Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with both the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015 in my summing up speech. I thank all members from both sides who spoke on the bills and I acknowledge the work of Minister Macfarlane and Parliamentary Secretary Baldwin in bringing these reforms forward.

The Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) amends the Customs Act 1901. It will strengthen Australia's provisions dealing with the submission of information in anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations, simplify and modernise publication provisions for anti-dumping notices, consolidate lodgement provisions for anti-dumping applications and submissions, clarify the length of the investigation period in anti-dumping matters, clarify the cumulative assessment of injury, clarify normal value provisions, clarify the calculation of the dumping margin, clarify material injury determinations, clarify effective notice periods, clarify the definition of a subsidy, amend provisions dealing with new exporters, clarify provisions regarding consideration of the lesser duty rule, and streamline the processes and implement a higher procedural and legal threshold for a review to be undertaken by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel, and the bill goes further to amend provisions dealing with new exporters and clarify other provisions regarding consideration of the lesser duty rule. These changes also streamline the processes and implement a higher procedural and legal threshold for review to be undertaken by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel and allow the government to replace the statutory International Trade Remedies Forum with administrative business consultative arrangements.

The reforms being introduced by this bill will improve the current merits review arrangements, improve the flexibility of stakeholder consultations, modernise the way information about anti-dumping investigations and other inquiries is published, and simplify, clarify and better align our anti-dumping legislation with international law and practice.

These amendments form part of a broader anti-dumping reform package which demonstrates this government's commitment to ensuring Australia has a strong anti-dumping system. They address stakeholder concerns about the effectiveness of Australia's anti-dumping system in a manner that is consistent with our trade obligations, including those under World Trade Organization agreements. By implementing the reforms included in this legislative package, the government is ensuring Australian businesses have access to a robust trade remedies system and are competing on a level playing field.

I am also pleased to provide the summing up for the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015. These amendments complement the reforms included in the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 by amending the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 to simplify and modernise publication provisions for anti-dumping notices, clarify provisions regarding consideration of the lesser duty rule and clarify the operation of exemption provisions. The improvements will improve certainty for Australian businesses engaged in the anti-dumping system and complement the improvements contained in the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015.

I would like to address a couple of the points made by the member for Makin in his contribution to the debate. We are replacing the legislated government advisory body, the International Trade Remedies Forum, with more flexible consultation arrangements. Why we are doing that is simple: the existing ITRF is currently large and bureaucratic; with more than 20 members and legislative requirements around meetings, it is not an efficient consultative group. Removing the ITRF from the Customs Act will reduce regulation and allow greater flexibility around the scope of work and frequency of stakeholder consultations. The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Makin. We have confidence in our ability to consult with industry.

This government is committed to consultation but believes the International Trade Remedies Forum provisions as currently set out in the Customs Act as introduced by the previous government are too prescriptive. This government believes that a more focused and flexible consultative arrangement better fits the constantly changing challenges faced by today's antidumping system, with working groups to be convened around specific issues as needed. The government will seek advice from a wider range of stakeholders than was available under the forum provisions. Consultation will be guided by the issues and interests affected, whether from traditional manufacturing, industry bodies or downstream industry. Removing the embedded International Trade Remedies Forum provisions from legislation reduces unnecessary regulation and frees up resources that can be better used in other areas of the antidumping system.

The member for Makin also raised some concerns about the changes to the Anti-Dumping Review Panel. We are making changes because currently there is a low bar for applicants seeking merits reviews of antidumping decisions. Often reviews are sought on the basis of a company being unhappy about duties rather than an error of law. We are introducing a number of benchmarks to ensure that appeals are based on an incorrect decision rather than simply an undesirable one, including raising the legal and procedural thresholds for accepting applications and restricting reviews to the most meritorious issues. We are introducing a fee to access merits review, with a smaller fee for small- and medium-sized businesses. The proposed fees amendment will allow the government to introduce a fee for applying for merits review of certain antidumping decisions by the specialist Anti-Dumping Review Panel. The fee will be established by a legislative instrument. The Minister for Industry and Science has indicated that the fee for accessing the services of the review panel will be as follows: $10,000 for large businesses and foreign governments and $1,000 for small- and medium-sized enterprises or individuals.

As the fees will be introduced by a legislative instrument, the parliament will have a chance to consider the fees during the disallowance period for the instrument. These are not a hindrance to accessing the system, but rather they are designed to ensure the review process is not being misused or gamed by big, foreign national companies. These fees will encourage businesses to more seriously consider the legal merits of the application for review. By reducing the number of frivolous reviews, the government will be providing certainty for Australian businesses and saving them the costs of participating in less meritorious reviews, which can add months to the process and create uncertainty in the final decision until the merits review is concluded.

Our reforms are allowing the Anti-Dumping Commission to be a formal party to the review, and we are introducing a conference process ahead of lodging a review to clarify the final decision. These are sensible changes to the review process and will ensure the system is robust and fair. Our government is committed to ensuring that Australian industry is able to compete on a level playing field. This is why we have introduced reforms to ensure that Australian industries have access to a strong antidumping system that delivers efficient and effective remedies for Australian businesses injured by dumping and subsidisation. I commend the bills to the House.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.

Debate adjourned.