Activists of the Ukrainian women's movement FEMEN stage a performance in front of the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, on December 9, 2011, to protest against alleged mass fraud in the Russian December 4 parliamentary polls.

According to Wikipedia, in Kiev there are about 300 active participants in the movement, which comprises some 20 topless activists and 300 fully clothed members.

Most of their early protests were in Ukraine, but they have since appeared in Russia, The Vatican, Paris and now in Switzerland.

Ukrainian feminists protest against sexism in the media.

FEMEN justifies its provocative methods, stating: “This is the only way to be heard in this country. If we staged simple protests with banners, then our claims would not have been noticed”.

The organisation plans to become the biggest and the most influential feminist movement in Europe, a goal I suspect they will rapidly achieve.

This web page features a selection of powerful images (warning, may offend).

Issues that have prompted protest include:

• French former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s attitude towards women;
• Sex tourism and the trafficking of women in Ukraine;
• The death penalty given to Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a mother of two children who was sentenced to death by stoning in Iran on charges of adultery;
• Saudi Arabia’s ban on women driving cars;
• Animal welfare conditions at the Kiev zoo;
• Prostitution during a European soccer tournament.

I’m not one to support protest for the sake of it. In fact, I find the Occupy campaign somewhat strange and pointless, but FEMEN seems to have a point.

A scene from the FEMEN protest at Davos.

They have also brought to my attention the fact Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that shamefully doesn’t allow women to drive.

FEMEN clearly now has a more global agenda and it will be interesting to see if the movement attracts members and support outside Ukraine.

The potential downsides include that copycats will be less ideologically pure; the media and public will become indifferent about “shocking” demonstrations that are no longer shocking; and someone could get hurt if things turn ugly.

The issue that brought this group to my attention was media coverage of their current protest at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The Mail Online reports: “With temperatures around freezing in the snow-filled town, they took off their tops and tried to climb a fence before being detained”.

While I don’t condone public nudity, I concede some admiration for what these young women are trying to achieve.

It was a memorable speech, perhaps the one for which Menzies is best known, along with his adulation of the Queen (I did but see her passing by).

Here is the full transcript of Menzies’ speech:

Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement. Great Britain and France, with the cooperation of the British Dominions, have struggled to avoid this tragedy. They have, as I firmly believe, been patient. They have kept the door of negotiation open. They have given no cause for aggression. But in the result, their efforts have failed and we are therefore, as a great family of nations, involved in a struggle which we must at all costs win and which we believe in our hearts we will win.

What I want to do tonight is just to put before you, honestly, and as clearly as I can, a short account of how this crisis has developed.

The history of recent months in Europe has been an eventful one. It will exhibit to the eyes of the future student some of the most remarkable instances of a ruthlessness and indifference to common humanity which the darkest centuries of European history can scarcely parallel. Moreover, it will, I believe, demonstrate that the leader of Germany has, for a long time, steadily pursued a policy which was deliberately designed to produce either war or a subjugation of one non-German country after another by the threat of war.

We all have vivid recollections of September of last year. Speaking in Berlin on September the 26th 1938, Hitler said, referring to the Sudeten German problem, which was then approaching its acutest stage, ‘And now the last problem which must be solved, and which will be solved, concerns us. It is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe.’ Four days later, at Munich, when the problem had been settled on terms which provided for the absorption of the Sudeten country into Germany, and which otherwise professed to respect the integrity of the remainder of the Czechoslovak state, Hitler participated with the Prime Minister of Great Britain in a statement which went out to all the world.

It’s most important sentence was this: ‘We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other question that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible causes of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.’

What a strange piece of irony that seems today, only 12 months later. In those 12 months, what has happened? In cold-blooded breach of the solemn obligations implied in both the statements I have quoted, Hitler has annexed the whole of the Czechoslovak state. Has, without flickering an eyelid, made a pact with Russia, a country the denouncing and reviling of which has been his chief stock-in-trade ever since he became chancellor. And has now, under circumstances which I will describe to you, invaded with armed force and in defiance of civilised opinion, the independent nation of Poland. Your own comments on this dreadful history will need no reinforcement by me. All I need say is, that whatever the inflamed ambitions of the German Fuhrer may be, he will undoubtedly learn, as other great enemies of freedom have learned before, that no empire, no dominion, can be soundly established upon a basis of broken promises or dishonoured agreements.

Let me now say something about the events of the last few days. The facts are not really in dispute. They are, for the most part, contained in documents which are now a matter of record.

On Friday August the 25th, that is, nine days ago, Hitler asked the British Ambassador to call on him, and had a long interview with him. Hitler said that he wished to make a move towards England, as decisive as his recent Russian move, but that first the problem of Danzig and the Corridor must be solved. He went on to indicate that he was looking forward to a general European settlement and that if this could be achieved, he would be willing to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments. On Saturday August the 26th, the British Ambassador flew to London to give a detailed account of his conversation to the British Government. On Sunday the 27th, the British Cabinet fully considered the whole matter and, incidentally, was apprised by me of the views of the Australian Government.

On Monday August the 28th, the British reply, which I may say was entirely in line with our own views, was taken back to Berlin and was delivered to Hitler in the evening. That reply stated that the British Government desired a complete and lasting understanding between the two countries and agreed that a prerequisite to such a state of affairs was a settlement of the German-Polish differences. It emphasised the obligations which Great Britain had to Poland and made it clear that Great Britain could not acquiesce in a settlement which would put in jeopardy the independence of a state to which it had given its guarantee. The government said, however, that it would be prepared to participate in an international guarantee or any settlement reached by direct negotiation between Germany and Poland which did not prejudice Poland’s essential interests. The note pointed out that the Polish Government was ready to enter into discussions and that it was hoped that the German Government would do the same.

On the night of Tuesday August the 29th, Hitler communicated to Sir Neville Henderson his reply to the British note. In it he reiterated his demands, but agreed to accept the British Government’s offer of its good offices in securing the dispatch to Berlin of a Polish emissary. In the meantime, it was stated, the German Government would draw up proposals acceptable to itself and would, if possible, place these at the disposal of the British Government before the arrival of the Polish negotiator. Astonishingly enough, for the German proposals were not then even drafted, the note went on to say that the German Government counted on the arrival of the Polish emissary on Wednesday August the 30th, which was the very next day. Sir Neville Henderson pointed out at once that this was an impossible condition, but Hitler assured him that it was only intended to stress the urgency of the matter. On the Wednesday, Hitler’s communication was received by the British Government and their reply was handed by Sir Neville Henderson to von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Minister, at midnight.

At the same time the British Ambassador asked whether the German proposals which were to be drawn up were ready, and suggested that von Ribbentrop should invite the Polish Ambassador to call and should hand to him the proposals for transmission to his government. I would have thought this was a very sensible suggestion. But von Ribbentrop rejected it in violent terms. Von Ribbentrop then produced a lengthy document containing the German proposals, which you subsequently saw in the newspapers, and read it aloud in German at top speed. Sir Neville Henderson naturally asked for a copy of the document but the reply was that it now was too late as the Polish representative had not arrived in Berlin by midnight.

You see what a travesty the whole thing was. The German Government was treating Poland as in default, because she had not by Wednesday night offered an opinion upon, or discussed with Germany, a set of proposals of which, in fact, she had at that time never heard. Indeed, apart from the hurried reading to which I’ve referred, the British Government had no account of these proposals until they were broadcast in Germany on Thursday August the 31st. On the night of August the 31st, the Polish ambassador at Berlin saw von Ribbentrop and told him that the Polish Government was willing to negotiate with Germany about their disputes on an equal basis. The only reply was that German troops passed the Polish frontier and began war upon the Poles at dawn on the morning of Friday September the 1st.

One further fact should be mentioned and it is this. In the British Government’s communication of August the 30th, it informed the German Chancellor that it recognised the need for speed and that it also recognised the dangers which arose from the fact that two mobilised armies were facing each other on opposite sides of the Polish frontier, and that accordingly, it strongly urged that both Germany and Poland should undertake that during the negotiations no aggressive military movements would take place. That being communicated to Poland, the Polish Government on Thursday August the 31st, categorically stated that it was prepared to give a formal guarantee that during negotiations Polish troops would not violate the frontiers provided a corresponding guarantee was given by Germany. The German Government made no reply whatever.

My comments on these events need not be very long. The matter was admirably stated by the British Prime Minister to the House of Commons in these words: ‘It is plain therefore that Germany claims to treat Poland as in the wrong because she had not by Wednesday night entered upon discussions with Germany about a set of proposals of which she had never heard.’

Let me elaborate this a little. You can make an offer of settlement for two entirely different purposes. You may make your offer genuinely and hoping to have it accepted or discussed with a view to avoiding war. On the other hand, you may make it, hoping to use it as window dressing and with no intention or desire to have it accepted. If I were to make an offer to my neighbour about a piece of land in dispute between us, and before he had had the faintest opportunity of dealing with my offer, I’ve violently assaulted him, my offer would stand revealed as a fraud. If Germany had really desired a peaceful settlement of questions relating to Danzig and the Corridor, she would have taken every step to see that her proposals were adequately considered by Poland and that there was proper opportunity for discussion. In other words, if Germany had wanted peace, does anybody believe that there would today be fighting on the Polish frontier, or that Europe would be plunged into war? Who wanted war? Poland? Great Britain? France? A review of all these circumstances makes it clear that the German Chancellor has, throughout this week of tension, been set upon war and that the publication of his proposals for settlement was designed merely as a bid for world opinion before he set his armies on the move.

We have of course been deluged with propaganda from Berlin. We have been told harrowing stories of the oppression of Germans. We have been told that Poland invaded Germany. We have even been told, somewhat contradictorily, that Germany was forced to invade Poland in order to defend herself against aggression. The technique of German propaganda, of carefully fomented agitations in neighbouring countries, the constant talk of persecution and injustice – these are all nauseatingly familiar to us. We made the acquaintance of all of them during the dispute over Czechoslovakia, and we may well ask what has become of the Czech minority and the Slovak minority since the forced absorption of their country into the German state. It is plain, indeed it is brutally plain, that the Hitler ambition has been not, as he once said, to unite the German peoples under one rule but to bring under that rule as many European countries, even of alien race, as can be subdued by force.

If such a policy were allowed to go unchecked there could be no security in Europe and there could be no just peace for the world. A halt has been called. Force has had to be resorted to, to check the march of force. Honest dealing, the peaceful adjustment of differences, the rights of independent peoples to live their own lives, the honouring of international obligations and promises, all these things are at stake. There never was any doubt as to where Great Britain stood in relation to them. There can be no doubt that where Great Britain stands there stand the people of the entire British world.

Bitter as we all feel at this wanton crime, this is not a moment for rhetoric. Prompt as the action of many thousands must be, it is for the rest a moment for quiet thinking, for that calm fortitude that rests not upon the beating of drums but upon the unconquerable spirit of man created by God in his own image. What may be before us we do not know, nor how long the journey. But this we do know: that truth is our companion on that journey; that truth is with us in the battle; and that truth must win.

Before I end, may I say this to you – in the bitter months that have come, calmness, resoluteness, confidence and hard work will be required as never before. This war will involve not only soldiers and sailors and airmen, but supplies, foodstuffs, money. Our staying power, and particularly the staying power of the mother country, will be best assisted by keeping our production going; by continuing our avocations and our business as freely as we can; by maintaining employment and, with it, our strength. I know that in spite of the emotions we are all feeling, you will show that Australia is ready to see it through. May God in his mercy and compassion grant that the world may soon be delivered from this agony.

Comment

As the curator of the National Archives notes: “The Prime Minister’s words are statesman-like, his voice thick and low. His English is refined and reminiscent of a time when the British Empire lived on in the voices of the Australian people. Menzies’s language is grandiose: ‘Whatever the inflamed ambitions of the German Führer may be, he will undoubtedly learn, as other great enemies of freedom have learned before, that no empire, no dominion, can be soundly established upon a basis of broken promises or dishonoured agreements.’

Menzies mostly speaks in the third person, as though he plays no personal part in the story but knows all the facts. This technique enhances the sense of objectivity and reliability of the information being given but also creates distance between the audience and the story. To overcome this disadvantage, Menzies occasionally switches to first person, personalising his views to relate to his audience: ‘Your own comments on this dreadful history will need no reinforcement by me.’

Menzies denounces the need for rhetoric but arguably uses it to support the ideal of Australia fighting for her motherland: ‘There can be no doubt that where Great Britain stands, there stands the people of the entire British world. Bitter as we all feel at this wanton crime, this is not a moment for rhetoric … I know that in spite of the emotions we are all feeling, you will show that Australia is ready to see it through. May God in his mercy and compassion grant that the world may soon be delivered from this agony.’

My comment

Menzies did what he had to do, delivering a message that Australians were unhappy to hear after the celebratory start and ultimate catastrophe of the First World War.

There was no dispute that Australia should enter the Second World War, but the country was still hurting from the earlier conflict.

Menzies captured the public mood through his speech, but failed to hold his Coalition Government together, losing power in 1941 when two independent MPs switched their support to Labor.

According to the Parliament website:

From 1843 to 1851, South Australia was governed by a Legislative Council of seven members, all nominated by the Crown, who ran the colony under the direction of the Governor.

The new Legislative Council of 1851 comprised 24 members, eight nominated by the Crown and 16 returned by the electors. The Governor no longer presided over deliberations and the members elected their own speaker.

The Constitution of the new Council was in some respects an experiment and power to amend it was given to Council, subject to approval by the Crown. This hybrid Council of appointed and elected Members continued to be the Legislature until the inauguration of responsible Government in 1857.

Jordan Bastoni writes:

“The Legislative Council was formed to protect people with property, the social elite, and so voting rights for the Legislative Council were subject to a property qualification.

“The Legislative Council became heavily dominated by conservative members. This led to a very unrepresentative chamber, in which the Labor Party could never win more than four out of 20 seats.

“The unrepresentative Legislative Council was coupled with an electoral system for the House of Assembly that was heavily malapportioned. Metropolitan electorates, that could be expected to return Labor MPs, were three times as large as rural electorates, which most commonly returned Liberal Country League MLCs.”

Wikipedia adds:

“Even after electoral legislation had been implemented in 1967 by Steele Hall that produced a fairer electoral system for the House of Assembly, the council remained unchanged. It was only in 1973 under Don Dunstan that changes were finally made.

“Dunstan, a social reformist, tired of the council’s obstructionist attitude, and put forward bills for its reform. Initially rejected by the council, the reform created a single statewide electorate of 22 members, with half being elected each time. It eventually passed with bipartisan support.”

Today, the Legislative Council acts as a house of review. The political numbers are divided equally between the Government (Labor), the Opposition (Liberal) and crossbenches (Greens, Family First, Independent).

Proceedings are usually rather sedate compared with the House of Assembly.

The chamber is still modelled on the House of Lords to the extent that messages from the Governor are read in the Legislative Council and Parliament is officially opened there.

Portraits of the Queen and Prince Philip adorn the main entrance.

I’m not so naive to think that hatred hasn’t always existed, not just between parties, but within them and outside them.

However, there is too much anger in politics today, as the above sign from Tony Abbott’s rally this week illustrates.

Can’t people criticise Julia Gillard and her policies without the vitriol? I know John Howard faced similar attacks, but I do think it’s a relatively recent phenomenon.

I attribute this to the Americanisation of Australian politics and the influence of the internet, although the two are probably linked.

Abbott and the conservatives seems to be modelling their style on the Tea Party movement, seeking to claim a popular mandate for their ideology.

Abbott should know he’s entering dangerous territory, given his personal involvement in seeking to bring down Pauline Hanson some years ago, but power consumes and absolute power consumes absolutely.

The bigger factor is how public opinion is now expressed on the web. There is no civility about much of it and little subtlety.

Mark Kenny reflected on this in The Advertiser today.

“A culture where basic politeness has been washed away and where people hiding behind cryptic pseudonyms, use a brashness and ferocity they would never display in their face-to-face interactions.

“Responses to articles often betray an adolescent longing to be heard, a yearning so powerful that indignant feedback is sometimes dashed off long before the article in question has been read. As often as not, this abusive discourse carries on between respondents providing an unedifying exchange of tit-for-tat insults.”

I wonder sometimes if media websites shouldn’t apply the same standards to comments that they do to letters: verify identification and remove abusive language. I suspect that would account for most of the comments and deflate the “conversation” they seek to generate.

It’s probably too late anyhow; the genie is out of the bottle.

My favorite quirk though is the Official Monster Raving Loony William Hill Party.

The Loonies, as they are generally known, added William Hill to their name in recognition of the bookmaker’s sponsorship.

Founded in 1963 by Screaming Lord Sutch, the Loonies add a touch of color and humor to election campaigns.

In 1987, the party won its first seat on Ashburton Town Council in Devon, when Alan “Howling Laud” Hope was elected unopposed. He subsequently became Deputy Mayor and later Mayor of Ashburton in 1998.

Hope stood in the general election against Conservative Party leader David Cameron and was the first to congratulate him at the declaration of the poll (pictured above, Hope on the right).

At one stage during the 1990s there were 16 endorsed Raving Loonies holding council seats across England and one in Scotland.

Howling Laud Hope jointly succeeded Screaming Lord Sutch as Loony leader in 1999 with his ginger tabby Cat Mandu.

Cat Mandu died as a result of a traffic accident in July 2002.

The Monster Raving Loony Party’s official policy statement is known as a “manicfesto”.

Policies for the 2010 election included:

• Health & Safety: We propose to ban Self Responsibility on the grounds that it may be dangerous to your health.
• The speaker in the House of Commons will be replaced by the latest audio equipment.
• To help the Israel/Palestinian problem, we will get rid of the old road map, and replace it with a new sat nav instead.
• Education: We will increase the number of women teachers throughout the education system as we are strong believers of female intuition.
• We will ban all forms of greyhound racing. This will help stop the country going to the dogs.

A long-running Loony policy has been to introduce a 99p coin “to save on change”. I rather like that one.

The Loony candidate in Amber Valley, Sam Thing, wanted to legalise cannabis production and tax it. “My stance is usually lying down,” Thing said.

Hackney candidate Knigel Knapp proposed that young offenders should be superglued together. “If you can’t beat them – you’re not allowed to – join them.”

Knapp polled 182 votes, which was considerably more than the Magna Carta Party, which managed just 26 votes.

The declaration of the poll is another quirk of British politics.

In Australia it takes place a week or more after polling day because postal votes have to be counted and preferences distributed in many seats.

In the United Kingdom it happens on polling night, often in the early hours of the next morning, because the polls don’t close until 10pm.

The declaration gives minor party candidates a platform alongside the “big three”. Hence the picture above of Howling Laud Hope with Cameron.

Hope polled 234 votes compared with Cameron 33,973.

It’s no surprise their preferences will go to Liberal ahead of Labor, but I expected them to favor independents in some key seats.

I met the Family First candidate for Mount Gambier, Henk Bruins, a few weeks ago and he expressed his admiration for Don Pegler, who is the independent with a chance of winning the seat.

In The Border Watch today, Bruins conceded the decision had been made at state executive level.

I actually think it’s a decision that could shape the outcome.

Bruins is an excellent candidate for Family First and could be expected to build on the 4.1 percent they polled last time.

If most of his vote transfers to the Liberal candidate, Steve Perryman, as could be expected, it will be that much harder for Pegler to get past Labor on primary votes and possibly win the seat.

At this stage I’m tipping a Liberal victory.

The Senate was established as a “state’s house” with equal numbers of Senators from each of the six colonies that formed the Commonwealth of Australia.

Our founding fathers wanted to protect the less-populated states from domination by Victoria and New South Wales.

At the time of Federation, governments were formed by alliances between groups of independents. The Labor Party was in its infancy and there were no other political parties.

The alliances were formed around strong personalities or issues like trade and immigration.

The two-party system became entrenched early in the 20th century, although the Country Party retained a degree of independence as a third party until the Second World War and later in Victoria.

Although the DLP, Democrats, Greens and independents have at different times held the balance of power in the Senate, it has largely has failed as a state’s house.

That failure is clearly evident in relation to the tissue-dumping fiasco.

The only South Australian Senator who has spoken publicly on the issue is independent Nick Xenophon (pictured).

Senior government minister and South Australian Senator Penny Wong told Parliament she understands the concerns which have been raised by workers and industry.

However: “The reality is that Customs concluded that the injury suffered by the applicants was caused more by competition in the industry, not dumping,” Senator Wong said.

Sympathy, but no action.

As for the other Labor Senators, they are missing in action:

• Don Farrell
• Annette Hurley
• Anne McEwen
• Dana Wortley (duty Senator for Barker)

Wong’s remarks were disappointing, but as a Cabinet minister she has a role in government that potentially limits her parochial advocacy, ie she needs to look at the big picture and govern for the whole country.

As for the other Labor Senators, if they were true to the Constitution they would be advocating strongly to protect South Australian jobs.

If they are, the silence is deafening.

Many of those jobs are in the South East of South Australia where Kimberly-Clark Australia (KCA) manufactures tissues and toilet paper at Millicent, near Mount Gambier.

KCA is a subsidiary of the US-based Kimberly-Clark Corporation.

The Customs Department, which comes under the Attorney-General’s portfolio, last year allowed the importation of cheap tissue paper from Asia.

KCA and workers say this contravenes anti-dumping policies, but the government persists in saying the issue is a competitive one, rather than dumping.

That’s my summary of the following text, beginning with a media release issued by KCA on February 10. That sets the context for the complete Hansard record of a Senate question asked by Nick Xenophon on February 25, answered by Penny Wong for the government.

I don’t know or care about how dumping is legally defined. I just know that some countries have an unfair competitive advantage when it comes to manufacturing because of cheaper labor, less stringent environmental regulations, etc.

According to the paper workers union (CFMEU), one Asian competitor destroys Indonesian rainforest and logs illegally, threatening endangered species such as the Sumatran tiger (pictured); employs children as cheap labor, forcibly removes indigenous people and is financially inept.

Apart from that, they are good corporate citizens.

MEDIA RELEASE (February 10)
Kimberly-Clark calls for a fair deal on Australian tissue manufacture

The Australian Government’s removal of dumping duties on imported toilet paper from Indonesia and China puts local manufacturing of product under serious threat.

“Kimberly-Clark has invested more than $300 million in tissue manufacture for its Kleenex®, Wondersoft® and Viva® Towel brands in Australia since 2000,” said company spokesperson, Ross Hearne.

“The growth in imports will likely result in further major investment ceasing. This could, in turn, eventually jeopardise 650 direct jobs in South Australia, long term, and indirectly around 1500 jobs in the South East of the state.”

“We are not asking for special treatment, simply that the Government maintain fair competition between imported toilet tissue and our locally manufactured Kleenex® and Wondersoft® products,” said Ross.

“We are asking the Government reinstate the dumping duties on toilet tissue from Indonesia and China immediately and to reinvestigate the case which, in the final appeal, we believe was flawed.”

CFMEU media release (February 22)
Union Pressures Rudd Govt to Act on Dumping as Jobs Put at Risk

Unions have launched a concerted campaign to force the Rudd Government to overturn a decision to allow millions of rolls of toilet paper to be ‘dumped’ in Australia, threatening local manufacturing jobs.

The products from China and Indonesia, which were sold up to 45 per cent cheaper than in their home countries, have caused serious concern among timber and paper workers around Australia.

Several unions have written to Attorney-General Robert McClelland warning that the Federal Government had set a “dangerous precedent” that poses a threat to Australian workers and industry and requesting an urgent meeting.

CFMEU Forestry and Furnishing Products Division National Secretary Michael O’Connor said the union would also campaign on the issue in the lead up to the South Australian election, where manufacturer Kimberly-Clark has already flagged the potential loss of 1,500 jobs as a result of this decision.

“There is a groundswell of concern in regional Australia over this decision, which threatens to open the flood gates to foreign companies saturating the Australian market with cheap products in a deliberate attempt to destroy local industry and competition through predatory pricing,” Mr O’Connor said.

“With up to 20 ‘timber seats’ around Australia, where forestry, paper and timber products are big employers, the Federal Government would be wise to move on this issue now, rather than allow it to become an election issue.

“Exporters from China and Indonesia are hurting the tissue making industry by selling product at a lower price than is charged in their home markets, a price significantly below what the WTO antidumping agreement regards as constituting ‘normal price’.

“Even the Government’s own Customs and Border Protection Service has admitted that this dumping of 20,000 tonnes of toilet paper has caused injury to local industry.

“All we are asking is for the Government to implement an antidumping system which prevents the targeting of Australian jobs and guarantees local industry’s right to compete on a level playing field.”

SENATE HANSARD (February 25)
Trade: Dumping Duties

Senator Nick Xenophon

However, aggrieved domestic parties were constrained by providing submissions and providing evidence even though the basis for analysis was changed by the Trade Measures Review Officer. My question to the minister is: why does the reinvestigation not include consultation with domestic parties, especially in circumstances where the basis for analysis is changed?

In such cases, does it not seem reasonable that the entire investigation be reopened?

Senator WONG (Minister representing the Attorney-General in the Senate)— I understand Senator Xenophon had a detailed discussion with the Attorney-General this week in relation to this matter. Obviously the government gives very serious consideration to any antidumping issues and is concerned to ensure that Australian jobs and Australian industry are protected when dumped imports cause or threaten to cause material injury.

In terms of the facts of the particular case, the former Minister for Home Affairs published a dumping duty notice in respect of toilet paper from China and Indonesia in December 2008 following recommendations from Customs and Border Protection. Applications to review the former minister’s decision were accepted by the Trade Measures Review Officer, who subsequently conducted a review and recommended that all findings be reinvestigated. Pursuant to those recommendations, the Attorney-General in June of last year directed Customs to reinvestigate all findings. In December, the Attorney-General accepted the Customs and Border Protection recommendation from that reinvestigation that these antidumping duties be revoked.

I note that in the senator’s question he asserted that the basis for analysis from the original investigation was changed by the Trade Measures Review Officer.

This is not the advice of the government. We believe that is an incorrect assertion. There was no change to the basis of the analysis. Customs and Border Protection was directed to reinvestigate all findings of the original investigation, and that occurred within the relevant legislative framework.

I do note that the senator, in the context of this discussion and also in estimates, has raised concerns about that legislative framework. I would advise the senator, through you, Mr President, that that is a framework that has been in place for many years, well preceding the election of this government, and under that framework no new submissions were considered nor could be considered. As the senator is aware, the reinvestigation found that the toilet paper exporter was not the cause of, nor the likely cause of, material— (Time expired)

Senator XENOPHON— Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government not consider the possible loss of up to 4000 jobs nationally as a result of this one decision, including 1500 in the south-east of South Australia alone, to be ‘material injury’?

Senator WONG— As I said in my earlier answer, of course the government is concerned to ensure that Australian industry and jobs are protected where dumping of imports causes or threatens to cause material injury.

The reality is that Customs concluded that the injury suffered by the applicants was caused more by competition in the industry, not dumping. I understand the concerns which have been raised by the senator and also by employees and some members of the industry.

The fact is that the government made its decision on the basis of advice and that decision was made on the basis of the cause of any injury. The fact is that the international antidumping system requires dumped goods to have caused material injury to the Australian industry. That was not the finding of Customs nor the advice— (Time expired)

Senator XENOPHON— Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Under section 269TAG of the Customs Act, will the Attorney-General order a new investigation into this case, opening up the review to allow the domestic industry to present its case and issue a stay of lifting of duties to ensure no impact on the domestic industry while a fresh decision is being considered? Wasn’t the competition caused by the dumped goods in the first place?

Senator WONG— I think the second assertion is not consistent with the advice that I have read out in terms of explaining what the findings of Customs and Border Protection were. Also, in relation to the first supplementary question, I did not have the opportunity to make the point that Customs, on my advice, did consider price, volume and profit effects as well as other economic factors, including employment. That is in response to your earlier assertion. I am advised the Attorney- General does not have the power to direct Customs to undertake another investigation. There are avenues of appeal available to parties. I am also advised that a new application for dumping duties can be made by Australian industry at any time. In addition, under the section in the Customs Act to which the senator refers, it is possible for the Attorney-General to initiate an investigation. Justification of such investigation would require a written application on behalf the Australian industry, and— (Time expired).

STATE ELECTION ISSUE
Premier writes to the Prime Minister

Premier Mike Rann has stepped into the fight for Millicent’s Kimberly-Clark Australia mill, calling on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to reconsider a decision that threatens hundreds of South East jobs.

More than 200 senior managers, union leaders, contractors and workers at the KCA mill gathered last week in an unprecedented rally to voice opposition to a Federal Government Customs decision that could pave the way for cheaper tissue imports.

Workers took the step of writing to Mr Rudd to call for dumping duties to be retained, while Member for MacKillop Mitch Williams called on the Premier to intervene.

After calls from The Border Watch this week, Mr Rann’s advisers yesterday released a letter the Premier sent on Wednesday to the Prime Minister.

“I have recently received representations in relation to a decision by the Commonwealth Government to remove anti-dumping duties from certain tissue papers exported to Australia from the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Indonesia,” Mr Rann wrote.

“I am advised that the issue as to whether dumping occurred is not in dispute.

“I understand that the decision to remove the duties was made on the basis that the impact on Australian firms from the dumping had not been material.

“This issue has caused widespread concern, as industry considers that material injury has been caused by the dumping and significant harm to Australian manufacturers could occur, should the decision stand.

“Kimberly-Clark Australia employs 640 people at Millicent in South Australia and supports a further 830 people in the local economy, or 6.3pc of employment in the South East region.

“Without protection from products imported at subsidised cost, the South Australian operations of Kimberly-Clark will find it difficult to secure further investment, putting these jobs at risk.

“On this basis, I ask that you look into this matter and take all reasonable steps to have this decision reconsidered.”

Media release from the CFMEU
Union backs independent candidate

Paper workers have voted to back independent Darren O’Halloran to stand as a candidate in the electorate of MacKillop in the South Australian State election to highlight the hundreds of local manufacturing jobs put at risk after the Federal Government allowed foreign-made toilet paper to be dumped in Australia.

The Millicent sub-branch of the CFMEU Pulp and Paper Division this week agreed to provide financial and practical support for Mr O’Halloran’s campaign.

“After lengthy discussion and debate the committee unanimously endorsed a motion that commits financial assistance to Darren’s campaign which highlights this important issue,” sub-branch secretary Kevin Millie said.

“The committee did not take this decision lightly, but based on the threat to our jobs and the sites future the committee felt that this action is appropriate in the current circumstances.”

Up to 20,000 tonnes of imported tissue products from China and Indonesia have been dumped on the local market, sold up to 45 percent cheaper than in their home countries, in a deliberate attempt to undercut local producers.

CFMEU Pulp and Paper Division Federal Secretary Alex Millar said in Millicent alone, home to the Kimberly-Clark mill, up to 1500 jobs are threatened by the decision.

“Many workers in regional Australia are worried by the Federal Government’s decision to allow this to happen, which is why we think it is important to support Mr O’Halloran’s campaign to have the policy overturned,” Mr Millar said.

“All we want is a fair system that creates a level playing field by preventing this kind of predatory dumping.

“The SA election is a warning to the Rudd Government that if they fail to act and protect these jobs the union will be forced to expand the campaign around the country in the run up to the Federal Election later this year.”

• External link: CFMEU anti-dumping campaign

He should not have said Australia may default on its sovereign debt, but in The Australian today he clearly articulated a logical opposition to the government’s spending splurge:

Debt is less of a problem when it is backed by an asset that is readily exchangeable to restore the wealth of the public coffers. However, I do not know how exchangeable the ceiling insulation will be when we need to repay the debt.

I’m not quite certain what the international market is like for second-hand school halls if we need to send them back. I suppose we could have a crack at getting the $900 cheques off the public, but I don’t like our chances.

We have, approximately, a $90bn package of eclectic economic trinkets, noted as stimulus, that would look good hanging from any rear-vision mirror in a car doing hot laps on a Friday night in downtown Dubbo.

Did we get something substantial, clearly identifiable in the form of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, or inland rail or massive water infrastructure to alleviate the problems of future droughts? Did we invest in a method to encourage people in a growing population to settle away from the crowded capitals of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane? No, we didn’t.

What we did get were big contracts to big firms with big price tags, to make big statements that didn’t deliver big outcomes.

What we got was appalling management of programs and costs as seen in the ceiling insulation fiasco, the biggest flop since the Leyland P76.

Economists may argue over the merits of the government pumping money into thousands of small projects instead of several big ones.

Australia avoided recession, but I suspect too much was spent too erratically for too little long-term gain.

They were great lines by Joyce about Dubbo and the Leyland.