Search

(…) In general, the decline in labour productivity seen since the early 2000s has been due to the lag between capital investment and the corresponding increase in output and the depletion of high-quality natural resources.

(…) Measures aimed at increasing broader-based productivity growth form an essential part of the Government's reform agenda [15] (…)

[15] Despite successive rounds of reforms it seems that progress has stalled or even reversed in some productivity-enhancing policy areas and the 'to do list' among the Productivity Commission's recommendations is still a fairly long one, including those to: (...) terminate selective industry subsidies (e.g. automotive and renewable energy industries) that cannot deliver demonstrable net social benefits; (...)

Australia encourages foreign investment not contrary with its national interest. To ensure that national interests are protected, Australia continues to apply a screening process under the framework of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and the 2013 Foreign Investment Policy. The concept of "national interest" is not defined under the Act or Policy and is interpreted on a case-by-case basis, inter alia, taking into account a range of factors, typically including: national security; competition; the impact on other Government policies (including taxation); the impact on the economy and the community; and, the character of the investor.[44] (...)

[44] Greater detail on how these factors are taken in account is set out in the Foreign Investment Policy. Viewed at: http://www.firb.gov.au/content/policy.asp?NavID=1. This Policy (Annex 2) also contains the Government's policy statement on foreign investment in agriculture and the national interest considerations taken into account in this specific sector, namely: the quality and availability of Australia's agricultural resources, including water; land access and use; agricultural production and productivity; Australia's capacity to remain a reliable supplier of agricultural production, both to the Australian community and its trading partners; biodiversity; and employment and prosperity in Australia's local and regional communities.

The screening process applies to: proposed investments by foreign private investors involving the acquisition of a substantial interest (of 15% or more) in any business that is valued at over $A 252 million. However, as a result of RTA commitments, higher monetary thresholds (of $A 1,094 million) apply to investments in non-sensitive sectors by investors incorporated in United States (since 2005); New Zealand (since 2013); Chile (since 2014); and the Republic of Korea (since 2014). [46] (...)

[46] Sensitive sectors are: (...); and the extraction of (or holding of rights to extract) uranium or plutonium or the operation of nuclear facilities. In these sectors the general threshold of $A 252 million applies.

Since January 2012, Australia's tariff classification system has been based on the HS2012 nomenclature. [9] (…)

[9] The fourth review amendments to the Harmonized System concentrate primarily on environmental and social issues that are of global concern. The 2012 Harmonized System revisions contain approximately 800 amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 affecting 43 of the 98 chapters in the classification, through either note changes or classification changes or both. Extensive revisions affected Chapters 3, 9, 16, 27, 29, 61-62, and 96. Australian Customs and Border Protection Notice No. 2011/12, "2012 Harmonized System Changes". Viewed at: http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/ACNHS2012Final.pdf.

Australia's approach to non-preferential rules of origin (ROOs) remains unchanged since its previous Review; however, changes were made to preferential ROOs in its RTAs. The most common rules in these RTAs are those of: wholly obtained; change in tariff classification (CTC); regional value content (RVC); and the process rule (for chemicals). The ROOs in Australia's RTA with Singapore are based on an RVC measure, while the ROOs in its RTAs with New Zealand, the United States, Thailand, and Chile are essentially based on the CTC methodology, reinforced and enhanced where necessary with RVC and process rule requirements or options. In Australia's RTA with ASEAN and New Zealand and the RTA with Malaysia, "alternative and co equal" product-specific rules exist for most tariff lines, offering exporters the choice of a CTC based rule or an RVC-based equivalent. Around 83% of tariff lines are covered by these "alternative and co equal" rules, while approximately 11% of lines offer only one option — either a CTC based or RVC rule. The remaining lines are covered by wholly obtained requirements for agricultural goods and special rules for waste and scrap goods.(...)

Between 2010 and 2013, Australia initiated six countervailing investigations. As of 30 June 2014 seven definitive countervailing duties were levied on aluminium extrusions, aluminium road wheels, hollow structural sections, aluminium zinc coated steel, zinc coated steel, and hot rolled plate steel from China, as well as biodiesel from the United States.

The institutional framework for standards and conformance remains unchanged. It consists of four main bodies: Standards Australia, a not-for-profit company encompassing 75 of Australia's leading industry, government and consumer organisations is responsible for the formulation of standards; the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), and the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) (section 3.2.7.1.3), the two main accreditation bodies ; and the National Measurement Institute (NMI), the government body responsible for physical, chemical, biological and legal metrology. The current five year long Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between Commonwealth Government (Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR)) with Standards Australia and NATA, largely the continuation of the previous MOUs, were signed on 17 and 21 May 2013 respectively. The MOU with Standards Australia still requires the development of new or amended standards and setting of priorities to be transparent and well-founded, and ensuring the primary decision criterion is of net benefit to the community as a whole.[59] (...)

[59] Net benefit takes into account the costs and benefits related to: public health and safety; social and community impact; environmental impact; competition; and economic impact (Standards Australia online information. Viewed at: http://www.standards.org.au/StandardsDevelopment/What_is_a_Standard/Pages/Net-Benefit.aspx).

(…) In December 2014, 71% of motor vehicle safety, anti-theft and emission standards were aligned with the United Nations (UN) 1958 Agreement on technical standards for automotive and parts regulations; a further 13% were modified for adoption, while 16%, comprising ten standards, were not aligned. (...)

The Code (the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code) also regulates food derived from Genetically Modified (GM) plants, animals or micro-organisms, as well as the labelling of GM foods. Imported foods using biotechnology may be sold in Australia only after assessment and approval by FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand). As at 1 July 2014, FSANZ had completed assessments of 63 (45 in November 2010) commodities produced from gene technology. A further four were withdrawn by the applicants before FSANZ completed the assessment process; by July 2014 it was assessing the safety of food from one GM commodity. FSANZ has also assessed and approved numerous enzymes sourced from GM micro-organisms. Imports of live and viable genetically modified organisms (GMOs) require authorization under the Gene Technology Act 2000, which regulates particular dealings with GMOs in addition to permissions for use in food. All dealings involving release (DIR) of a GMO into the environment must be licensed by the Gene Technology Regulator, an independent statutory office holder, unless otherwise authorized under the Act. All licence applications are subject to case by case scientific risk assessment and risk management. As at 30 June 2014, seventeen accredited organizations held the 54 DIR licences in force, of which 9 were for commercial release of GMOs (cotton, canola and a vaccine), three for vaccine trials, and 42 for limited and controlled trials of GM crop varieties.