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

Mr Chairman, this may assist the committee, and I apologise for any mix-up: I seek leave to move the second part of that amendment. This is in relation to part 11. It is a consequential amendment, because this amendment seeks to remove the proposed changes that would clarify the application of the lesser duty rule when subsidies are not reported. I seek your guidance as to whether I can move that amendment now. It is an issue that is distinct from the previous issue but, in a sense, it could be argued that the two are interrelated.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Xenophon, I have put the question on your amendments (1) and (2). I do not have any further amendments in front of me. If there are other amendments, we will need to track them down and work out what we need to do with them.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but my understanding was that I moved the first amendment—item 1—and that I was to move item 2. The idea was to deal with them separately, because there are two distinct issues. The second amendment—item 2—which I seek leave to move, relates to the application of the lesser duty rule. Perhaps that is the basis of the confusion.

The CHAIRMAN: I see where the confusion is. I thought you were asking me whether I wanted to deal with your amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7694 and then, separately, your amendment (1) on sheet 7697, but what you were actually seeking to do was to do amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7694 separately.

That is right. I apologise for the confusion. It is the excitement of budget day for all of us.

The CHAIRMAN: I know—we are all excited. But you did actually seek leave to move them together, so in fact we have done them.

I did not even get a chance to give my explanation on the record!

The CHAIRMAN: I am happy for you to have another crack at talking about those amendments before you go on to move amendment (1) on sheet 7697.

Just so there is no confusion, the amendment that has been passed will clarify the application of the lesser duty rule when subsidies are not reported, that the lesser duty rule requires the minister to have consideration for the least amount of duty that can be applied and that this disadvantages Australian manufacturers, that this amendment dealt with those issues and would remove those provisions from the bill, and that the amendments to the bill on sheet 7701 are consequential to this. I hope that helps to clarify that on the record.

The CHAIRMAN: While the committee determined that the bills would be taken together, my advice is that we are going to be voting on each bill separately, and these amendments you are now referring to do in fact relate to the second bill.

Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: I think at the moment we are trying to bite off far too much, so let us deal with one bill at a time. We will work through it that way and we will ensure that all amendments are dealt with. Senator Xenophon, perhaps you would be so kind as to move your amendment (1) on sheet 7697, and that will deal with all the amendments to the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1), and then we will move to the second bill and deal with your amendments on sheet 7701.

Thank you, Chair, and I am also grateful to Senator Leyonhjelm, who has not been actively involved in this bill but seems to know what is going on. I am grateful to Senator Leyonhjelm for his helpful advice. I move amendment (1) on sheet 7697:

(1) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 16—Review of Anti -Dumping Commission

Customs Act 1901

129 At the end of Part XVB

  Add:

Division 10—Anti -Dumping Commission reporting obligations

269ZZYAA Annual report

(1) The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report on the Anti-Dumping Commission's operations during the financial year.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include the following:

  (a) the number of preliminary affirmative determinations in the financial year in which public notice was given, under section 269TD, 60 days after the date of initiation of an investigation;

  (b) the number of days (averaged over the financial year) taken to give public notice, under section 269TD, of the making of a preliminary affirmative determination;

  (c) the number of instances in the financial year in which the Commissioner has relied upon submissions lodged by interested parties under Division 6A without verification of the contents of such submissions;

  (d) the number of days (averaged over the financial year) taken for a nominated exporter of goods to Australia to answer questions in a questionnaire given to the exporter by the Commissioner under subsection 269TC(8);

(e) the total amount of interim duties collected during the financial year;

  (f) the total amount of final dumping duties collected during the financial year.

(3) A report under subsection (1) may be included in the annual report of the Department.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

I had an opportunity to meet with Minister Macfarlane and his very capable staff earlier today, along with members of the Anti-Dumping Commission. The aim of this amendment is to ensure certain information regarding the Anti-Dumping Commission's activities is reported to parliament annually. This will help to ensure the transparency and oversight of the commission and of the antidumping system as a whole. This information does not include any specifics about a particular case but instead covers broad statistics that will provide a guide to the operation of the commission. This amendment will ensure that this information snapshot is publicly available and easily accessible by requiring the minister to table it in parliament. I believe that this is an important oversight mechanism that will not create a burden on the commission or the department.

That was my view until I met with the minister's office earlier today and their view is that it would be quite resource intensive. These are matters that can be obtained as questions on notice, or particularly through the Senate estimates process, and I understand the government is opposing the amendment on that basis, because of the diversion of resources rather than being involved in actual cases. I still move the amendment but I will be guided by my colleagues in the opposition and on the crossbenches. I understand the concerns of the department and of the government in respect of this amendment.

If it is not supported I will seek to obtain this information through the estimates process and through questions on notice, for instance, and if that does not prove to be a satisfactory basis for obtaining information then it will need to be revisited. I am looking for an undertaking from the minister that these are matters that the government and the department will provide in the course of, say, Senate estimates or questions on notice. It will not be the same as an annual report but, to me, it would be a fair compromise that would achieve the same outcome. I am sorry I have not had a chance to speak to my crossbench colleagues, and especially Senator Carr, about this beforehand.