So Chris, What's the GOVERNMENT doing about this?

why attack someone not even in power .. do you think it matters?

this is so pointless .. there's 10 minutes I'll never get back!

This article is nonsense. You first have to prove that China is dumping. Then you have to prove that an Australian industry is being hurt. You need to really show the harm. Show us which particular businesses are being hurt. Then you need to prove the threat to consumers.

Really atm all there is are Chinese SOE's that are run with differing degrees of efficiency that sell cheap goods in Australia. There is no actual evidence of any plan to price out competitors and then ramp up prices. Even if they did that some other low cost competitor from India or some other country would enter the market and offer a better price.

I read Howes's article. It was long on accusations and short on facts. I particularly liked how he avoided any specifics. Much like this article. Stick to cricket Chris.

A good article reflecting growing concerns about the limits of free trade.

The fact that Chinese companies are selling products for less than the cost of raw materials would appear to constitute enough 'evidence' for anyone that this practice is nothing more than dumping, flouting the WTO conventions. Similar has been experienced with tissue paper.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/19/2824624.htm

It's been the bleedin' obvious for some time but the supporters of free trade are so blinded by the dogma they refuse to even concede to obvious risks or breaches/manipulation of free trade provisions including the way goods are valued/costed in terms of domestic prices in relation to dumping and lots of potential winners and losers (see link below).

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2004-05/05rn38.pdf

I hope the Coalition does support the Bill to tighten the Anti-Dumping Laws but I reckon there will be lots of internal bickering given the tendency to see any regulation as the 'enemy' of free trade. The lack of a level playing field is clearly being recognised by other economies including the US, hopefully Australia won't be the last virgin left in the brothel.

Pelican,

Thanks for pointing us to that excellent parliamentary library article which, at least, is addressing important issues related to a free trade deal with China.

So Australians should be forced to buy more expensive goods, so that they don't buy the same goods voluntarily? And this fool has the gall to call "zealots" those in favour of voluntary transactions?

Peter Hume, et al, all he's saying is that there appears to be a problem with dumping because it costs more to produce certain widgets than is recovered in the price. Why should not people make such an observation if they can produce some sort of evidence that this is the case?
Personally , I think its more about "mercantilism" , maybe not Mercantilism in the narrowest most specific sense, but the reality as to the current mode of world trade. Is not the US, for all its bleatings to the contrary, "mercantilist" also, just look at the diddle the AUSFTA turned out to be.
As with the corner shop and the supermarket, what happens when the larger organisation has flooded its opponent out?
Then, do not prices again rise, in the absence of competition?