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

My question is to Senator Wong, the Minister representing the Attorney-General, and is in relation to the decision to lift dumping duties on toilet paper products imported from Indonesia and China. In December 2008, toilet paper products from Indonesia were found to have been dumped on Australia at up to 45 per cent below its domestic value and up to 22 per cent from China. A reinvestigation into this case was finalised—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Xenophon is entitled to be heard in silence.

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

Thank you, Mr President. A reinvestigation into this case was finalised in December last year, resulting in the lifting of these dumping duties even though the products were being dumped at well below their domestic value. Customs determined that material injury to Australian industry by the dumped imports was not foreseeable and imminent. However, aggrieved domestic parties were constrained by providing submissions and providing evidence even though the basis for analysis was changed by the Trade Measures Review Officer. My question to the minister is: why does the reinvestigation not include consultation with domestic parties, especially in circumstances where the basis for analysis is changed? In such cases, does it not seem reasonable that the entire investigation be reopened?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand Senator Xenophon had a detailed discussion with the Attorney-General this week in relation to this matter. Obviously the government gives very serious consideration to any antidumping issues and is concerned to ensure that Australian jobs and Australian industry are protected when dumped imports cause or threaten to cause material injury.

In terms of the facts of the particular case, the former Minister for Home Affairs published a dumping duty notice in respect of toilet paper from China and Indonesia in December 2008 following recommendations from Customs and Border Protection. Applications to review the former minister’s decision were accepted by the Trade Measures Review Officer, who subsequently conducted a review and recommended that all findings be reinvestigated. Pursuant to those recommendations, the Attorney-General in June of last year directed Customs to reinvestigate all findings. In December, the Attorney-General accepted the Customs and Border Protection recommendation from that reinvestigation that these antidumping duties be revoked.

I note that in the senator’s question he asserted that the basis for analysis from the original investigation was changed by the Trade Measures Review Officer. This is not the advice of the government. We believe that is an incorrect assertion. There was no change to the basis of the analysis. Customs and Border Protection was directed to reinvestigate all findings of the original investigation, and that occurred within the relevant legislative framework.

I do note that the senator, in the context of this discussion and also in estimates, has raised concerns about that legislative framework. I would advise the senator, through you, Mr President, that that is a framework that has been in place for many years, well preceding the election of this government, and under that framework no new submissions were considered nor could be considered. As the senator is aware, the reinvestigation found that the toilet paper exporter was not the cause of, nor the likely cause of, material— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government not consider the possible loss of up to 4,000 jobs nationally as a result of this one decision, including 1,500 in the south-east of South Australia alone, to be ‘material injury’?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in my earlier answer, of course the government is concerned to ensure that Australian industry and jobs are protected where dumping of imports causes or threatens to cause material injury. The reality is that Customs concluded that the injury suffered by the applicants was caused more by competition in the industry, not dumping. I understand the concerns which have been raised by the senator and also by employees and some members of the industry. The fact is that the government made its decision on the basis of advice and that decision was made on the basis of the cause of any injury. The fact is that the international antidumping system requires dumped goods to have caused material injury to the Australian industry. That was not the finding of Customs nor the advice— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Under section 269TAG of the Customs Act, will the Attorney-General order a new investigation into this case, opening up the review to allow the domestic industry to present its case and issue a stay of lifting of duties to ensure no impact on the domestic industry while a fresh decision is being considered? Wasn’t the competition caused by the dumped goods in the first place?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the second assertion is not consistent with the advice that I have read out in terms of explaining what the findings of Customs and Border Protection were. Also, in relation to the first supplementary question, I did not have the opportunity to make the point that Customs, on my advice, did consider price, volume and profit effects as well as other economic factors, including employment. That is in response to your earlier assertion. I am advised the Attorney-General does not have the power to direct Customs to undertake another investigation. There are avenues of appeal available to parties. I am also advised that a new application for dumping duties can be made by Australian industry at any time. In addition, under the section in the Customs Act to which the senator refers, it is possible for the Attorney-General to initiate an investigation. Justification of such investigation would require a written application on behalf the Australian industry, and— (Time expired)