expect when we export products, goods and services that we are treated fairly. We see cases on a monthly and yearly basis showing just how important this is. But we ought to be cognisant of the fact that there are certain industries in this country—manufacturing in particular—where, if they are attacked by dumped products into this country, some of those industries cannot survive, cannot compete, will never be able to compete and cannot be rebuilt once they disappear. That frightens me, because I think there needs to be a substantial manufacturing base in this country. We need to provide the capacity and the support from a government perspective to ensure there is innovation and that industry can work its way through some of these difficult times. I am certain people agree with me that there are certain things we probably do not need to make any more of in this country because we just cannot compete. The evidence is everywhere, sometimes right on our backs, in terms of the clothes we wear. It is very difficult to compete in some of those environments and the reality is that most Australians cannot afford or will not pay the sorts of prices necessary for some of those products to be manufactured in this country. That does not mean, though, that we cannot compete at boutique and other levels and have niche markets and so forth.

This legislation takes all of that into account, and I think the work that the government has done in this area is really good. I believe that we have not only strengthened our anti-dumping legislation but also met our World Trade Organisation obligations fully. I think that we demonstrate this to other countries in the way that we deal with them and that we will not, in response to what we have done, have any retaliatory impacts. We support free trade globally. I also support fair trade. There is a significant difference between free trade and fair trade and how they actually work. Again, that carries right across the board, whether it is in manufacturing or in food products. Australia is a trading country. Our economy is based on trade. We are just too small a country in terms of real numbers, with 23 million people, for our domestic market to support our industries, our manufacturing and our production. We have been a wealthy country since before federation, based on the fact that we trade. We are an exporting country. We export much more than we import. So, in terms of the way that we want to be treated by other countries, we ought to apply the same principles and same philosophies to ourselves in how we treat them. his legislation is also about supporting the Australian manufacturing industry. There are plenty of examples of good Australian companies, some of which are well known. I will not name them, but I know there are a lot of large organisations that have struggled under an archaic system of anti-dumping regulation. They have tried to be innovative, to be competitive, to meet market demands and compete where there was clear evidence of dumping. They have had to deal with all of those matters while, at the same time, try to grow a business and a market in Australia.

This legislation does four key things which are very important. It imposes a time limit on ministerial decisions. This means the minister has to make a decision and I think that is important. It also clarifies for the minister what he can consider and that he has to consider all appropriate factors which may indicate dumping. That was not the case in the past when the minister was limited in the information that he could take on board and had no time frame in which to make that decision. It also expands the list of actionable subsidies and clarifies that parties with a clear interest are given an opportunity to participate in anti-dumping investigations.

It brings together a sensible set of rules which mean that all of those involved, including people and organisations with allegations of dumping against them, can work quicker to remove any dumping in place. Where dumping is taking place in Australia, the company is made aware of it and changes its practices to remove the component of dumping, we should not impose a penalty against the company for a longer period than is necessary to address the dumping itself. It is about fairness. In the end, if we are genuine about preventing dumping, that is all it should be. It should not continue for months or years beyond the dumping itself.

The amendments will provide that the minister will exercise the decision-making powers within 30 days of receiving a report or recommendation on which to make a decision. Currently there are no legislative time constraints governing the minister's decision. This poses a whole range of administrative problems for a minister. The benefits of imposing this time frame are more than obvious. It provides greater certainty for all parties and reduces the overall period in which the minister can act. There is also a consideration of injury factors. There is a lot of controversy about material injury and how it takes place, particularly as dumping can be acceptable if it does not particularly injure an Australian industry. We have made how that works clearer. There is also a list of economic factors which a minister may take into account when dealing with these matters.

Currently interested parties are defined as domestic manufacturers and producers, importers, exporters, trade organisations and foreign governments. Clearly there are current stakeholders who should be involved in investigations, some of which are prevented from doing so. I do not think that is appropriate. We should have everybody at the table. This is too important an issue when you consider what the outcomes can be. An outcome may be a loss of jobs or that consumers do not get the best value for money. In the long term, it can also lead to the end of particular industries or organisations that have worked really hard to compete on a global platform. These amendments specify that trade unions, industry associations and downstream industry, whether or not they are importers but who have a direct interest, can be treated as interested parties. That is a worthy amendment and it is a welcome change. It will also mean that reports and recommendations made to the minister take into account the views of a much broader range of stakeholders.

In the end these amendments are fair. They are fair changes for Australia; they are in our national interest. They are also fair for countries that export to Australia; they are fair for industry and also for consumers. We have strengthened legislation and regulation that was inadequate for a changing global environment. We have done that and met our World Trade Organisation obligations. These amendments are about getting the balance right. Talking about getting the balance right, this will be demonstrated today when the opposition has its opportunity to support these very good changes and amendments that will support Australian industry and Australian jobs. This really good legislative change should have the full support of the opposition. I commend the amendments to the House.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Customs Amendments (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. This legislation is about providing fairness and security after a decade of indifference. We see this in a lot of things that the government has had to do during the previous term and the past few years, whether it be guaranteeing bank deposits or the work we are now doing trying to prepare the horse industry for the potential of equine influenza. We see it in this bill because for a decade or so many problems that were brought to the then conservative government's attention were simply ignored. The previous government sat on its hands on a whole range of issues, some of which I have mentioned. You can look at disability reform and aged-care reform—these problems did not emerge with the election of a Labor government. These problems have been around for a great deal of time, and so it is with dumping of products in our markets.

The member for Oxley talked about free trade. I think most Australians are free-traders. We understand that we are an exporting nation and that we send more products overseas than we import. We are a country with a small population base and our comparative advantages are in mining at the moment, as well as in exporting wine, wheat, wool and our manufactured goods. We understand that protectionism is largely a siren song. It is a very tempting siren song. There is a tale about the Scullin government: that you could not move for seeing members of the government and the opposition with tariff lobbyists. I do not think anybody wants to return to those days because we understand that protectionism actually costs jobs, reduces wealth and stops incomes from growing. Largely it is counterproductive; it protects industries that cannot last in the longer term.

I do not think this is a question of free trade or fair trade versus protectionism. I think that dumping of goods is profoundly unfair not just to Australian industry but to anybody who wants to import to Australia, anybody who is not importing goods at a lower cost than that at which they can produce them. he dumping of goods raises a question of fairness and security around the rules for trade. People do not mind competing, but they want to compete on a fair and level playing field.

I heard the member for Barker in this debate talking about some of the issues that have emerged in the south-east, particularly as a result of the dumping of toilet paper, and some of the adjustments that Kimberly-Clark have had to make there. He made some criticism of the $17 million provided by this government for structural adjustment to help workers and to help the local community adjust to the job losses and changes. I think he was a little cynical. It is possible to be cynical around this place. Cynicism is the great scourge of modern life; people tend to be cynical rather than believing. But I have had some experience of these structural adjustment funds. Bridgestone closed in my electorate and we worked very closely with Job Services Australia providers and with the bureaucrats, unions and business involved. We were pushy about getting people jobs because we knew about the transition from one job to the next. We knew that people were transferring from manufacturing jobs where they had worked for decades. For many it had been their only job; others had only had a couple of jobs. So it was a profoundly insecure time for them.

We found that working with those bodies and pushing bureaucrats, job service providers and others to get good outcomes was the key. Standing back and being cynical and taking pot shots did not help the process, because workers feel that cynicism. Hopelessness is often a really corrosive thing for job seekers. It depends on whether you roll up your sleeves and get stuck into it. We have to accept that the high Aussie dollar and the change in our terms of trade present some challenges for manufacturing. Those challenges differ industry to industry, but we know that we have to adjust to them, and part of this government's approach to this adjustment is to provide a fair and level playing field, and this anti-dumping legislation is part of that.

Leon Byner is a talkback radio presenter in my home state. He is a great friend of the member for Hindmarsh; I know they have a great friendship both on and off the air. I must say that Leon Byner and I spar a bit, but he has been very good on this issue. He has done a lot to bring the issue of the dumping of goods and the profound unfairness, to Australians and others, into the public eye. I know that he has taken a great interest in this. He has defined this phenomenon as being a situation where somebody imports something for a price less than what you can buy it at the market where the import comes from. His public advocacy of this has done a great deal—not to fan the siren songs of protectionism but as a great call for fairness in our trading system. I would certainly like to add my voice to that.

We know that this is not a new problem. In fact, in 2002 Bill Shorten, who was then the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, spoke in response to some of the things that were going on with steel tariffs in the United States and other places, and some of the dumping of steel that was occurring into the American market. The now member for Maribyrnong said:

We need tougher anti-dumping laws and clear local content requirements on major infrastructure projects.

That was way back on 7 March 2002. So we know that this is not a new problem. We know that OneSteel, the year before, brought an anti-dumping case against several steel manufacturers from Korea. This has been a problem for some time and you might wonder why a decade or so has passed before this parliament is finally dealing with it.

This is tremendously important legislation. We know that it affects workers, unions, businesses and others. Other speakers have talked about the very important merits of this bill and the fact that we have improved time lines, increased staff for Customs and created a 30-day time limit for ministerial decisions that makes sure that anti-dumping cases move quickly. We know that the injury that dumping causes is immediate but that it often takes some time to get anti-dumping cases up. Justice delayed is justice denied. If the injury is done we should do all we can to get quick action in response.

This bill provides for stronger compliance. We want to make sure that there is a dedicated resource within Customs and we want to make sure that they are out there working as hard as they can on compliance. We want improved decision making, greater use of trade and industry experts in investigating complaints and the introduction of a rigorous appeals process supported by more resources. And we want to clarify the list of injury factors that can be claimed by domestic industry. We want to clarify the Customs approach to those determinations. We want to provide flexibility in allowing extensions of time to complex cases while keeping that immediacy there.

We want better access to the anti-dumping system and a new support officer to help small and medium business and downstream manufacturers to participate in these investigations and actions. We want to improve the data that is available so that people can make their cases. We want to clarify who can participate in investigations and provide more access to anti-dumping regimes for unions, for businesses and for individuals who are injured by dumping into our markets. e want to make sure that we have greater consistency with other countries, with regular consideration of practices and decisions of other countries, allowing Australian companies to combat a wider range of subsidies. All of this, I might say, is consistent with the World Trade Organisation approach. It is consistent with the international trading system, which is an important system that has brought down tariffs across the world in the postwar period. People often get very frustrated about the levels of protection elsewhere, but we do find that, over time, tariffs have reduced. Most importantly, we have not had a flight to protectionism during these times of great financial upheaval. That is one of the things that happened during the Great Depression, when the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States unleashed a wave of protection which stopped world trade. That caused job losses and overall economic decline, with a decline in incomes not just for workers but for pensioners and others. We want to make sure that that does not occur.

There have been many groups in society which have welcomed this legislation. Mr Willox, the Director of International and Government Relations at the Australian Industry Group, said on 5AA—no doubt on Mr Byner's program—that this is 'undeniably good news for Australian business'. The National Farmers Federation said it was:

… very important that industries like agriculture, that have legitimate claims against dumped exports, have the opportunity to seek a remedy for this through Australia's anti-dumping system, ensuring unfair trading practices can be challenged.

As I said before, many of my constituents, and I think Australians generally, understand that we are an exporting nation, that we must necessarily be a free-trading nation. But they want fair rules, not a return to protectionism—not favours but fairness. That is an important principle, not just in this legislation but in all legislation.

This bill, like so many others, is about providing fairness and security in a troubled world, after a decade of indifference by the previous government. It was a decade of saying, 'She'll be right!' no matter where you look—at the fact that we did not have guaranteed bank deposits, at the fact that we were profoundly unprepared for the onset of equine influenza and at the fact that we did not save enough money out of the first mining boom when some $300 billion extra went into government coffers. For all the chest beating by the opposition about how much they saved during that period and about their wonderful surpluses, we as a nation did not save enough.

We now know, given what has happened to the rest of the world, that we live in an uncertain and insecure world. It is world which has great challenges that require international cooperation, but they also require this parliament and the Australian people to have honest discussions about how we prepare ourselves, how we insulate ourselves and how we provide ourselves with security in this uncertain world. And I tell you this: it will not come from protectionism. It will not come from a 'fortress Australia' mentality or from the idea that we can somehow stand apart from the challenges in the financial world or in climate change or in international economic cooperation. We cannot simply put up the shutters and pretend the rest of the world does not exist. We know these are challenging times. We must participate and we must take sensible measures to secure ourselves. This anti-dumping legislation is exactly that sort of measure and I commend it to the House.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. At the outset I would like to make a few observations to the House about concerns that are repeatedly expressed by members of the Hindmarsh community, the community in South Australia and the wider population. These concerns are genuine and stem from our rapidly changing global economy.

We have seen global capital shift from country to country and manufacturing shift from country to country and region to region. We have seen the changing profitability of domestic and local production, the questionable sustainability of old and long-held jobs in manufacturing and the divergence of what industry we have and what we consider normal and good. Ultimately, and especially in my electorate, we have seen many, many manufacturing jobs disappear. We had textile factories, other factories and manufacturing hubs that serviced the auto industry in South Australia, but I could now write a whole list of what has disappeared from my electorate over the last 20 years.

Our community has been concerned over many years, and rightly so, about what Australian industry is, what our industrial landscape should consist of and what jobs should be expected to remain open to successive generations. All of that is morphing. Whether these ideas and views are accurate or not, people often see change as a loss. Where there is a shift in the composition of a town's industry or the proportion of industry within any one sector, people too often view the shift as a net loss of opportunity for that area's population. But data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for instance, may attest to change promoting opportunity, not enshrining its contraction. We may see the Australian industrial landscape morphing over time, with the proportions of certain industries lessening as new industries increase and grow, but generally we see the Australian population continuing in employment. We have one of the lowest unemployment figures ever, as our workforce is engaging in different sectors and doing different types of work compared with in the fifties, sixties and seventies. But these observations do not diminish the real fear of change that exists in our community or the insecurity that people may feel about our industries and our workforce. Each situation through which we travel holds some reference to our changing industrial landscape. We have all passed Coles or Woolworth and been reminded of our agricultural challenges and the ready availability of imported goods that we see on the shelves of our supermarkets. When we compare items as dissimilar as socks and solar panels, tea sets and televisions, we are reminded of just how much of what we consume is imported from overseas. Even driving along any road we are reminded of the apparent loss of the service stations that used to exist in our neighbourhoods. Small independent business people notionally have been driven to the wall by larger, better resourced corporations. So this is a debate that is taking place and a conversation that continually happens in my electorate about the old industries and the new industries. It is not about protectionism or being anti-trade; it is about having a sustainable way for these businesses to survive and grow and to give opportunities to people to start businesses.

We are engaged in trade with companies from overseas for very, very good reasons, including, principally, our own generation and maintenance of the wealth and high living standards that we have here in this country. But the penetration of so much overseas product into our daily lives—and, as I said, we see it every day on the shelves of our supermarkets—gives people cause for concern for the manufacturing sector that we still have in many parts of Australia.

The rules of international trade, always evolving, are derided by many, especially in terms of comparable tariff protection, but they continue to be observed by the Australian population. While some may say that there is no virtue in being more observant of the rules than our competitors, I would certainly welcome the ongoing application of the rules that exist, to which we as a nation subscribe in the protection of Australian jobs. The anticompetitive conduct of companies—for example, in the domestic market—of which people typically so vehemently disapprove, must also be prevented in the international trade markets. Predatory pricing, for example, the dumping of goods at below-cost prices to injure competitors, is prohibited in all its forms. Our law is meant to protect our companies from such conduct, and the maintenance of the effectiveness of our laws must remain a priority for all governments of Australia.

The bill before us has the precise purpose of maintaining the effectiveness of such a law. The bill addresses an accidental error of logic imposed by the courts in good faith. The area is as simple as it is clear, and it could be erroneously applied to many areas of government.

If we cannot prove collusion between oil companies with regard to keeping the price of petrol artificially high at any one time, should we scrap our anti-collision laws? Certainly not. If we cannot prove that predatory pricing is being perpetrated by the big supermarkets at any one time, should we scrap the laws that penalise it? If we have not imported pests or disease with foreign apples or pears for a time, should we discard our quarantine and inspection services? These are all legitimate questions. The purpose of Australian law is not only to stop a prescribed activity that has already commenced; it is also to prevent a prescribed activity, the threat of which hangs over us, waiting for an opportunity.

The law we address here today is that of the Customs Act 1901, which became the unwitting victim of our legal system. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Home Affairs. I commend him and applaud him for making these changes, because these are the first changes we have seen in this area for many, many years. Minister Brendan O'Connor explained in his second reading speech on the bill the unfortunate situation that arose from the judgment of the full Federal Court last year.

I would like to add to what the member for Wakefield said about this being highlighted on the Leon Byner show in South Australia on 5AA. I would like to congratulate Leon as well for raising this as an issue, informing people that this was a real issue and that we did need some changes made in this area. This issue became the subject of a typical conversation in South Australia, especially on his program. I congratulate Leon on bringing this to the attention of the public. In fact, he interviewed the minister on a number of occasions on this issue.

We cannot have a situation in which a law devised for the proper implementation and enforcement of trade rules is undermined and, I should say, removed from potential application simply because there has been no unlawful activity in the recent past. We have the law not only to enforce proper behaviour when a party is tempted to cross the line but also to establish acceptable behaviour and to proclaim what is right and what will not be tolerated.

I would fully expect all members and senators to get behind the government on this matter—and I believe they will—to support the community in its concern for the maintenance of fair trade and anti-dumping rules within our jurisdiction and to support this government's bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011 and wish to make a few brief observations about its importance in the panoply of policy measures that are needed to assist local producers. I note that this bill is about dumping and anti-dumping and it is a broad issue that affects the agricultural and manufacturing sectors, but the observations I wish to make are in relation to manufacturing, an issue which is of deep concern to the residents of my electorate of Throsby.

It has been observed by previous speakers that, since European settlement, Australia has benefited from the fact that it is a trading nation. In each of the 200 years since white settlement, we have had and relied upon a net inflow of capital to develop our industries and to ensure that we have been able to build a modern economy. Equally, we have relied on the markets of Asia, America and Europe to sell our agricultural resources and manufactured goods. It is beyond belief that anyone could stand in this place and say that Australia as a whole does not benefit from the fact that we are a trading nation integrated into the markets of the world. So the debates that we must have as policymakers are not about whether or not we should be engaged in an open trade with the rest of the world but how indeed we design those markets to ensure that we foster a competitive, robust domestic manufacturing sector at the same time as reaping the benefits that we undoubtedly gain from our natural advantages in the area of resources and agriculture and in many other areas. have made a number of observations over the past two months in this place and elsewhere about the fact that manufacturing is doing it very tough in this country at the moment. Manufacturing is a sector which has employed over one million Australians for well over 50 years, and the circumstances which manufacturing has faced over the last two years are, in my view, the toughest circumstances that we have faced in well over 20 years. They are tougher indeed than the manufacturing sector faced during the global financial crisis.

They are tough because on the one hand we enjoy the benefits of the high prices that our commodities are able to command on international markets, particularly iron ore and coal, and they are no doubt reaping benefits for mining communities and those associated with mining communities. But for electorates such as mine on the other hand the high cost of iron ore and coal directly relates to high input costs for steelmakers and the manufacturing sector. The impact that is having on the Australian dollar is working an economic tsunami through the manufacturing sector such that our manufactured goods are finding it very difficult to compete with imported products from China, India and other places around the world. Added to the very sluggish international demand for steel and other manufactured products we have a very difficult situation indeed.

We need a holistic approach to these issues; there is not one silver bullet. But I welcome the fact that the Minister for Home Affairs has taken this issue seriously and has taken the review that has been commissioned into dumping seriously and brought this bill before this parliament. It is not a silver bullet, but it will help to make a difference. It goes together with our proposals to provide more assistance for research and development to inject literally billions of dollars into innovation and to spend more money in the areas of skills and infrastructure to ensure that we provide our local businesses with a fighting chance in a very difficult world market.

I have a couple of observations about dumping in general and the legislation. The first thing I wish to say is that dumping goods in Australian markets at below cost or below normal price is not an exercise of efficient markets; it is anti-competitive behaviour. The provisions of this bill are aimed at ensuring that we stamp out anti-competitive behaviour. The sole objective of dumping is to ensure that the perpetrator does harm to their natural competitors, to drive them out of the market place so that they then have the capacity to command greater prices than they would otherwise be able to command in a more competitive marketplace. Dumping is not competitive behaviour and it is not evidence of an efficiently operating market; it is anti-competitive behaviour designed to drive out the competition, and therefore any responsible government is required to put in place responsible measures to stamp it out.

The second observation I would make is built upon the experience of a conversation I had on Monday with a manufacturer from my electorate, when he was in Canberra to talk to a number of ministers and departments about circumstances facing his business, Metal Manufacturers—MM Kembla—a copper pipe and a wire manufacturer based in Port Kembla in my electorate. They have had significant experience with the previous anti-dumping provisions in the legislation. In 1998 they had cause to bring action for anti-competitive dumping behaviour by a Korean merchant who was offering cheap copper tube at well below market price. This had the very real threat—if allowed to run its course—of making Metal Manufacturers lay off literally hundreds of workers because they were losing some of their traditional markets.

One of the observations that the CEO of that company made to me was that a problem with the existing system was it took too long. Their action was commenced in 1998 and they still did not have a remedy in place until 2001, and even when the remedy was put in place we saw the perpetrator flouting that remedy by continuing to offer their goods on the Australian market at well below the normal price for those goods. So timeliness is critical and having a credible remedy is critical. I think that the measures in this bill go some way to addressing those concerns—the concerns of Metal Manufacturers and other employers in my electorate—so I welcome them.

The other observation I would make about this—and why I say that there is no one silver bullet in this area and that we need a raft of measures to assist manufacturing—is that even with provisions such as this in place employers and manufacturers are going to be very reticent to take action because it puts at risk the markets and the relationships that they have. Whilst the legislation is good, and it is an important part of an overall raft of measures to assist manufacturing, the implementation of these measures is going to be critical. I welcome the fact that in addition to the new measures within the bill the minister has succeeded in beefing up the resources that are available to the Australians Customs and Border Protection Service and others to ensure that we have a tough cop on the beat to assist manufacturers and others to enjoy the benefits of these new measures. I commend the bill to the House and once again thank the minister for taking the issue seriously.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member who acknowledged the importance of the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011. This is an important bill realising reforms that were announced by the government in June this year. I would like to take a moment to thank those who contributed to the debate. Before I do, I present a replacement explanatory memorandum entitled Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011.

As I was saying, this is an important bill and I do thank those who contributed to this debate. I thank the member for Throsby for his generous words and I also thank the members for Indi, Barker, Fadden, Hughes, Murray, Blair, Wakefield, Newcastle, Hindmarsh and Oxley for their contributions. The fact that the opposition has supported this bill is a good thing. In the typical generosity of spirit that the member for Indi is renowned for, she attacked the government but commended the bill. She, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, chairs an anti-dumping task force which does not seem to have much force or any meaningful tasks, but I do applaud the opposition for seeing sense and supporting this bill.

It is somewhat disappointing that these reforms were not undertaken some time ago, perhaps 10 years ago, but these reforms are important. We need to ensure that industry and workers in this country are afforded sufficient support. We as a government support trade. Trade has brought great wealth to this nation; we are a great exporter and, indeed, we are an importer. We support the World Trade Organisation rules but we also want to ensure that, when those rules are broken, we have the capacity to support our industry and workers in order to ensure that those rules are not broken again. We need to ensure that we have sufficient capacity to redress the material damage that occurs when people are in breach of WTO rules.

This bill realises some of the announcements that were made in June by me and the Minister for Trade. I would like to thank the Minister for Trade for his work on this matter as well. The package of reforms announced in June reflects the government's response to the Productivity Commission's report into Australia's anti-dumping regime. These reforms also respond to issues that Senator Xenophon identified in his proposed amendments to the anti-dumping system which he introduced into the Senate in March this year. This bill also takes into account issues that have been raised by stakeholders in relation to the operation of Australia's anti-dumping system that were not referred to in the Productivity Commission's report or, indeed, in Senator Xenophon's bill.

I would like to thank the industry representatives, some very significant companies—BlueScope, OneSteel, Orica and many others—and the Australian Industry Group. I would also like to thank the Australian Workers Union—Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath, you know them well—the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union for their very positive contributions on these matters. We have seen representatives of workers and businesses put very positive suggestions to government and I do believe we have done everything we can to engage with them. This bill is an expression of some of the things we are seeking to do to make the anti-dumping regime in this country more effective, more robust and more capable of ensuring that we respond to breaches of WTO rules. An anti-dumping regime is very important to ensure confidence in trade. It is important so that we can ensure that those that are doing the wrong thing are indeed taken to task.

These amendments were also drafted in close consultation with the Office of International Law within the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I would like to thank them for their work along with, of course, my agency, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. They have done an outstanding job in order to ensure that they are consistent with Australia's international obligations.

The government is committed, as I say, to a robust and effective anti-dumping system. This first tranche of reforms directly responds to concerns expressed by stakeholders about the accessibility and timeliness of the anti-dumping system. These amendments will further strengthen the anti-dumping system by enhancing decision making in relation to how material injury to an Australian industry is assessed. They will also enhance accessibility by ensuring that all interested parties with a stake in the anti-dumping system will have the opportunity to participate and be heard in the anti-dumping investigations.

The amendments in the bill also update the legislation to ensure that Australian companies can take action against the full range of subsidies provided by the relevant WTO agreements which specify the types of government subsidies that can be actioned by another country. Finally, in relation to the improved timeliness of the system, these amendments provide that the minister will exercise his or her decision-making powers within 30 days of receiving a report or recommendation on which to make a decision, thereby ensuring that the decision-making process is not unduly protracted. With those words I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.