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

I indicate that I strongly support the opposition's amendment. It is important that we keep the International Trade Remedies Forum. In the short and sharp Senate inquiry we had into this bill on Monday last week, it was quite obviously anomalous that this Trade Remedies Forum, which has a valuable role, has not met since mid-2013. Both industry and unions are at one on this. They are on a unity ticket for this forum to be kept. That is why I believe that the government ought to listen to industry, unions and independent commentators who consider this forum plays a valuable role in the context of Australia's antidumping regime. For those reasons and many others, I support this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The amendment before the chair is opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7678. The question is that part 15 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

() (): I have amendments in respect of schedule 1, parts 7 and 11, in terms of the definition of 'subsidy' and notification of subsidies. I oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 1, Part 7, page 20 (lines 1 to 13), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 1, Part 11, page 25 (lines 1 to 11), to be opposed.

Amendment (1) removes the provisions that change the definition of 'subsidy' under the act. This is in response to concerns that were raised during the Senate inquiry process that this new definition was far too broad. In essence, the new definition in the bill requires proof that a payment made to an entity has provided a benefit to that entity. As the law currently stands, the fact that a payment was made is enough for it to be considered a subsidy. We have already seen the significant difficulties faced by Australian manufacturers seeking to put forward cases for antidumping or countervailing duties when they try to meet the evidence thresholds already in the bill. This proposed change will simply mean one more thing that they have to prove and one more hurdle until duties can be applied. In fact, it will weaken our antidumping regime.

Further, it is generally acknowledged that it is incredibly difficult for the commission to access accurate financial information in the course of their investigations. Adding this additional requirement to prove a benefit has occurred is only making matters more difficult. In my view, we should be making it easier for Australian manufacturers to apply for antidumping or countervailing duties, not harder—of course, within the context of our WTO obligations. As such, my proposed amendment will remove this new definition from the bill and allow the current definition to stand.

Chair, can I get some guidance from you. I can speak to the second amendment at this time, or do you wish to deal with them separately?

The CHAIRMAN: I think we should deal with them separately. There are not a lot of amendments.

Yes, so if we could perhaps deal with the first amendment. Senator Carr has carriage of this bill for the opposition, so if he is satisfied with us dealing with the amendments one at a time—