Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context