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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Senator Ronaldson. In 2011, the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, announced that the coalition's policy on dumping would in part be to reverse the onus of proof. Currently, Australian businesses seeking to have dumping duties applied have to prove that dumping is occurring. They have to do so at enormous cost, given the unfair evidentiary burden. If the onus of proof was reversed, the exporters bringing goods into Australia would have to prove that dumping was not occurring. I note that an article by David Crowe in the Australian, yesterday, says that the government is considering reversing the onus of proof. Can the minister provide an indication of what that will mean in practice. Does it have the same meaning it did in the coalition's 2011 announcement?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for a question literally without notice. I am happy to give him the answers that I can. The Minister for Industry has made quite clear over the last two or three days this government's deep concern in relation to goods dumped into this country and the impact that that has on local jobs and local industry. The government is reviewing the antidumping laws to improve the efficiency of regulation and strengthen the legislation. If Senator Xenophon is asking me whether, as the Industry rep, I am concerned about the dumping of goods into this country, yes, I am. Is the Minister for Industry concerned about the dumping of goods into this country? Yes, he is. Is the Prime Minister concerned about the dumping of goods into this country? Yes, he is. That is why we are reviewing the antidumping laws to improve their efficiency.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In June last year, I moved amendments to the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013 that would have introduced a reverse onus of proof. After discussions with the then opposition I included a further amendment that would have introduced a reverse onus of proof after preliminary affirmative determination had been made, which I understood to be the coalition's position at the time. The coalition and the then government voted against these amendments. Is either of these amendments consistent with the coalition's current policies?

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his supplementary question. As Senator Xenophon knows, we have passed legislation to allow for the transfer of the Anti-Dumping Commission to the Department of Industry. That transfer is expected to be completed in the first half of 2014 and will send a clear message that the government is focused on combatting unfair dumping.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Finally, I hear from Senator Carr!

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

Senator Ronaldson, ignore interjections. It is Senator Xenophon's question. Ignore other interjections; they are disorderly.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hear an interjection from Senator Carr, the man who destroyed the car industry, who is responsible for the biggest reduction in manufacturing jobs in this nation's history. You've got a nerve to ask us a question. I will now return to Senator Xenophon's response.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order, on my left!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure that Senator Carr will have the opportunity to ask me a question before we finish. I will go through his record bit by bit, piece by piece, legislation by legislation. (Time expired)

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

The minister has comprehensively ignored my question. The article in yesterday's Australian indicated that Minister Macfarlane was preparing a raft of antidumping measures. Can the minister indicate whether a provision similar to the United States' Robert Byrd amendment, under which affected companies were granted revenue collected through dumping duties, has been considered? If not, why not? Is the government at least sympathetic or supportive of the idea that the dumping duties announced last week in relation to canned tomatoes ought to be given or redirected to those companies affected? (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am obviously aware of the Senator Xenophon's views. Clearly, the minister is aware of Senator Xenophon's views. I am sure that Senator Xenophon has actually expressed those to the minister himself. When the review is completed and the antidumping laws are reviewed to improve the transparency the honourable senator's questions will be answered.