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

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

At the outset, I place on the record that the government accepts the amendments passed yesterday in the Senate in relation to both the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015, specifically in relation to the International Trade Remedies Forum, the definition of 'subsidy' and clarifying the lesser duty rule subsidy provision.

The government's reforms will strengthen Australia's antidumping system, and I thank the parliament for agreeing to the vast majority of the government's reforms in these bills which will place a greater onus on overseas businesses to cooperate with investigations, ensure more stringent deadlines for submissions, crack down on uncooperative exporters, provide better assistance to Australian businesses, address circumvention of antidumping duties, reduce red tape, improve certainty and improve the antidumping merits review process. All of our reform measures will bring relief and certainty to Australian businesses being injured by dumped or subsidised imports.

Although the government did not oppose the amendments passed by the Senate yesterday, we will continue to consult with stakeholders on those important reforms and may bring them forward at a later date. I commend this bill as amended to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is pleased to see that the government has accepted these amendments. One of the amendments was put up by Labor and the other two were put up by Senator Xenophon. All three amendments in fact allow the law to remain as it currently is. This is legislation that was, indeed, introduced by Labor a couple of years ago.

I am also pleased to hear that the government is prepared to have those matters considered by the International Trade Remedies Forum. It was always our view that the forum served a very good purpose. My recollection is that it was supported by the government at the time it was introduced. It is for the very purpose of reflecting on the kinds of amendments that the government wanted to put through and which were yesterday rejected that the forum was established—and that was to consider some of those kinds of matters as they arose. By all means, if the matters are referred again to the forum once it is in place—and we would urge the government to be convene a meeting of the forum as quickly as possible—and the forum has a different view to what has been determined by the parliament today then we would be open to considering that view.

It is interesting that, when the matter was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, all of those three matters that were the subject of amendments yesterday in the Senate were also matters that were discussed in the course of that review. Indeed, there was general consensus from all parties that made submissions that those three matters should be amended, as they properly were in the end. I believe that they will allow the legislation to proceed with much more certainty than would otherwise be the case. I accept that it was the government's intention to try to provide more certainty with respect to a couple of the matters, but I think the opposite would have occurred and that was the considered view of those people who made submissions to the inquiry.

I also note that there were concerns with respect to the fact that the current legislation and the current processes may not be complying with World Trade Organization agreements that we might be a party to. My understanding is that that has not been proven to be the case. Again, I am certainly open to hearing the government's view on that in the future if it is true that we are not complying with our obligations under WTO agreements. But I have seen no evidence of that to date. So, therefore, I would suggest that, again, it is one of those matters where the Senate got it right when it suggested that we amend the bills accordingly and accept the bills with those amendments.

Having said all that, the opposition clearly support any intent of the government to strengthen the antidumping regime of this country. We accept that it is causing a great deal of harm to businesses and that that also flows through to people employed by those businesses throughout Australia. If we can close the loopholes which exist and which the importers who want to try to dump goods into Australia always seem to find then we should do that. It is one of those matters that I think is going to require ongoing review because every time you find a way of stopping something from happening there is going to be some smart operator somewhere who comes up with another way of circumventing the process we have in place. That is exactly why the International Trade Remedies Forum, the forum that is made up of all of the parties that have an interest in this issue, ought to continue. They are the people who have their ears to the ground. They are directly involved with the importation of goods. Therefore, they are in the best position to not only spot where flaws might arise in the legislation but also advise government as to how best legislate to overcome and stop that circumvention. With those comments, as I said from the outset, the opposition support the amended bill. I commend the Senate for having brought it back to this House with those amendments.

Question agreed to.