Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to 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.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2013 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013. I was going to make a very short speech. It is a bit rich to be lectured by the member for Indi. She is a shadow minister in a political party that wants to take half a billion dollars out of a manufacturing sector that manufactures cars in this country—which, of course, supports 255,000 jobs in her home state of Australia—so it is a bit rich to be lectured by her in relation to manufacturing.

I would like to give a bit of a history lesson in terms of legislative achievement and reform. As the Minister for Home Affairs said when he introduced the bills, this is the sixth tranche of anti-dumping legislation to be introduced into the parliament in the last two years. That is worth noting, and we should consider the reform in these two pieces of legislation in that context. The first tranche, passed by this parliament in November 2011, imposed a time limit on prime ministerial decisions in anti-dumping and countervailing cases. It also clarified that all appropriate and relevant factors which may materially injure an Australian industry are specifically listed as factors to which a minister could have regard in exercising his discretion. It clarified that parties with a clear interest in anti-dumping matters are expressly given an opportunity to participate in anti-dumping investigations. In fact, it enhanced their locus standi.

Tranche 2, which passed the parliament in February last year, established a new appeals process—the review officer panel to replace the existing appeals mechanism established in the legislation—and established the International Trade Remedies Forum in legislation. Tranche 3 made several changes, including removing the limitation to the inclusion of profit when constructing a normal value of a good and removing the need for a separate review of anti-dumping measures and a continuation inquiry when they occurred in close proximity to one another. Tranche 4 better aligned the anti-dumping and countervailing system with the system's WTO counterparts; introduced provisions designed to address the circumvention of trade measures; and strengthened the ability of the anti-dumping system to address parties' non-cooperation during the investigation process. Tranche 5, which passed parliament in March, established the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. I would like to see what the member for Indi said in relation to that. I am pleased that they have offered their support in relation to those pieces of legislation that have passed.

The sixth tranche of legislation, to which these bills relate, pertains to three key things: removing in certain circumstances the need for the minister to consider the lesser duty rule; clarifying the application of existing retrospective duties provisions; and introducing a new type of anti-circumvention inquiry to address the sales at a loss cases. I do not propose to look in detail at those three measures. They are part of the package of reform. These bills, with the previous five tranches of legislation, are the most significant improvement to Australia's anti-dumping regime in more than a decade. We are doing what the Howard government failed to do when they were in office. We are assisting the manufacturing industry to make sure that trade in this country is both free and fair. Our economy is strong, but some industries and some regions continue to do it tough.

This legislation particularly helps my electorate of Blair where there is a large manufacturing base in Ipswich. Industry, companies and workers are damaged when goods from overseas are dumped on the Australian market. It is unfair and that is why it is important we have a fair and effective anti-dumping regime. These reforms ensure that we better align our laws with the laws and practices of other countries, particularly those in our region.

We believe in fair trade, free trade and open trade. We benefit from access to overseas markets. We are a great trading nation in terms of our goods and services, and imports also benefit our consumers and Australian businesses. The reforms in these bills will help provide certainty and confidence for business, while ensuring that we meet our WTO obligations. I commend the bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.