After several years of warnings from the Productivity Commission on the enormous problems caused by Australia’s abuse of anti-dumping to prop up inefficient industries, some sections of the media have finally worked out it’s a problem.
It’s almost as if Australians haven’t been able to quite believe we’re not the innocent, plucky little free traders and honest brokers in a corrupt world trade system that we tell ourselves we are. It turns out we’re one of the bad guys — along with everyone else.
And now we know that years spent slapping punitive tariffs on imports using confected claims that products have been “dumped” doesn’t just have a downside for Australian business and consumers who have to pay more for products, it also prompts the targets of our protectionism to hit back under both anti-dumping and other protectionist counter-measures.
Australia’s barley farmers and abattoirs will now pay the price for years of propping up our steel and aluminium industries as a more truculent China moves to punish us. The cost will spread beyond the construction industry — which coughs up more than $400 million a year to keep inefficient heavy manufacturing going — to primary producers.
But Australia will also pay a higher price because of the damage done to our strategic interests by the Anti-Dumping Commission.
We are now locked in a very difficult and damaging battle with the Beijing dictatorship over its role in inflicting a catastrophic pandemic on the world.
It is vital to Australia’s economic interests that the Chinese government’s disastrous response to the emergence of COVID-19 is not repeated in future epidemics. Any process that will help prevent that is not merely valid, but necessary.
However, Australia leaves itself badly open to reprisals by Beijing not merely because of our strong trade links with China, but because we have consistently targeted it with an unfair, arbitrary and mostly fictional policy of stopping importers from providing cheap goods to Australian businesses and consumers.
We’re not coming to the brawl with China with clean hands — not with hundreds of anti-dumping investigations aimed at China, and dozens of punitive tariffs slapped on Chinese products in the past decade, all while both major political parties boasted of how hairy-chested they were on dumping.
In short, the Anti-Dumping Commission is damaging to Australia’s national interests and inhibits us from prosecuting those interests effectively in dealing with China.
Rather than constantly increasing anti-dumping actions, the commission should be abolished and the sin of importers daring to offer cheap products to Australians decriminalised.
Australian businesses and consumers will be the immediate winners: a $400 million a year tax on the construction industry would be removed and consumers would pay less for grocery staples.
But Australia would enter global trade disputes a lot more like the honest broker that we tell ourselves we are — and we could deal with China without the waters being muddied by tit-for-tat anti-dumping actions.
Of course, that won’t happen. Both sides of politics think it’s in their electoral interests to ostentatiously punish the crime of cheap imports, and powerful business interests and trade unions back them (normally bitterly enemies, business and unions are close allies when it comes to protectionism).
But as the Productivity Commission has explained in detail so often, the best, most rewarding kind of trade reform a country can undertake is to unilaterally remove tariffs. And courtesy of the Anti-Dumping Commission, we have a whole host of them in place.
Rather than fighting dumping with artificial barriers, Australia can fight back with quality.
Many engineering companies in Australia are raking it in with fix-up jobs, repairing the mess caused by multinational construction firms and governments going for the lowest bidder for products such as metal form work for bridges, etc . They then find the quality of the delivered product is not to standard so get repairs or replacements done locally, so they end up spending more on a product if they went Australian in the first place.
Good one Bernard. Let’s export what’s left of our industry and get rid of food processing while we’re about it. Let’s be the only country in the world that has extended supply lines for every single thing. That’s worked so well in the pandemic shutdown, it’d be even greater if our Great and Powerful Allies decided to start a major war. If China can punish us over barley and meat, how much more easily could they finish us off if they controlled every one of our supplies?
So what is your solution when it is dumped Bernard? I am sick of you whining about steel. Bluescope steel turns the Chinese rubbish inside out for quality. Many Chinese computer components have half the reliability of the Korean, Taiwanese or Malaysian versions. Where are all these instances of Australian dumping?
Gotta laugh.
Here “we” are, Deputy Dawg doing the barking for the Lesser Panda of the US : wouldn’t it be funny if the same US, under the same Lesser PotUS, back-filled the void in the Chinese market left when we were frozen out, for doing that baying?
Isn’t that “science” pretty well accepted? We pretty much know it didn’t come from where the West – trying to distract from their own “tax-savings” unpreparedness for such a pandemic – is saying it “maybe/possibly/probably” did and wants an inquiry into that?
Why not inquiries into why each country was not ready for such a crisis (thanks to a lineage of governments too obsessed with cutting taxes to buy votes : rather than maintaining taxes to invest in society’s infrastructure needs) after enough warnings such a crisis was only a matter of time?
If you get away from the triumphalism on display, Klewso, about the L’il Aussie Battler carrying the day at the WHA, and getting their investigation ‘proposal’ (which was tabled within 2 days of Morrison taking dictation in a phone call with Trump, on April 22nd) “up”, you’ll find the draft resolution being discussed in Switzerland looks nothing like Morrison and Co’s ‘proposal’ – not even close.
But, it’s within spitting distance of what the Chinamen were after from day 1 (which predates April 22nd by months).
I believe this is the key part (‘investigation/enquiry’) of the draft proposal, as it currently stands;
“OP9.10 Initiate, at the earliest appropriate moment, and in consultation with Member States,1 a stepwise process of impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation, including using existing mechanisms,2 as appropriate, to review experience gained and lessons learned from the WHO-coordinated international health response to COVID-19, including (i) the effectiveness of the mechanisms at WHO’s disposal; (ii) the functioning of the IHR and the status of implementation of the relevant recommendations of the previous IHR Review Committees; (iii) WHO’s contribution to United Nations-wide efforts; and (iv) the actions of WHO and their timelines pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic, and make recommendations to improve global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response capacity, including through strengthening, as appropriate, WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme;
OP9.11 Report to the Seventy-fourth World Health Assembly, through the 148th session of the Executive Board, on the implementation of this resolution.”
See any mention of China, Wuhan, origins, wet markets, bats, etc, etc?!
Neither do I.
As for Keane’s continuing references, such as this;
“We are now locked in a very difficult and damaging battle with the Beijing dictatorship over its role in inflicting a catastrophic pandemic on the world.”
..how does that ‘fit’ with the above extract from the WHO website?
Would you think there’s any prospect of Keane actually taking note of any science, any time soon?
How about this bloke? youdottube.com/watch?v=AQQf2yoymu0
“No proof that COVID-19 originated in Wuhan: Peter Forster”
Foster’s only the head of the team from Cambridge, who took the genome mapped by Chinese scientists, by Jan 9th, and found stuff like this;
“Peter Forster, a geneticist at the University of #Cambridge, has identified three distinct strains of COVID-19. Forster and his team traced the origins of the epidemic by analyzing 160 genomes from human patients and found that the strain in #Wuhan mutated from an earlier version.”
He’s referring to the “B” strain, which they found was 2 mutations on from the earlier “A” strain (fortunately, they stick with the basics i.e. B comes after A).
The B strain was what wreaked the havoc in Wuhan. It was the ‘dominant’ strain in Wuhan.
The A strain was dominant in most of the US (New York, for instance, was hit by the B, which has been traced to Europe. But, again, the B came after the A).
Here’s a little more food for thought – youtubedotcom/watch?v=EPxFemrJ5Go
“U.S. mayor: I was gravely ill in November into December”
“Michael Melham, mayor of Belleville, New Jersey, reveals that he has tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, adding that he contracted the novel coronavirus in November, over two months before the first confirmed case was reported in the United States.”
Now, you plug in the incubation period, prior to him being ‘gravely ill’, and you’re back to well before December, maybe even back to October.
The ‘balance of probabilities’ is shifting relentlessly away from the first outbreak starting in China.
Important to note, as Foster explains in the about tube, the ‘first outbreak’ is not the ‘origin’ of the virus. The origin may never be found.
People who don’t ‘talk the science’ are merely know-nothing time wasters.
I have some news I’ve just been apprised of, by a member of the cohort;
“Xi to deliver speech at opening ceremony of World Health Assembly – CGTN”
“Chinese President Xi Jinping will deliver a speech on Monday at the opening ceremony of the 73rd session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) via video link at the invitation of World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying announced.”
The citizenry, here, are being played for fools, AGAIN!!
Once upon a time, governments used to govern in the interests of their society, the majority of their citizenry (ostensibly at least).
Nowadays they’ve abandoned all pretence of such ‘dated’ convention, to govern in the interests of a minority of tax-avoiding, subsidy-chasing, big donor business and industry – including/especially tax-avoiding, subsidy-chasing, big donor foreign owned.
“It’s the economy, first, Stupid!”
[See where ‘we’ have had to bin another batch of test kits (that could have gone to mass testing?) – not fit for purpose. Think of the money ‘we’ saved there, on behalf of tax-payers, again?]
“… to govern in the interests of the minority, of tax-avoiding, subsidy-chasing, big donor business …”
I’m guessing you’re referring to the ‘flip of the coin’ antibody tests.
Not only did the TGA approve the test without having them tested first, but the ‘promotional campaign’ by the distributor included genius maaaaarketing such as this (to quote one of the media shonks);
“The company’s director, Dr David Badov, appeared on Sky News with host Andrew Bolt in March to spruik the new tests.”
2 ‘men of science’ just chewing the fat……………..
Why is it you assume that there is something ‘virtuous’ in free markets’? Even core dull and hollow conventional economic theories claim only that the best way to set prices (nothing about society, equity or liberty) is a perfectly free market, characterised by perfect rationality, perfect knowledge and perfect competition. All of which are Adam Smith derived fantasies to avoid explaining complex reality, which is actually characterised by deliberately induced irrationality, highly asymmetric information and far from anything like the perfect completion Adam Smith described in small communities where all actors know all other actors. It is the fairy story that underpins everything claimed by conventional economics. For example, consumer consumption constitutes 60% of Australian domestic consumption. And consumer consumptions is, by design, irrational – the process of inducing us to make irrational choices to buy sh*t we don’t actually need.
Australian society needs much more than cheap prices created by a dog-eat-dog highly imperfect ‘market’. There is no ‘market’ that even approximates economic ‘perfection’. That is why even the dumbest neoliberals concede that all markets require complex regulation. We need social cohesion created by a trustworthy system to continually improve social and wealth equity, not cheap baubles.
Having said that, I agree that anti-dumping legislation is a nonsense way of imposing tariffs. But I do not agree that industry in Australia be simply left to die because for a time (it is never permanent) some other place can make the product cheaper. I suggest we should be honest about ‘free trade’; ie we support free trade to the extent that it does not damage our society. And where Australian industry gets any government support, that support is subject to 3 core principles: 1. That the industry be required to invest in R&D and appropriate change to make it more socially effective (not merely economically ‘efficient’) 2. The government takes equity in the industry on behalf of its citizens commensurate with the value of the support. 3. The industry must take urgent and effective action to reduce pollution.
Government must do the heavy lifting on all this because Australia business has shown itself to be completely inept at competing in your mythical ‘free markets’. Fat chance the Muppet government will see any wisdom in the Australian government actually taking concrete steps to continually improve social and wealth equity when it can retreat to meaningless and cowardly claims that the market can fix anything.
Well said, BA! I don’t know why the ‘cheapest’ product is always the best for the consumer and society. Others on here have given the example of Australian steel, and I’m sure there are lots of other stuff we can produce to a higher standard, which benefits society in the long run…by providing jobs for example? Maybe we could start manufacturing all the gear we would need to cope with another pandemic, on a permanent basis, instead of trying to access ‘cheap’ stuff when everyone else is playing the same game!
Also Bernard…why do you keep blaming the Chinese for the Covid19 outbreak? NO ONE yet knows where it came from, or how it started. What about the French doctor…and others in Italy…who have found evidence of the virus being present there several weeks before the Chinese epidemic?
If that lunatic PM of ours wasn’t so keen on being the centre of attention, demanding ‘independent’ investigations of the virus in China, he might do well to listen to the scientists who are saying we need ALL nations to investigate what occurred in each country…first instance of the virus, and what happened from there. THEN, and only then, can the data be examined as a whole, and accurate information obtained.
Suggesting we confine said investigations to China is a gross misrepresentation of what is actually required.
Good enough for Sooty from marketing, but NOT for serious journalism!!