Dissenting Report from
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon
Introduction
1.2
Australia's anti-dumping system has undergone five reviews between 1986
and 2006. The current legislative framework and arrangements were introduced
following the 1996 Willett Review.
1.3
Most recently, in May 2010, the Productivity Commission provided the
Government with its Inquiry Report into Australia's Anti-dumping and
Countervailing System. The Government is yet to provide its response to this
report.
1.4
The Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping) Bill 2011 seeks to improve
Australia's existing anti-dumping framework with respect to strengthening the
review and appeals process, providing greater opportunities for Australian
manufacturers to have their matters investigated thoroughly by allowing new
information to be provided.
1.5
The dumping of goods destroys domestic markets. It is crucial that
Australia has a robust anti-dumping regime in order to protect industries, jobs
and communities.
1.6
Dumping duties exist to protect domestic manufacturers from below-cost
goods flooding the market. Currently, however, it appears the regime favours
importers and Australian manufacturers are left to fend for themselves.
1.7
Indeed, although free trade is important for our economy, Australia's current
approach appears to be 'free for all trade' and this approach is leaving
domestic manufacturers vulnerable.
1.8
A recent example and the case which spurred this Bill, was the case of
Australian tissue paper producer, Kimberly-Clark.
In 2008, the Government imposed dumping duties on the Chinese
and Indonesian tissue products after investigations found that Chinese products
were being sold at 2 to 25 percent below the cost in its domestic market, while
Indonesian toilet paper was found to have been dumped at 33 to 45 percent below
value.
However, this decision was overruled in 2009 following a
review by the Trade Measures Branch of Customs, which determined that there was "no material injury" to Australian manufacturing as a result of these
imports.
The Trade Measures Review Officer (TMRO) had determined that
although dumping had been proven and although Kimberly-Clark had suffered
injury, they did not believe the two were linked.
Subsequently, in February 2011, Kimberly-Clark announced it
was closing two of its four tissue machines and selling a pulp mill in and near
the regional town of Millicent, costing around 235 jobs.[1]
1.9
While it may be the case that a number of factors may have led to
Kimberly-Clark's decision, it would be fair to say that the dumping of toilet
paper did have an impact on the company's bottom line and affected its ability
to withstand other financial pressures.
1.10
Regardless, this case highlighted the lack of access an Australian
manufacturer has to the anti-dumping regime.
1.11
Kimberly-Clark has said their inability to provide new and updated
information, the lack of expert consultation and the extensive time and money
that they had to invest prior to the Customs investigating the matter made it
very difficult for them to have their concerns heard.
1.12
Similarly, CSR Viridian instigated an anti-dumping case in 2010 for
clear float glass against imports from China, Indonesia and Thailand. The
company spent approximately $300,000 conducting preliminary investigations
prior to launching their application with Customs, whose investigation found
that goods were being dumped from China between 11 and 26 percent below the
cost in the domestic market, from Indonesia at 3.3 to 22 percent below cost and
from Thailand at 3.5 to 12 percent below cost. However the investigation was
terminated because material injury to Viridian could not be confirmed. This
case is currently being reviewed by the TMRO.[2]
1.13
This Bill seeks to remedy some of industry's concerns when it comes to
working within Australia's anti-dumping framework.
1.14
Mr Brad Crofts from the Australian Workers' Union told the Committee
that:
The consequences of inaction in adequately addressing dumping
and countervailing to Australian workers, their families and their communities
are all too familiar.
...
Australia must enforce its rights to apply effective
anti-dumping and countervailing measures to prevent injury and loss to
Australian industry and workers. Amendments proposed by the bill go a long way
in address current weaknesses in domestic law.[3]
Free trade, not 'free for all' trade
1.15
Many of the submitters to the Inquiry shared
their concerns about Australia's approach to dumping as being overly
cautious and overly concerned with free trade theory, rather than the
practicalities of effectively dealing with dumped imports.
1.16
Mr Innes Willox is from the Australian Industry Group. He told the
Committee that Australia takes a very literal approach to the WTO's guidelines:
Senator XENOPHON: There are submissions from JELD-WEN, the
Law Institute of Victoria and the Law Council of Australia which have said that
this could be in breach of our international obligations under the WTO. Could
you comment on that and perhaps make reference to their submissions—I think
they made reference to article 3.1 and to article 11 as well ... Which status do you
give these rules, these WTO rules, these GATT rules? Are they a guide? Are they
almost like a code of conduct rather than black-letter law and are we taking
them too literally compared to other countries?
Mr Willox: Certainly, if I may say so, I think you could take
the impression away that Australia has taken a very pure view.
Senator XENOPHON: Fundamentalist, some would say, Mr Willox.
Mr Willox: Yes, some may say that, but if there is a view it
has certainly been very much a black-letter law view of the WTO anti-dumping
agreement. I would like to see in detail what some of the government
departments have said. We have always said that we have to be broadly WTO
compliant, because that will then open up the option for Australia or
Australian companies or organisations to be taken to the WTO. That may be an
argument that we have to have in some cases to establish exactly what is
intended, basically to test this agreement. It is often a matter of
interpretation. We have been very clear as we framed our response to this
legislation to ensure that as broadly as possible we are compliant with what we
would take to be the intent of the WTO agreement; but as far as we have made
clear there is very little here that we see as being far outside the reaches of
any WTO guidelines.[4]
1.17
Indeed, a key issue is whether Australia takes too literally the WTO
guidelines, to the detriment of our domestic industry.
1.18
National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, as part
of the launch of the AWU's Don't Dump on Australia campaign in February 2011,
to raise public awareness about the impact of dumping on Australian jobs, said:
Unfortunately the evidence is clear that our laws and
regulations on free trade are simply weak – and other nations take advantage of
our weakness.[5]
1.19
Those sentiments have been supported by the National Secretary of the
CFMEU, Michael O'Connor, who has been a long-time champion for his members on
this issue.
It is the union's view that the government has a duty to
ensure that local industry is afforded the maximum amount of security to
prevent encroachment from unfair trade whilst remaining accommodating to our
broader international trading strategy framework. In this sense, the CFMEU
considers Australia's anti-dumping system seriously flawed. The anti-dumping
system, time and time again has proven to be inaccessible, expensive,
complicated and unresponsive to the concerns and requirements of local
industries and unions.[6]
1.20
In an exchange with the Committee, the AMWU, CFMEU and AWU:
Senator XENOPHON: When your organisations go off to trade
forums—and you heard the Taliban remark—how are we regarded? What do fellow
trade unions and fellow peak bodies say about the way that we do things here
compared to the way that things are done in the US, Canada or Europe?
Mr Wacey: We will take it on notice. But I will say that our
members—the workers in the forestry industry in particular—note that other
countries, such as the USA, Canada and those in the European Union are able to
balance their responsibilities in order to protect their industries and comply
with the WTO in a much more effective way than Australia. Leaving aside whether
the amendments proposed are compliant or not compliant with the WTO antidumping
rules, the government needs to make a commitment to do whatever is possible in
order to protect Australian industry from the practices of unfair trade, in our
view. That is the view of our members: that other jurisdictions are able to
much more effectively balance those responsibilities.
Senator XENOPHON: Can any or all of you give examples of
that? If so, that would be useful in terms of learning how they deal with it.
Mr Fetter, perhaps on notice given time constraints, what fellow organisations
do overseas? How do they deal with this issue?
Mr Fetter: I will do that. I can indicate that in
interactions with trade unions from overseas it has been remarked that
Australia seems a little bit naive in terms of our trade policy. We are a very
open economy by world standards. There is a whiff of fundamentalism about it in
Australia that other trade union organisations and indeed other governments
find a little curious, I have to say. My own view is that other governments
play a much smarter game in terms of applying WTO rules but making sure that
they are applied right up to the limit of how strictly one can apply the rules
and yet be compliant. The view of the Australian practice that we are not only
applying the letter of the law but we are very much capture by that free market
ideology that is not necessarily captured in the black letter of the text. In
the way that we interpret it, we very much put ourselves at the mercy of more
cunning foreign competitors.
Senator XENOPHON: What is the American term? Schmuck?[7]
The Bill
1.21
This Bill proposes a number of amendments to Part XVB of the Customs Act
which can be summarised as follows:
- provide that the overseas company selling the goods into
Australia which are subject to anti-dumping applications bears the onus of
proof to prove that the goods have not been dumped or subsidised for export
into Australia, and if they are uncooperative presume that dumping is
occurring;
- provide a presumption that where 'dumping' has been proven and
'material injury' has been proven, that the material injury is as a result of
the dumping;
- provide for trade unions whose members are directly concerned
with the production or manufacture of like goods to be included in the
definitions of 'affected parties' and 'interested parties' for the purpose of
applications for dumping and reviews;
- enable new or updated information that could not have reasonably
been provided earlier to be provided at various stages of investigation and/or
review;
- allow supporting evidence for an application for dumping to be
collected over 90 days rather than 12 months;
- enable preliminary affirmative decisions to be applied once an
investigation is started;
- require consultation with industry experts as part of the
investigation and review processes;
- prohibit the CEO of Customs from providing a statement to
affected parties of the amount or price of anti-dumping or countervailing
duties if it is based on information provided on a confidential basis or
disclosure would affect the providers business interests;
- enable decisions to be referred to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal for appeal; and
- require an independent review of the first two years of the
operation of the amended legislation.
1.22
These amendments all seek to strengthen the framework which currently
exists but which, for many in the industry, is simply inadequate, to give
Australian manufacturers more opportunity to have cases of dumping addressed
and ultimately to protect domestic industry and jobs.
The application process
1.23
Currently, if a company believes that goods may be being dumped in their
market it has to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and dedicate
significant time to investigating the issue before an application can be made
to Customs.
1.24
Mr Innes Willox is the Director of International and Government
Relations with Australian Industry Group. He told the Committee that:
To initiate a claim of dumping will often take 12 months or
more to gather the evidence that is required to lodge and prosecute a claim.
These are not easy claims to lodge. They are more likely than not costing
companies hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am aware of cases in current
times where companies have had to spend over $1 million in pursuit of claims.
So they are both lengthy and costly to pursue.[8]
1.25
Customs, in its submission to the Inquiry, clarified that it does not
specify a minimum period for data provision, however the Application Form is
confusing in that it states:
The application form requests data over several periods (P1,
P2....Pn) to evaluate industry trends and to correlate
injury with dumped imports. The labels P1...Pn are used
for convenience in this application form. Lodged applications should identify
the period relevant to the data. This form does not specify a minimum period
for data provision. However, sufficient data must be provided to substantiate
the claims made. If yearly data is provided, this would typically comprise a
period of at least four years (for example the current financial year in
addition to three prior years). Where information is supplied for a shorter
period, applicants may consider the use of quarterly data. Data must also be
sufficiently recent to demonstrate that the claims made are current.[9]
1.26
The proposed amendment under this Bill reduces the timeframe of evidence
required for an application to 90 days.
Senator CAMERON: The big issue here is that by the time you
get a resolution to a claim that there have been detrimental effects through
dumping, the detrimental effects have been in and the damage has been done.
Dr Jones:
Yes, and you have started collecting data six to 12 months before you have got
your application together, because you have got to collect it from overseas as
well as locally.[10]
1.27
Further, it's important to note that once an application is made, an investigation
by Customs can take some months to complete (in fact, based on the maximum time
limits on each stage it could be over a year before the Minister has made
his/her decision); again allowing injury to be caused to the industry in the
interim.
The investigation process in itself can take in excess of 18
months. Thus even if successful, which is not often the case, Australian
manufacturers have suffered injury for a significant period of time due to the
nature of the system. It is unacceptable and should be addressed by the amendments
contained within this Bill.[11]
Reversal of the onus of proof
1.28
One of the key amendments proposed under this Bill is to reverse the
onus of proof, allowing Customs to approach the overseas company selling goods
in the Australian market and require evidence that they are not dumping and,
should the overseas company be uncooperative, to assume that dumping is
occurring.
1.29
Such an amendment would save considerable time and cost and would allow Customs
investigations to be completed in a timely manner, before significant damage to
the domestic industry is caused.
1.30
It is understood that Customs does approach the overseas company subject
to the investigation as part of the current investigation process however
whether or not they cooperate is completely up to them.
1.31
Evidence was presented to the Committee by the Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade that this may conflict with WTO rules regarding the onus of
proof being on the country wishing to apply duties. This was based upon a WTO
Appellate Body decision in United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan.
1.32
The ACTU, on its own behalf and on behalf of the AMWU, AWU and CFMEU, in
answer to questions on notice received on 6 June 2011, considered this case and
its context in some detail.
Senator Cameron has asked us about the WTO Appellate Body
case of US—Hot-Rolled Steel. In that case, the United States was investigating
allegations of dumping by three Japanese companies. Two of the companies
submitted a response after the deadline had passed, and so the response was disregarded
by the US authorities. The third company told the US that it was unable to
comply with the request for information because a daughter company was refusing
to provide the information; the US ruled that the company had failed to
co-operate with the investigation and proceeded to make decisions based on the
information before it. Dumping duties were ultimately imposed on products
exported by the three companies.
In response, Japan complained to a WTO Panel established
pursuant to the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel ruled that the US should have
accepted the two companies’ material late, and should have assisted the third
company in obtaining information from its subsidiary. These findings were
upheld by the WTO Appellate Body.
This case does not, at all, stand for the proposition that a
country’s laws cannot reverse the onus of proof in relation to dumping
inquiries. The case turns on its own facts, which relate to late lodgement of
material and also information-gathering within corporate groups. All the case
does is provide an orthodox application of the rules contained in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement – in particular, what article 6.8 means when it refers
to a party that ‘refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide, necessary
information within a reasonable period’.[12]
Presumption of dumping
1.33
Referring back to the Kimberly-Clark and CSR Viridian cases, it proved
very frustrating that although dumping had been proven and material injury had
been proven that the two weren't considered to be linked.
Senator XENOPHON: In the initial statement—and I am referring
to this case, but it could apply to the Kimberly-Clark case or to a whole range
of others—on this relatively recent case there was a finding of lost sales,
lost market share, suppressed prices, lost profitability and profit, reduced
return on investment and reduced sales revenue. Which of those was no longer
applicable such that you could no longer determine material injury had
occurred?
Mr Gleeson: If I recall correctly, all those injury findings
were upheld in the final report. But it was more a case of us satisfying
ourselves after the statement of essential facts with subsequent analysis and
refinement of our initial analysis that there were other factors at play that
were also mentioned in the report. These were other factors in the market for
that particular product that were causing and contributing to the injury. This
meant that we were not satisfied that dumping in and of itself had caused
material injury.
Senator XENOPHON: So all of the factors that I have outlined
were upheld, but you found another way to say that you could not determine
material injury?
Mr Gleeson: Caused by dumping—that is correct. We were not
satisfied that dumping had in and of itself caused material injury.
Senator XENOPHON: I find that extraordinary. Ms Pitman, does
that raise issues of resourcing?[13]
1.34
Mr Willox from Australian Industry Group explained the frustration being
felt by industry at the requirements under the current framework for an
explicit causal link to be shown between dumped goods and material injury, even
though each are proven to have occurred and despite the fact that dumped goods
will impact a company's ability to fairly compete.
Senator XENOPHON: In the CSR case of float glass, with
JELD-WEN on the other side, there was an initial statement of facts in relation
to that, but in the end Customs decided not to proceed with it. In fact, the
statement of essential facts found that dumping occurred and material injury
occurred, but the decision was changed in the determination report. They could
not determine material injury. Where are the flaws in the current system in
determining material injury? Where does it fall down in a practical sense?
Mr Willox: That is a very good question, because often the
concern is how 'material injury' is defined. What is the definition here? Is it
through loss of market share? Is it through loss of employment within an
operation? Is it loss of ability to compete in the future, because once a new
price—a new, lower 'dumped' price—has been established, does that then become
the market norm? And what is the multiplier impact on your business as a result
of that? There are always fundamental, undefined answers around questions
related to what material injury is. We have seen a couple of instances in which
dumping was found to have occurred but material injury was not found to have
taken place. It always leaves those affected more than bemused—and often
downright angry—that a finding can be made that dumping has occurred but that it
has not materially impacted on the business in Australia. At a time when
competition is tight, that sort of finding is befuddling. The WTO agreement
does not define material injury. It gives some factors that it might involve,
but at no point does the definition of material injury under the WTO prohibit
the impact of dumping on capital investment and jobs—among other factors—as
being material to an impacted party's interests. That is where an issue for us
such as the impact on an organisation's ability to employ skilled people should
be very much taken into account as a material factor in determining a dumping
claim.[14]
1.35
The proposed amendment in this Bill provides that the overall impact of
dumping on a company is taken into account and where material injury is proven
and dumping is proven, that the two are considered to be linked.
Expanding the group of interested
and affected parties
1.36
One amendment to the Bill is for the group of 'interested parties' and
'affected parties' to be expanded to include unions, some of whose members are
directly concerned with the production or manufacture of like goods.
1.37
This will enable Unions whose members work for companies that are
subject to dumping to make applications and be involved in any investigation to
support the Australian employees whose jobs are put at risk as a result of
dumping.
Mr Crofts: ... the AMW, AWU and CFMEU are not prepared to stand
idly by and watch otherwise competitive and profitable local industries
sustaining jobs and local communities succumb to rampant trade malpractices
employed by others. The consequences of inaction in adequately addressing
dumping and countervailing to Australian workers, their families and their
communities are all too familiar, following the loss of employment in otherwise
good, productive union jobs.[15]
1.38
The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, suggested
that expanding the group of 'interested parties' and 'affected parties' to
include unions might be problematic, however this was clarified by the Law
Council of Australia:
Senator CAMERON: Senator Xenophon's bill has in amendments
(1) and (2) the inclusion of trade unions in the definition of interested
parties. I am amazed by the submission from the DIISR; I am not sure if you
have seen that. What it says is:
The involvement of unions ... might lead to tensions between
employees and employers or between parent and subsidiary companies, with
adverse implications for investment and manufacturing in Australia.
It goes on to say:
Situations could also arise where a union representing
employees of downstream users of the like goods might regard itself as an
interested party, since its members could also be affected by anti-dumping
measures.
DIISR goes on to talk about the need to minimise unintended
consequences. Is there any legal restriction on Australia actually including
the trade union movement as an interested party in the legislation?
Mr Hudson: You talked about the US experience. In the US the
trade unions are quite active in this field. I was involved in some
capacity-building work in Vietnam and one of their issues was catfish going
into the US. A number of the parties who were initiating or interested parties
were local union membership on behalf of the workers effectively who were being
disadvantaged, in their view, by cheap imports or unfairly cheap imports of
catfish from Vietnam. I think I might have posed this question previously.
There is no reason in principle why a trade union should not be an interested
party, but their ability to be the applicant is the question, I think.
Mr Percival: Their ability to be the applicant certainly
would be problematic. Currently the legislation provides that trade unions
actually form part of the interested parties. I think the test is that a
majority of them have to be directly affected, or some words to that effect,
and I think Senator Xenophon's bill actually reduces that. So it actually
expands the potential number of trade unions that could be interested parties.
Without having gone back to look at WTO rules, I cannot see why there would be
an international legal reason against it.[16]
1.39
There is also an amendment to allow manufacturers who don't hold 25% or
more of the total Australian production of the like goods, as required under
the current Act, to lodge applications for dumping duties, and recognises that
smaller companies are at a disadvantage when it comes to fighting dumped goods.
Senator CAMERON: But what if they are not a member of an
industry association and are just a small manufacturing company—they are not a
member of AIG or ACCI—that sees that their product is being dumped? It is
costly and it is complex. Do you think a small company without access to expert
advice can actually deal with the dumping issue?
Ms Zielke: I agree that there are difficulties for SMEs in
relation to putting forward those cases. Some of the feedback we have had is
that the cost of putting forward a case is a key issue for them. Hence Customs
currently has arrangements to try to group SMEs to put forward cases. I agree
that not everybody has full or equal access in relation to the level of advice
that they require.[17]
Preliminary affirmative decisions
1.40
Preliminary affirmative decisions enable securities to be applied on
imported goods being investigated for dumping or while decisions are being
reviewed, however under the current framework, Customs cannot make a
preliminary affirmative decision until 60 days after an investigation has been
initiated and it tends to be the case the preliminary affirmative decisions are
not applied until well past this threshold.
1.41
Under this amendment, preliminary affirmative decisions can be initiated
as soon as an investigation has been initiated and during a review of any
decision in order to protect Australian manufacturers from injury while an
investigation or review is being conducted as the process can be quite lengthy.
Allowing new information to be
provided
1.42
A repeated concern of manufacturers, unions and industry representatives
is the inability for new or updated information to be provided at various
stages of an investigation. Several items in this Bill seek to address this and
allow new or updated information that reasonably could not have been provided
earlier to be submitted during the application, investigation and review
processes.
Ms Pitman: ... It is not always possible to go back to parties
to enable them to respond a second time.
Senator XENOPHON: Is that because the current processes do
not allow you to look at new facts? You are constrained?
Ms Pitman: This is not something that we do by design. The
example of something that changes late in the piece is not the preferred
approach and in virtually every case we manage to not have that happen. But the
system is that we are obliged to publish a statement of essential facts. As far
as possible, we include all of the relevant non-confidential information and an
assessment of that information in the statement. We publish that so that the
parties have the opportunity procedurally to comment again. Typically, it
contains only the information that they are already aware of as we maintain a
public file throughout the course of an investigation. But that is not always
immutably the case. Sometimes information comes to light or our assessment of
the information that we already have changes after we have received those
responses to the statement of essential facts.[18]
Consultation with industry experts
1.43
One of the key concerns highlighted during the Inquiry is the need for
better resourcing of Customs, including the need for relevant industry experts
to be consulted as part of any investigation or review.
CHAIR: One of the bills we are dealing with, which is Senator
Xenophon's bill, seeks to insert a requirement that Customs consult with
independent experts. Is that your view of the way it could work or do you think
it would be better to include those experts within Customs?
Mr Willox: We think that there should be the ability to
consult independent experts from outside Customs. Basically, there is a strong
concern at the moment that relative industry expertise in either the
application of the investigation or the review process is not taken into
account. We would very much support the provision or the ability for there to
be consultation with outside industry experts as part of the investigation
review process. This could be with people who not only are Australian but also
are offshore, if they have relevant skills, expertise or knowledge to bring to
the table. What we think that does is to bring forward outside views to allow
Customs to maybe think much more widely and perhaps globally in how they manage
these cases and these claims as they go forward and to seek other input from
people who may have information to bear.[19]
1.44
The Australian Workers' Union, in its submission to the Inquiry,
supported this amendment, and said:
The use of industry experts, accounting experts and other
skilled resources which have not been available to Customs, would also allow a
better understanding of the supply chain, the values created and profit
derivation, would lead to more robust outcomes, rather than looking at simple
price measures and comparisons.[20]
1.45
Further,
Dr Silberberg: By way of a positive observation, my
recollection is that the Productivity Commission did recommend that under the
new anti-dumping system that they were advocating there would be a requirement
to look at the resourcing of the relevant agencies involved in the
administration of the anti-dumping and countervailing system. I think it is
fair to say that there is a level of unanimity of view about that proposition.[21]
Mr Hudson: ...Another thing we mentioned in our submission
was perhaps working with other government bodies and with the ACCC. This is
without, in any sense, suggesting that Customs and Border Protection do not do
a terrific job; I think Andrew and I are both firmly of the view that they do a
terrific job within the parameters of the legislation and the resources they
have. They should certainly have more resources.[22]
1.46
It is crucial that those familiar with particular industries, markets
and forensic accounting experts are accessed for each case to ensure that
dumping investigations are as robust as possible.
1.47
This will also assist with another key amendment in the Bill, which is
to provide for potential impacts to be forecasted and considered.
1.48
Indeed, in some cases, the impacts of dumping may only be felt 6 to 12
to 24 months later, but it's important that these longer term impacts are
considered, rather than just looking at present day evidence of material
injury.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal
1.49
Another key amendment in the Bill is enabling decisions to be referred
to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for appeal.
1.50
Currently, Australian companies only have the recourse of going to the
Federal Court which is extremely costly and lengthy.
There is an option to pursue errors of law through the
Federal Court, but this is limited and does not permit review of the merits of
the finding. Some mechanism needs to be provided to enable representations
outside a Federal Court appeal of errors of law.[23]
Conclusion
1.51
There is no question that there is a need for Australia's anti-dumping
framework to be substantially overhauled.
1.52
It is evident that the current system benefits overseas companies who
dump goods, rather than protects local manufacturers.
1.53
This is most clearly presented by the cases of Kimberly-Clark and CSR
Viridian where dumping has been proven – in the case of toilet paper from
Indonesia, by up to 45 percent – and material injury has been proven, and yet
Customs did not apply duties because no causal link could be found.
1.54
Free trade is important and Australia does benefits from it, but
engaging in free trade should not and must not mean that Australia is the
laughing stock of the international community because our rules are so skewed towards
the dumpers, rather than towards our domestic industry.
1.55
The amendments in this Bill seek to strengthen the Customs Act and
provide greater opportunities for Australian manufacturers to fairly deal with
instances of dumping.
1.56
Ultimately, if products are dumped into Australia, and companies are
unable to fight these cases, their ability to remain financially viable is put
at risk. Subsequently, jobs are put in jeopardy, and as a result, whole
communities, especially in regional areas, are devastated.
1.57
Dumping is not a prohibited practice under international trade
agreements but duties exist to protect domestic manufacturers from below-cost
goods flooding the market. Now we just need an effective framework so these
measures can be applied to protect Australian industry and Australian jobs.
Recommendation 1
1.58 That the Bill be passed.
Nick
Xenophon
Independent
Senator for South Australia
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page