Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2015 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Bill 2015 make a number of relatively minor technical amendments to Australia's antidumping laws. However, there are two matters these bills raise that the Labor Party does have some serious concerns about. I understand that there will be a second reading amendment moved to refer these bills to a committee—so there will be an opportunity to canvass those questions.

Part 15 of the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill amends the Customs Act to abolish the International Trade Remedies Forum. That forum was a reform introduced by the Labor government as part of a package aimed at improving and streamlining Australia's antidumping system. The forum is a formal advisory group comprised of key users of the antidumping system and is charged with providing expert advice to the government on the effectiveness of the antidumping system. Its membership is drawn from manufacturers, from producers, from importers, from unions and from industry associations, as well as including representatives from government agencies. The purpose of the forum is to provide high-level strategic advice and feedback to government on the implementation and monitoring of our antidumping system.

The abolition of this group is in line with a pattern of behaviour from this government which, one would have to suggest, is about limiting opportunities for industry and the community to provide independent advice to the public service and to the government itself. What we have seen is that the government has been abolishing, one after another, committees such as this throughout the industry portfolio and those agencies related to the industry portfolio. This is a shockingly retrograde step.

Just a few months ago, in the December MYEFO, the Liberal government announced that they were reducing the number of government bodies as part of what they call the 'Smaller Government initiative'. A number of groups in the industry portfolio were abolished under this so-called initiative, including expert advisory groups on research and development, on venture capital, on commercialisation programs, on workplace productivity and on intellectual property. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. This is a government that is absolutely terrified of independent advice! It is absolutely terrified of talking to people who actually know something about the regulations that affect them. So the dismantling of these advisory groups—often, as I said, comprising external experts from business and industry, and often at incredibly low expense to the government—is an extraordinarily stupid and short-sighted approach. In taking these acts, the minister is effectively shooting himself in the foot.

It is the Labor Party's view that getting rid of independent advice is actually counterproductive. I know it is very popular in the public service, because what you want to do in the public service is to confine advice—to make sure that the channels of communication to the minister are limited. The real risk is in losing people who are actually directly affected, who can provide you with expert opinion and direct experience, and who can save you huge sums of money—not to mention the grief that comes as a result of regulations being implemented which have all sorts of adverse consequences, often quite unintended. It is actually a smart thing to do to engage people in the processes of government.

Now, the members of these advisory groups are, as a rule, respected leaders in their fields of expertise. They actually want to contribute; they want to help out. It costs them time and effort. It is part of what they regard as their civic duty. But this is a government that chooses to turn its back on these people. Of course, these groups are perceived to be in some way uncontrollable, and this is a government that is quite averse to any genuine industry consultation. The idea of independent advice is anathema to them.

So, what is all this about? It is not about budget savings, because most of these people do not even get paid. The December MYEFO flagged some of the amendments to the antidumping system which we are debating today, including the abolition of the International Trade Remedies Forum. MYEFO documents state:

The existing International Trade Remedies Forum will be replaced with a streamlined Anti-Dumping Industry Board.

Right. However, there is no reference at all to the antidumping industry board in this bill that we are debating today. There was no reference to the replacement body when the Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Mr Bob Baldwin, wrote to members of the International Trade Remedies Forum in December last year. Mr Baldwin wrote to senior industry leaders, informing them that the forum would be discontinued. He said, 'The government will consult with stakeholders by convening smaller committees to provide industry feedback on the operation and the reform of the Australian antidumping system.'

Well, I may be a little cynical after a few years in this place, but I am not inclined to take this government's word when it purports to commit to an engagement with industry, or manufacturers or, particularly, with trade union representatives. We have not seen any evidence that there is genuine dialogue in the 18 months that this government has been in office.

I note that the International Trade Remedies Forum has not met since March 2013, despite there being a requirement in the Customs Act to meet at least twice a year. Perhaps if the Liberals had bothered to call a meeting of the forum, which they are required to do by law, they would have found it to be a little more effective. You can hardly argue, 'It's not effective because we don't call any meetings', with the decisions that are taken by government itself to actually wind down these bodies. The International Trade Remedies Forum was established to ensure that there was a proper legislative protection for this valuable dialogue with industry, and, despite that fact and despite the contribution that these industry leaders have actually made to the work of our antidumping regime, this government has turned its back on them. Now the coalition did not oppose the International Trade Remedies Forum when the legislation to establish it was passed—in fact, at the time it claimed to support it—and nor did it say before the election that it would be seeking to abolish this advisory group, so it is disappointing that this government is now backing away from a measure that previously enjoyed bipartisan support.

The other matter the Labor Party is concerned about is the fee for review. Part 12 of the Customs amendment antidumping bill amends the act so that the Anti-Dumping Review Panel will be able to charge fees for review. These fees will be determined by a legislative instrument, which may prescribe different fees for different kinds of applications and applicants. As I understand it, the government's intention here is that the introduction of fees will probably lead to fewer applications for review. While this might benefit some producers when the original decision was to impose duties, it also makes it expensive for Australian producers seeking reviews of decisions which did not impose duties. The government says small businesses may be eligible for a reduced fee or that there may be a provision for a refund or a waiver of the fee; however, without further detail and without actually seeing the instrument in question, it is very difficult for Labor to make a sound judgement on the effect of this measure on Australian industry. Therefore, while Labor does not oppose the fee in principle, it must reserve its final position until it has actually seen the fee scales.

I note that the coalition's election policy document stated:

The current anti-dumping laws are cumbersome, slow and prohibitively expensive for many Australian businesses to utilise.

Well isn't it incredible, when you have been in government for a short while, how all of the things you said before are found to be so easily disposed of in such a short period after the election. If the Liberals—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

I can remember Sophie Mirabella—remember the famous Sophie Mirabella, the disgraced former member for Indi, ranting and raving, 'We're going to toughen up the antidumping regime; we're going to get rid of'—what did they say?—'this cumbersome, slow and prohibitively expensive way of actually undertaking under antidumping measures.' What do we have now? Capitulation by this government.

If the Liberals are concerned that our current antidumping system is 'prohibitively expensive', then it would be interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary's explanation of how a fee for review by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel is consistent with that pre-election commitment. When the bill was before the House of Representatives, the member for Makin moved an amendment to remove the abolition of the International Trade Remedies Forum from the bill. I will be moving a similar amendment in this chamber. Labor will also support Senator Xenophon's motion to refer this bill to a committee. We want to see what the detail actually is. Australia's antidumping regime is hugely important to the maintenance of fair trade for domestic producers. Labor are proud of their record in building that regime, including measures such as the International Trade Remedies Forum, and we will not allow this government, the Abbott government, to dismantle the regime for no better reason than an ideological hostility to industry policy. I urge Senator Xenophon to move his motion, and I look forward to it being voted on in the chamber.