Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Dumping on industry

By David Leyonhjelm - posted Monday, 30 April 2018

President Trump's steel tariffs are widely viewed as a deeply flawed protectionist measure that will damage US steel consumers and related industries. And yet, in Australia we are using anti-dumping measures for the same flawed reasons, achieving the same negative result.

Cutting tariffs in the 1990s helped deliver Australia the highest consistent growth rate of any OECD country for over 25 years. Our remaining tariffs are now minor and their impact insignificant compared to our anti-dumping measures.

Dumping is said to occur when goods are imported into Australia at a lower price than their "normal value", usually defined as the comparable price in the exporter's domestic market. Anti-dumping involves the imposition of additional duties to prevent injury to Australian producers, imposed by the relevant Minister based on advice from the Anti-Dumping Commissioner. A minimum price on the imports may also be applied.


The Minister must be satisfied that goods exported to Australia have been dumped or subsidised, and that the dumping or subsidies have caused, or are threatening, material injury to an Australian industry producing the same goods.

Australia has anti-dumping measures currently applied to steel, power transformers, heavy machinery, food products, plastics, paper and other metals.

A recent anti-dumping investigation involved galvanised steel, a product produced by Australia's steel manufacturers. Between July 2015 and June 2016, the period during which the investigation took place, the price of galvanised steel dropped around 15 per cent from its previous value. At the conclusion of the investigation the price rose, reaching 35 per cent above its low point.

The obvious conclusion is that the price was deliberately supressed in order to encourage a favourable anti-dumping decision and to highlight material injury. Once the investigation was over, the price returned to its normal level.

In March this year I used Senate Estimates to ask the Anti-Dumping Commissioner, Mr Dale Seymour, about the increased number of determinations relating to steel. Mr Seymour explained that most of these determinations have arisen because of global oversupply.

However, he also confirmed that his role only requires him to consider injury to Australian producers. In other words, he takes no account of consumers of the products in question.


There are two potential victims here; one is the domestic manufacturer competing with the 'dumped' imports. If additional duties are imposed, they are better able to compete with the imports by maintaining higher prices. The other is the consumers of those products, who pay the higher prices whether they buy local or imported.

The price hike normally increases the cost to the final consumer too, although manufacturers can't always increase their price sufficiently to recover their increased costs because the market they are selling into is freer than the one that they buy from.

Consumers of steel products have found a remarkable correlation between the price of steel and the recommendations of the Commissioner. They have also found the share prices of local steel producers Liberty Onesteel and Bluescope are positively aligned with actions taken by the Commissioner. The anti-dumping process is being used for a lot more than its original purpose.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published in the Australian Financial Review.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Leyonhjelm is a former Senator for the Liberal Democrats.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Leyonhjelm

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Leyonhjelm
Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy