STATE TRADING

Questions Posed By the European Union
regarding the new and full notification of Australia^[1]

The following communication, dated 27 September 2016, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the European Union.

_______________

The EU would like to seek further clarifications on the notification submitted by Australia on 27 July 2016 regarding its STEs. In particular:

Question 1

The Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales is the sole State Trading Enterprise (STE) notified by Australia.

Could Australia explain what distinguishes it from the six other STEs^[2] notified in 2004 whose monopoly powers have since been removed?

Question 2

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade made a submission to the Government of New South Wales' 2012 review of rice vesting by the Rice Marketing Board which noted that the continuation of rice vesting is inconsistent with Australia's foreign trade policy.^[3]

Has Australia again made this point to the New South Wales Government as part of its current review of the rice vesting proclamation?

Question 3

Australia's Competition Policy Review's final report of March 2015^[4] and Productivity Commission's July 2016 draft report of its inquiry into the regulation of Australian agriculture^[5] have highlighted the need to address restrictions applying to the export of rice in New South Wales.

With the Productivity Commission questioning the export market price premium generated by the statutory marketing of rice in New South Wales and recommending the repeal of the Rice Marketing Act 1983, what are the reasons for maintaining the Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales?

__________