Dr Dennis Jensen MP

Mr Speaker I welcome the opportunity to debate the anti-dumping measures the Customs Amendment Bill 2011 address.
My electorate of Tangney has two strong industrial and manufacturing regions, Canning Vale and Myaree, with many residents of my electorate employed in both regions.
As well as heavy industry and manufacturing, Canning Vale especially… but also Myaree have small to medium sized enterprises and many mum and dad businesses.
So why is strengthening anti dumping laws important?
Recently a number of business owners and operators have approached my office to discuss how the flood of cheap products and materials into the market is affecting the competitiveness of their business.
These local business people feel cheap imports are undermining their profitability and in some cases their very survival.
Each and every individual felt they could identify a case of dumping that was directly responsible for hurting their business and few felt they would get fair judgement of their case under current anti-dumping laws.
All agreed… stronger and more flexible anti-dumping laws are a welcome measure for business in Tangney.
Complaints from local business in my electorate demonstrate that the present system is too cumbersome and that it places the onus of proof on domestic business rather than on their competitors.
Other complaints are that it applies retrospectively, often after irreversible damage has already been done and that it is generally prohibitively expensive to access.
Make no mistake… while the businesses in my electorate thrive and encourage open and free trade, a foreign manufacturer or producer exporting product into Australia below the price it charges in its home market is the unfair predatory pricing that dumping creates.
As many of Tangney’s businesses are trade and import exposed, small to medium sized enterprises, I am certain many more businesses than have come to see me are directly affected by dumping, with little recourse.
Dumping is a modern form of protectionism with many international trade experts citing it as the most serious impediment to international trade.
Many countries, especially in the EU, have over the past 20-30 years increasingly turned to dumping in order to offer protection to import-competing industries.
Yet, while Australia’s industrial products market is one of the most open markets in the world, the Government only pursues a small number of dumping cases.
Mr Speaker, Anti-Dumping measures allow our government to apply for countervailing duties on goods that have been subsidised by the government of the country of export.
Where dumping or subsidisation results in material injury to local industry, anti-dumping or countervailing duties can be applied.

To demonstrate its seriousness, since 1980 GATT and WTO members have filed more complaints under the international anti-dumping statute than under all other trade laws combined.

Further… more anti-dumping duties are now levied in any one year worldwide than were levied in the entire period 1947-1970.
Dumping hurts the competitiveness of businesses in my electorate and I welcome changes.
From an International law perspective we must be aware that while the Australian anti-dumping system is based on agreed WTO rules and procedures, these measures only benefit a small number of import competing firms while imposing greater costs on the rest of the economy.

In short, International trade policy has little effect on anti-dumping legislation.

Foreign industry can almost guarantee it will not be subject to anti dumping tariffs if it charges high enough prices in its export markets.

Domestic industry might resist lowering its prices because doing so improves its chances of winning an anti-dumping case. The same domestic industry might also lay-off more workers than expected because doing so indicates injury.

My point is, the intricacies of anti- dumping measures are immense and that’s why the productivity commission was asked to investigate our current regime in 2009.

The Productivity Commission’s report looked at some of the ways the current anti-dumping laws impact on the wider economy, with certain anti-dumping measures too easily becoming akin to long-term protection measures or becoming outdated in the face of changing market circumstances.

The report concluded that we need to retain an anti-dumping and countervailing system but also made recommendations about changes to the operation of the current system.

I welcome a national debate on the issue of dumping and look forward to the outcomes reached by the Coalition taskforce headed by Shadow Industry Minister, Sophie Mirabella.

The taskforce will examine the problems with the current regime with the aim of developing substantive policy designed to stop foreign companies dumping cheap products on Australian markets.


The taskforce honours a Coalition election commitment to ensure that Australian manufacturers’ products are not undercut by imported or subsidised products or by products that do not comply with appropriate quality standards.

Again as the Federal Member of an electorate with a heavy import orientated sector, I am proud to say the Coalition is standing up for local industry.

The establishment of this taskforce also acknowledges the widespread call from industry groups for improved access to the current anti-dumping system.

World wide dumping concerns are not new and Australia is playing catch up to the European Union, Japan and the United States.

This coalition taskforce represents the most serious attempt to remedy what is a huge issue for industry in Tangney.

I noticed the budget contained no new money to combat dumping, as was pointed out by the Australian Industry Group CEO Heather Ridout.

If the Labor Party is serious about anti dumping measures it should listen to AWU secretary Paul Howes who has called on his members to write to their local member about dumping.

I welcome Mr Howe’s sentiment, but given his influence in the Labor Party, I wonder why he is putting the onus on his members to force change.

He also hasn’t committed his union to the measures in this bill.

Questions I believe we need to address include:

Whether anti-dumping action should be available in response to imports that only threaten to cause material injury to an industry;

The period Customs have to investigate cases;

And whether the Minister should be expected to take action where dumping is found to exist.

Competition is good for consumers and drives business innovation.

But I am not confident this bill amends all the problems with the existing scheme.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott has highlighted two high profile examples of dumping.

In 2008 and last year we saw a situation where toilet paper from overseas was coming into this country at up to 45 per cent below cost.
Initially, anti-dumping action was taken… but then the Government failed to proceed with the case.

Another situation saw bio-diesel coming into this country at… it’s believed… 40 per cent below cost.

A customs report highlighting this dumping case has been sitting on the Minister’s desk since late last year … I understand no action has been taken.

I don’t think any Australian manufacturer objects to strong competition but it’s got to be fair competition and when you’ve got materials coming into this country well below the cost of manufacture and transport… that’s dumping.

Australia must make sure that our manufacturing industries and producers are not needlessly put at risk by an ineffective anti-dumping regime.

Free trade requires a level playing field, again something I am not confident this bill provides.

Local business in Tangney is not looking for a hand out or a hand up, simply the freedoms needed to compete in the local market.

I don’t think this bill goes far enough to address dumping, but it is a start.