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

That is fine, and I am grateful for that and grateful for Senator Madigan's support in co-sponsoring these amendments.

The first lot of amendments are to the second reading motion. For those out there listening intently, the issue is this: an amendment to the second reading motion does not bind the government of the day. It is not part of the legislation itself, but it does send a clear statement from the Senate asking for something to be done. These amendments to the second reading motion, jointly moved with Senator Madigan, call on the government to commission an independent review into several issues regarding the antidumping system.

Firstly, the review should consider the current provisions relating to 'particular market situations'—I put that in quotation marks because that is a specific term of art in the legislation—and whether they are sufficient in outlining the circumstances where our market is not suitable in determining a normal value of a product. A normal value, as defined, is the expected retail value of a product in its domestic market. It forms an integral part of an antidumping case. However, some markets do not operate on the same commercial terms as Australia and that is something we need to consider.

Just last night, there was the Four Corners story about the clothing industry in Bangladesh and the recent disaster and tragedy there, where over 1,120 people were killed and a further 2,500 people were injured when a factory collapsed. We have heard countless terrible stories of child labour, of people paid tiny sums of money to work excessive hours and of workers locked in buildings and subject to unimaginable conditions. We have also heard stories of rainforests being cleared and cheap timber dumped on the Australian market, with huge environmental impacts. I wonder to what extent dumped products were responsible for the over 200 jobs lost at the Kimberly-Clark factory in the south-east of South Australia—they clearly were—and whether any of those paper products were from rainforest timber. The controls and quality safeguards that apply to Australian manufactured products just do not exist in some other countries. Whether it is child labour, rainforest timber or virtual slave labour, these circumstances need to be considered when determining the so-called normal value of a product.

Secondly, the review will consider the application process, including the impacts on small businesses and the burden of proof that applicants carry. I plead with the opposition, given the statements of Sophie Mirabella, the shadow minister with responsibility in this area, to seriously consider that. It is not forcing a change of the law; it is requesting, rather, a review of something as fundamental as this. In jurisdictions such as the European Union, the process is more supportive for applicants, particularly small businesses, with officials providing a higher level of guidance in terms of information required. Thirdly, the review will consider possible amendments to the way the export price is determined, similar to the previous amendment I moved with Senator Madigan.

The terms of reference for this review will be determined by the International Trade Remedies Forum and the review itself will be undertaken by an independent party. This amendment also states that the review should be undertaken within 12 months of the commencement of this bill and the report tabled in both houses of parliament. The issues outlined in this review need urgent consideration.

Changes in this area will make significant changes for Australian businesses and will further improve our antidumping and countervailing systems. This amendment to the second reading motion is about at least getting this process to improve on the existing amendments that are in place—the fifth or sixth tranche of amendments we have seen. This will go that step further to deal with issues that directly impact on small businesses in this nation.

I also have a number of amendments for the committee stage of the bill that I will be moving jointly with my colleague Senator Madigan. Item 1 inserts a new item into section 269TAB(1) which relates to the determination of export prices of goods exported into Australia. Determining the export price plays an important role in determining whether goods have been dumped in Australia. This particular amendment broadens the criteria to include the circumstances when an importer sells goods in Australia on less than profitable terms. This relates to when an importer is selling items at a price, if they were manufactured on a similar basis as like Australian products, that could not be retailing at a profit—for example, if an Australian manufacturer knows that the product usually costs $2 to make in Australia and an average of $1.80 globally but an importer is selling the item in Australia for $1. By reverse-engineering these figures, it is clear that the importer is selling goods below cost or dumping them into Australia. This amendment will give Australian manufacturers more flexibility when they are mounting dumping cases and recognises an issue that is currently not addressed in the act.

The aim of the second amendment is to make more import information available to Australian companies for the purpose of antidumping cases. I note the Australian Greens have a similar amendment, which I support, and I commend them for moving it. But this amendment is much broader and allows for the type of published information to be determined in the regulations. I note the government's concern about the amount of detail specified in the Greens amendment, so I intend this amendment to be a compromise between the two. I am very happy to support the Greens amendments and I understand that Senator Madigan is as well.

The purpose of the third amendment is to undertake a review of the antidumping provisions in the act. The aim of this is to ensure the government's reforms are operating effectively and to highlight any areas in need of further reform. It also states that the minister must table a copy of the report when completed.

The aim of the fourth amendment is to reverse the onus of proof in the act. Currently, Australian manufacturers must bear the onus of proof in dumping cases—that is, they must prove that dumping exists. This amendment places the onus of proof on exporters, so that when a complaint is made against them they must prove the complaint to be false. I believe it emphasises the need for Australia to be more flexible and creative about our approach to the WTO and trade in general—so we are not the free market Taliban, laughed about in other parts of the world.

I note that the opposition previously stated that they would support a reverse onus of proof. I refer to an opinion piece that shadow minister Sophie Mirabella wrote on 14 November 2011 in TheAustralian. She said the coalition policy would:

… also provide Australian authorities with a greater opportunity make use of preliminary affirmative determinations. For two months into an investigation, these PADs create a shift on the balance of an investigation, requiring the foreign producer (rather than the Australian company that believes it has been damaged by the dumping) to prove its conduct hasn't hurt the Australian industry.

I am asking the coalition to support my fifth amendment, which is directly modelled on what the coalition has said. My plea to this chamber is that we need to do more for Australian manufacturing. This is not about protectionism; it is about fairness. It is about Australia not being treated as mugs by the rest of the world when we are dealing with dumping cases. That is why these reforms are essential.