Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to continue with a line of questioning on a number of preliminary matters. I do have a number of amendments in relation to this bill, and I note that my colleague Senator Madigan from the DLP, who is in the chamber, has a number of questions to ask in respect of this bill. I also note that time is short—we only have about 23 minutes or so before other matters are considered by the Senate.

I can say, and I would like to put on the record, that I am grateful for the discussion that I have had with one of the government's advisers in respect of this bill. I want the committee stage to go as smoothly as possible and I want to be able to assist the parliamentary secretary, Senator Feeney, who is representing the government in respect of this bill at this stage. What I have undertaken to do as a result of the discussion I have had with the government is that I will put a number of technical—I would like to think they are forensic—questions in relation to dumping so that we can have a fruitful and expeditious committee stage when this matter is brought back on. I suspect that Senator Feeney is an expert on dumping; I probably do not need that extra briefing from the minister's office! But notwithstanding that, and out of an abundance of caution, I think that it is important that I engage with the minister in relation to this, because I genuinely want a good outcome.

There are 950,000 Australians left in manufacturing jobs in this country. We have already heard from the government's own manufacturing task force that over 100,000 jobs have been lost in recent times and we have had senior union officials who have made the point that 200,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the year 2008—since the GFC. So these are important issues. It is a bedrock of our economy, and dumping of products below cost from markets into this market can cause enormous damage.

There is one matter out of left field that I do want to raise, and it is something that the government may want to take notice of, but it is something that in fact raises an issue in respect of what the Howard government did and implications that it has for an antidumping regime. I am not here to have a go at anyone. I see that Senator Sinodinos is there in the hot seat for the opposition, and I will very much welcome his contribution in respect of this.

My question to the government and, indeed, to the opposition relates to the treatment of China. I will read from a minority report from the Senate inquiry into my 2011 bill in relation to dumping duties. Government senators Cameron and Pratt made this comment at 1.42 under the heading of 'Union and industry concerns':

The former Coalition government recognised China as a market economy as part of its accession to the WTO in 2004. A condition of China’s membership to the WTO was that member countries would not have to recognise China as a market economy for 15 years from the date of China's accession. As an ‘economy in transition’, China’s ability to defend dumping claims is weakened as the country accusing China of dumping has immediate recourse to surrogate (third country) pricing information to judge if goods have been dumped.

And the report of the economics committee into the billalso made this point at 3.60:

The treatment of China (i.e. whether it is given a market economy status (MES), or is classified as an economy in transition (EIT), or a non-market economy (NME)), could also result in differences between the level of measures imposed, and the success of anti-dumping/countervailing applications between the countries.

So in practical terms, my question to the government—and, again, I am happy for this to be taken further on notice and, again, for the coalition to take this on notice because it is an important issue for the alternative government to consider—is: to what extent did the decision of the former Howard government back in 2004 in recognising China as a market economy in respect of the WTO make a difference in respect of dumping claims, firstly? Secondly, to what extent would an economy such as the United States and other countries who have not recognised China as a market economy be able to prosecute dumping claims in relation to a dumping or countervailing duty matter? In other words, are we in a worse position as a result of that decision made in 2004 in respect of dealing with dumping claims on behalf of Australian manufacturers or not?