Mr ALLAN MORRIS(11.15 a.m.) —It is obvious that this government is suffering from stunned mullet syndrome. The members of the government are acting like a bunch of stunned mullet. They are unconscious. To follow the member for McEwen (Mrs Bailey), it is interesting to look at the falsity of the allegations that were made regarding reports. The high dudgeon and sheer ignorance which have been shown in this debate is really quite tragic. Anyone reading the Hansard or listening to the speeches would wonder what we are arguing about because it appears that we are all saying the same thing. That is because the ignorance of those opposite is so manifest.

This government started off with a mad rush last year. The question of dumping and anti-dumping goes back a long way. The legislation we are amending was passed in 1975, but it goes back more than 50 or 60 years. Every country has problems of that nature, and those problems keep changing. We were not surprised when the government initiated an inquiry last year into anti-dumping measures. If we had been in government, we would have done the same. We have had regular inquiries into dumping because it is something that should be looked at regularly, and by people outside the system, because there tends to be a lot of vested interest and a lot of institutionalised thinking.

The Willett report was produced for the government in September of last year. This was a major achievement—a review of dumping measures with a view to tightening them up to make them more effective. What happened? The report hit the wall. Not one of the 23 recommendations has been put to this House by the government. The government is a stunned mullet, an unconscious fish. It is a government in suspension.

There was a mad rush to review a major area for the economy and for our community. The report was very proactive and positive. What happened? It was shelved. Then a speaker in this place talks about inquiries into small business—falsely, deceitfully and wrongly—in speaking about amendments which should be about the Willett report, but which are not.

The member for McEwen criticised the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), who has actually started to move on the Willett report recommendations by putting forward legislative proposals that would enact the recommendations which the government received over a year ago. She then stood in high dudgeon and talked about audacity. The members of the government are stunned mullet—that is the only way to understand it. Nothing else makes any sense.

International trade is complex and it is constantly changing. I cannot recall the number of times that I have spoken in this House on dumping measures, because every month there is a different issue, a different measure. For example, let us look at light globes. Light globes might be fairly simple things—and we all get flashes of inspiration—but in trade terms they are very complex.

If you go to the supermarket you will see light globes made in Australia, light globes made in Brazil, Italy, Belgium, France or almost anywhere in the world. Shoppers do not ponder why this is so, they basically just want to buy a light globe. But there are industry implications of that. When there are only a small number of light globe manufacturers in the world, there is a constant battle for market share and problems with what to do with oversupply.

Over time, governments of both persuasions have battled this problem of having light globes brought into the country effectively at dumped prices. If one takes action on Belgium, hey presto, the next week they are coming from Italy. If one takes action on Italy, then they come in from Brazil—often from the same company, which simply shifts its sources around the globe. A constant process of change is going on.

We have had a hiatus for two years in this place. Since this time in 1995, parliament has been in suspension. The members of the government are a bunch of stunned mullet. They started off with the Willett report last September. We all though that was terrific and that we would finally see some action and would be able to catch up, because in this business you have to keep running because the world is moving all the time. We have stood still as a country, just like stunned mullet caught in the spotlights.

Read the speech of the previous minister for small business and customs, Mr Prosser, who brought in the legislation. He was caught in the spotlights in June. We had this great fanfare with the Willett report and its implications. What came out of it? Capital `F' Flexibility which, translated to industry, means capital `U' Uncertainty. This legislation does not provide a better environment. It is simply legislation that does something, but it does not produce certainty and it does not improve the investment environment or the trading environment.

All that bluster, hyperbole and hype that went on for months and months as to how, somehow, the Labor Party was pro dumping in this country and how we had somehow been negligent, ended up with the damp squib of this legislation. To his credit, the member for Hotham has proposed an amendment to the bill which those opposite should understand and accept. That amendment goes to certainty so that it is absolutely clear to everybody how it is going to work.

The idea that the minister is going to decide how to apply and interpret this legislation is terrifying to most businesses. Quite frankly, it should be terrifying to a minister. The potential for competing interests, competing lobbying and competing claims, institutionally and publicly, is horrendous and represents a quagmire of possible litigation and absolute uncertainty.

The sophistication of modern trade and manufacturing investment within and between countries is immense. The idea that somehow a minister sits in Canberra in his little ivory tower saying, `I know that 10 per cent of this investment is out of Taiwan, 35 per cent is out of Singapore, 40 per cent is out of Hong Kong and it's all affecting the price of goods made in China; I know all of that, I will therefore determine it,' is absolute nonsense. It is absolutely laughable.

The tragedy is that we do not get many chances to amend the anti-dumping measures because they are always difficult. This is one of those critical times. If we do not lay down to the markets very clearly and absolutely what the position is, the opportunity will not just be lost, it will be wasted. It becomes counterproductive, so this worsens the situation rather than improving it.

There is no doubt that at the moment, for example, Australia is receiving dumped steel, but the complexity of proving that is enormous. It would take an enormous amount of time to prove it. The current measures are probably insufficiently sophisticated to handle what is going on.

At the same time, we no longer export steel to America. Why? Because Americans have taken anti-dumping action against BHP. Five or six years ago, we were building up excellent export markets in America. I have referred to this in previous speeches. That was going very well. There was scope in America for specialised steels and particular kinds of steel that we were developing very well. America was becoming a very important marketplace for us.

If you look at the graphs and charts on exports to America, the anti-dumping action and the countervailing measures and duties that were being imposed, those exports were wiped out virtually overnight because the risks were so great. With regard to America, which espouses free trade, we have a $12 billion a year trade deficit—we import $12 billion a year more from them than they import from us. We were building a relatively small market, involving a few hundred thousand tonnes of steel a year. What happened? Down came the shutters. It was not sophisticated; it was pretty brutal. But it was supported by their government. And we sit back here like a bunch of stunned mullet. It is absolutely tragic.

With regard to this debate, there is no doubt that members on both sides of the parliament want to prevent dumping. Why didn't we put the recommendations of the Willett report into legislation? No-one has explained that. Not one speaker on the other side has even referred to it. There was no mention of it in the minister's second reading speech. What was the point of commissioning the report?

We all understand there will be a need for constant and ongoing change in anti-dumping measures because there is a constant change in international trading patterns. Companies move faster than governments. They always have and they always will. We are always playing catch-up. While we are catching up, our businesses are suffering. We have had a two-year gap, a two-year pause, while those opposite, who were like racing greyhounds rushing off into the field after the prey, turned into a bunch of stunned mullet who did nothing. This is an insult to our businesses and to the issue.

I urge those opposite who share my concerns about dumping measures to understand that they are being conned. This is not a political issue; this is an issue of survival for many businesses. Certainly, in terms of investment, it is absolutely fundamental. They should go back to their party rooms and say to the ministers, `We want the Willett report recommendations implemented now.' It was brought down in September last year and there has been no sign of any action with regard to it. Why not? If it was worth having it, why wasn't it worth doing something about it? The fact that nothing has been done is a tragedy.

I have already referred to the fact that the member for Hotham has moved an amendment which would give some certainty. We still need to go further. We have tried to fix this part of the problem by way of legislation but there is more to it. The member for Hotham has introduced legislation in response to the Willett report because the government has not done so. That bill is now even more important.

I know we are seen to be in an adversarial position. I know the perception is that whatever the government proposes, we oppose. That is absolutely not true. An enormous number of things are agreed on in this parliament. Right now, one of the biggest issues facing the whole world with respect to trade and international relations is the insecurity in the financial and banking institutions in Asia. The federal government has given support to Thailand, Indonesia and now to Korea. It would have been easy for us to oppose that measure. Politically, we probably would have won lots of kudos for it, but it would not have been good economics. So we have gone into bat for you guys because you handled it so badly. We have gone in and supported you because you have handled it so incompetently.

The fact is we are genuinely concerned about trying to get good outcomes for this country in important legislative and policy areas. To be lectured to by those opposite on this legislation in the way that has been done is not just insulting, it is dumb. They are stunned mullet; nothing else could describe them. They do not understand the problem; therefore, they do not understand the solutions that are available. They are all reading from the same script, written by someone who was out to mislead them. They are not reading their own scripts. It is all the same mantra.

They all end up saying that this problem has come about after 13 years. The fact is, the problem we have now, compared with 13 years ago, has changed 13 or 14 times. It will change again next year and the year after, and two or three times per year for ever and ever. It has done so every year for 40 or 50 years. It is a question of how fast we can move.

What we are facing now, as a small country in a very large world where individual companies are bigger than us by far, where our economy is dwarfed by the turnover of the big multinationals who trade around the world, where the bulk of world trade is within companies rather than between companies, where we are a relatively small but very honest player in this business, where we are very transparent with very open systems, is that we are in danger of being very dumb.

All of our processes go through this kind of public debate. Hence the reason why governments use people like Willett—we have used others in the past—and various other forms of third party analysis or examination of our processes and procedures. Those processes are so important, and it is why so often, on things like Willett, like Mortimer, and various other reports which have been done for the government, you find the opposition agreeing with the bulk of the recommendations and saying, `Yes, we agree. A third party analysis has been done. We've looked at that objectively. That makes sense. Bring it forward and we will support it.' Why not on dumping?

Mr Cadman —You said that about the small business report and now you are opposing it.

Mr ALLAN MORRIS —We are not opposing it; we are trying to do what Willett was trying to do and what you guys have ignored. We had a bipartisan committee on small business which you, Mr Acting Speaker Reid, chaired. It was referred to earlier in the debate by your colleagues, so I am not straying from debate on the legislation. We worked with the government members on that. We were virtually outnumbered two to one—nine to five. We ended up with a bipartisan conclusion. We started in May of last year, tabled in May of this year and we are only just getting to debate the legislation for the first time this week. Of course, it will not get to the Senate until next year.

In that bipartisan committee we travelled the country talking to people: experts and straightforward business people. The government left out key parts of the recommendations. The fact is, they gutted the key parts, they delayed the legislation, and at the same time they ask us for bipartisanship. When we give bipartisanship, what happens? The government plays politics with it. The government should bring forward the recommendations of the Willett report or support the legislation of the member for Hotham.

On fair trading, the government should accept the amendments in the Senate to restore the committee recommendations in full, as we did. I get the feeling we live in different worlds. I sat through days of discussions with government members on the fair trading report. We went through it word by word and argued over phrases and sentences to try to reach agreement. A lot of work went into it in good faith.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid) —The honourable member should endeavour to direct his remarks to the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 . It is all right to explore an analogy, which you have done, but I ask you to contain your remarks to the bills before the House.

Mr ALLAN MORRIS —Mr Deputy Speaker, if you let me finish you will find out I am actually responding to the earlier comments of the member for McEwen, which you were not here for. So we went through all that. Then we had government members opposite, who were members of the same committee, berating us about our stance on the report. We are saying that it should be adopted, but the people who sat through the same discussions are now attacking us for adopting what they agreed to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should direct his remarks to the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 .

Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I am making observations on earlier speakers' comments. I think if you read the Hansard , you will find I am in order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will bring his comments back to the bills before the House.

Mr ALLAN MORRIS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am allowed to refer to remarks made by other members, particularly in reference to us. That was certainly the case. The member for Mitchell was not here either.

Mr Cadman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is canvassing your ruling and should be brought to order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold the point of order. The honourable member is debating a bill before the House entitled the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 . He shall contain his remarks to that bill.

Mr ALLAN MORRIS —The amendment should be supported. (Time expired)