Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES) BILL (No. 1) 2015

I am pleased to present the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2015, representing part of the Government's reforms to strengthen and improve Australia's anti-dumping system.

This is a Government that strongly supports genuine free and fair trade and an open and dynamic market economy. However the importation of dumped and subsidised goods, which injure Australian manufacturers and producers, undermines the viability of efficient, innovative and hard-working Australian businesses.

This is why we support Australia having an effective trade remedies regime. It represents an integral part of a robust international trading system and we want to ensure that Australian industries are competing on a level playing field. It is also critical to our broader plan to boost the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing.

Australia's current regime for combatting injurious dumping and subsidisation is transparent and complies with our obligations under World Trade Organization agreements. But there is clearly room to strengthen, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system – and that is what we plan to do.

Our reforms included in this Bill introduce a number of measures to strengthen Australia's anti-dumping system. The improvements included in this Bill will:

The improvements that I am introducing today are designed to address stakeholder concerns about the effectiveness of Australia's anti-dumping system, in a manner that is consistent with our trade obligations, including those under World Trade Organization Agreements.

We are introducing more stringent deadlines for submissions to investigations in order to assist businesses to get more timely access to remedies. This amendment aligns our legislation with the quickest timeframes permissible and sends a message to businesses intending to export dumped and subsidised goods at injurious prices to Australia that we are serious about taking a tougher approach to combatting unfair trade.

We are also modernising the provisions which govern how key information about anti-dumping investigations, and other inquiries, is made public. Under current arrangements, many types of key notices are required to be published physically in newspapers.. This arrangement is outdated and does not fully recognise the high level of transparency of Australia's anti-dumping system or the excellent Electronic Public Record managed by the Anti-Dumping Commission. By standardising electronic publication throughout the anti-dumping system, we will be providing stakeholders with the certainty that they can access all notices in one place, free of charge, and at the same time.

This Bill will also increase business certainty in anti-dumping decisions by improving the current merits review process, which is administered by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel. Specifically, the Anti-Dumping Commission will be able to participate in reviews, either by attending a conference called by the Review Panel or making submissions during the review. This complements the ability of the Review Panel to request reinvestigations by the Commission and provides the Review Panel even greater access to the Commission's expertise. These improvements ensure the Review Panel members have access to the information necessary to make informed judgements, whilst maintaining their independence from our anti-dumping investigators.

In addition, this Bill will also raise the legal and procedural threshold for applying for a review and allow the charging of a fee for lodging an application. Although these measures may deter some parties from seeking a review, this will allow the Review Panel to focus on only the most serious and review-worthy issues that businesses truly believe need to be challenged. We have also considered the impact of the fee on smaller businesses, with small and medium sized businesses applicable for a reduced fee when seeking review.

We want to ensure that businesses have greater certainty in decisions made during anti-dumping and countervailing investigations and that these matters are resolved in a timely, robust and efficient manner. This Bill will not affect stakeholder rights to also seek judicial review of anti-dumping decisions.

Finally, this Bill also reduces red-tape by removing the legislative establishment of the International Trade Remedies Forum, which is the Government's anti-dumping advisory body. The Forum, as it is currently legislated, binds the Government to a rigid and restricted method for consulting stakeholders. This Government believes that a more flexible arrangement will allow a wider range of stakeholders to be consulted on the operation and reform of Australia's anti-dumping system.

Instead, the Government is committed to ensuring a broad range of stakeholders are able to bring their views on the administration and reform of the anti-dumping system to the Government. Flexible consultation ensures important issues can be raised in a timely manner and stakeholders are afforded the opportunity to be heard by the Government.

The reforms in this Bill will be complemented by the improvements contained in the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015. In addition to the improvements included in these Bills, we are introducing a range of further reforms that improve access to the anti-dumping system, particularly for small and medium sized businesses, and strengthen the incentives for businesses to cooperate with anti-dumping investigations.

Although these reforms address concerns raised by stakeholders, I will continue to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of Australia's anti-dumping system and consider whether further improvements are required.

We are committed to ensuring that Australian industry is able to compete on a level playing field. Our reforms will ensure that Australian industries have access to a strong anti-dumping system that delivers efficient and effective remedies for Australian businesses injured by dumping and subsidisation.

CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) AMENDMENT BILL 2015

I am pleased to present the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2015, representing part of the Government's reforms to strengthen and improve Australia's anti-dumping system.

This is a Government that strongly supports genuine free and fair trade and an open and dynamic market economy. However the importation of dumped and subsidised goods, which injure Australian manufacturers and producers, undermines support for trade by reducing the fairness of the playing field for Australian businesses.

This is why we support Australia having an effective trade remedies regime. It represents an integral part of a robust international trading system and we want to ensure that Australian industries are competing on a level playing field. It is also critical to our broader plan to boost the competitiveness of Australian manufacturing.

Australia's current regime for combatting injurious dumping and subsidisation is transparent and complies with our obligations under World Trade Organization agreements. But there is clearly room to strengthen, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system – and that is what we plan to do.

Our reforms included in this bill introduce a number of measures to strengthen Australia's anti-dumping system. The improvements will:

The improvements that I am introducing in this bill today are designed to provide certainty for stakeholders. These reforms will complement the improvements contained in the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill (No.1) 2015.

We are committed to ensuring that Australian industry is able to compete on a level playing field. Our reforms will ensure that Australian industries have access to a strong anti-dumping system that delivers efficient and effective remedies for Australian businesses injured by dumping and subsidisation.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to 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.

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

At the outset I would like to make it clear that I am reserving my position on these bills at this stage. It is very important, as Senator Carr pointed out, that we get this right. This is a very important issue because we really have been mugs when it comes to the issues of dumping in the past. I acknowledge the work that Brendan O'Connor and then Jason Clare did as ministers for home affairs in this field. I put up a bill several years ago to strengthen our antidumping regime. Parts of that bill were picked up by the former government, which I think led to an improvement. I hope to have the same cooperative approach with this government in relation to antidumping measures because we have been left behind. Australian industry, Australian jobs have suffered because we have not fought for our jobs by having a clear application of WTO rules. I am not suggesting we get rid of the WTO rules; what I am suggesting is that we fight for them.

Why is it that Tindo Solar, the last remaining solar panel manufacturer in this country, is now facing a huge fight against dumped panels from China which are causing a significant impact? Those are below-cost dumped panels. I indicate that Tindo Solar in Adelaide makes a fantastic product in terms of its quality, reliability and longevity. But they are now in a position where they are having to fight an antidumping case—with some assistance, and in Senate estimates it was made very clear that there were some real issues about the level of assistance they were getting, but I think that has been rectified, which is a good thing. But why is it that in Europe and the United States of America action was taken many months ago—in fact some two years ago—on dumped solar panels from China whereas here we are still getting around to it? That shows some flaws in the system. That is why an inquiry into this very important area of public policy relating to the jobs of Australians needs to be looked at properly.

So antidumping legislation is hugely complex. Australia's system has come a long way in the last few years, but we need to go further. We heed to look at why the coalition dropped its reverse onus of proof approach to dumping. There may be good reasons for that, but it is an issue that Senator Madigan and I have long campaigned for because we need to use every method we can consistent with WTO rules to fight for Australian jobs and Australian industry. That is why I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add :

  and that these bills be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 May 2015.

The government may say that is going to delay things by a couple of months. Let's get this right because we are not going to have another opportunity to do this for quite some time. I urge my crossbench colleagues the Australian Greens, Senator Madigan, Senator Muir, my other crossbench colleagues—all of them—to get this right in terms of what we need to do with regard to dumping.

We do not want to breach international law or jeopardise our trade relationships, but we also need to stand up for Australian jobs. We need to take the same approach to dumping that the European Union, the United States of America and a whole host of other countries have. It was very telling to me when Michael O'Connor from the CFMEU was at a conference on forestry in Scandinavia a few years ago. He told them where he was from. He said, 'I'm from Australia,' and the people laughed at him and said, 'Australia; you're the land of the free trade Taliban' because we take such a literal, fundamentalist approach to free trade that no other country does and in the process poke Australian industry in the eye and destroy jobs.

I believe in fair trade. I believe in having a robust network of trade negotiations and of WTO rules, but let's make sure we enforce them. We need to have more consultation on this bill. We need to hear from the people who will be impacted directly on how they feel the system is working and where there can be improvements. That is why I have moved the second reading amendment in my name. I am very grateful for the support of Senator Carr and the Australian Labor Party in relation to this. It will be a brief inquiry reporting in early May, but it will allow us to examine these bills in greater detail and for industry and small businesses to have their say. I want to thank the government for the information they have provided to me on these bills and look forward to discussing them in more detail during an inquiry process should that be set up.

Ultimately, our antidumping system needs to be improved further on the improvements we have seen in the last few years and on the improvements in this bill, but for goodness sake let's get this right. This is too important to be rammed through the parliament now. Let us get this right because tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Australian jobs are at stake—particularly with the stress we have seen in the manufacturing sector, with the demise of original equipment manufacturers in the auto sector and the impact that will have on the auto supply chain. Potentially 100,000 jobs or more will be at risk, and of course if we see a collapse in our shipbuilding industry, if the subs are not built in South Australia, there will be huge implications for the Williamstown shipyards in Victoria and Newcastle in New South Wales. We may well lose that critical mass of shipbuilding and I do not want that to happen. That is why dumping laws are also important in the context of ensuring we have a strong manufacturing base in our nation.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that we will not be opposing Senator Xenophon's amendment. In relation to this antidumping legislation, Australian manufacturers and primary producers are being injured by unfair competition from foreign companies. The Australian industry can only compete against foreign imports if there is a level playing field, and our antidumping systems deliver just that. Our manufacturers and farmers are competing with foreign goods that are dumped into Australia at prices lower than they are sold in their home markets. Put simply, dumped goods hurt our businesses and our economy, and they cost Australian jobs.

We made election promises to strengthen the antidumping system, and these proposals deliver on those commitments. There is also a range of extra reform measures. The reform measures will place a greater onus on overseas businesses to cooperate with investigations and crack down on companies that do not cooperate with investigations; provide better assistance for Australian businesses throughout the antidumping processes; make improvements to the merits review process to give stakeholders greater certainty around decisions; impose more stringent and rigorous enforcement of deadlines for submissions; and reduce red tape in the system. Specific examples are: establishing the Anti-Dumping Information Service and increasing the numbers of international trade remedies advisers to better support businesses engaging with the system; directing the Anti-Dumping Commissioner to impose provisional duties at day 60 of an investigation where relevant conditions are met; and less tolerance for uncooperative exporters, so if companies do not respond to requests for information the Anti-Dumping Commission will proceed with their investigations on the basis of available information, which could be from the application brought forward by the Australian industry.

Our government has strong and historic support for genuinely free and fair trade and for Australia to operate as an open and dynamic market economy. All of our reforms are consistent with our World Trade Organization obligations. Despite these significant reforms, the government is continuing to engage with stakeholders to determine if more can be done to strengthen our antidumping system and address specific concerns around companies' circumvention of Australian measures, as well as foreign subsidies. Some of this work is currently underway with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry's inquiry into circumvention, due to report soon.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.