Academic literature on the topic 'Wheat trade government policy Australia South Australia'

The previous Abbott government had prioritized a general attitude to foreign policy captured by the phrase “Jakarta not Geneva,” which signified a preference for bilateral or minilateral interactions with the region rather than United Nations-based multilateralism. With Julie Bishop MP as Australia’s first female foreign minister, the Coalition also prioritized economic diplomacy, as exemplified by the repeated refrain that Australia is “open for business.” This approach led to a preference for diplomatic venues and processes that focused on continuing investments in regional architecture, new emphasis on minilateral dialogues such as the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) and Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, and Australia (MIKTA), and more effort directed to bilateral and plurilateral processes such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. This approach has been continued under Prime Minister Turnbull, with a renewed focus on innovation. Part 1 considers minilateral and regional investments in the Indo-Pacific region, primarily, IORA, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). I consider MIKTA a unique vehicle for Australian diplomacy. Part 2 considers what issues Australia should be pursuing through these forums, with a focus on the two themes of gender equality (as an example of niche diplomacy) and trade (multilateralism under pressure) as case studies. Beeson and Higgott argue that middle powers have the potential to successfully implement “games of skill,” especially at moments of international transition. How skilful have Australia’s efforts been in these minilateral dialogues, enhanced regionalism, and plurilateral processes, and what more can be achieved in these forums? Are these efforts creating more fragmentation of the rules-based order, or are they a way to overcome global governance stalemates? I set out the arguments for whether Australia, as a pivotal power, should generate more global options, or be more focused on inclusion in the Asia-Pacific region.

As water becomes an increasingly scarce resource, a lack of clarity in relation to its use can produce both conflict among and inefficient use by users. In order to encourage markets in water and to ensure the viability and functionality of those markets, governments in many jurisdictions have moved away from commons property as a means of water allocation, and towards systems of private property in water. In doing so, one policy and legal option is “unbundling”, which seeks carefully to define both the entitlement to water and its separation into constituent parts. Advocates claim that unbundling makes water rights easier to value, monitor, and trade. But is unbundling the most efficient means of allocating water use rights? Or might such fragmentation produce what has come to be called an “anticommons tragedy”? To answer these questions, this article contains four parts. The Introduction provides the legal background to the modern means of allocating the use of water amongst competing, or rivalrous, users. Part I considers the theoretical nature of property, and the way in which such theory might be extended to water allocation through unbundling. Part II presents unbundling as it has been implemented in the Australian state of South Australia. This allows us to assess the extent to which the stated policy rationale for unbundling—certainty and transferability of entitlements—has been achieved and the extent to which this is a desirable outcome. Our analysis can be applied to any jurisdiction, most notably the arid and semi-arid southwestern United States, considering unbundling as a legal and policy option for the allocation of water use. The Conclusion reflects upon the potential for unbundling water entitlements in arid or semi-arid environments. The South Australian experience reveals a reluctance to embrace unbundling, both on the part of the state in terms of implementing, and on the part of market actors holding existing proprietary interests in water. This reluctance ought to be viewed by other jurisdictions as a warning about the effectiveness and efficiency of unbundling. We show that unbundling efforts may not only fail to provide efficiency gains, but also, and much more worryingly, may in fact drive anticommons tragedies that entirely inhibit any beneficial use. We propose that our anecdotal and theoretical analysis of South Australia requires empirical research both in Australia and in other jurisdictions climatologically, hydrologically, and in underlying legal framework, similar to Australia. Such empirical research will test our conclusions in relation to South Australia, both in respect to the operation of the water market and as to the behavior of market actors.

Objectives: This study presents the case for a reciprocal health care agreement (RHCA) between Australia and South Korea. Design and Setting: The research utilised a qualitative social scientific methodology. Document analysis was conducted on government reports, official statistics and media articles in English and Korean. Main outcomes: In Australia, the Health Insurance Act 1973 enables health care agreements with 11 nations, however, Korea has no similar legislation in place. Therefore, Korea would need to build a broader consensus on the need for a RHCA in full, based on the precedent of Australia's agreements with other nations, as well as on the Korean Pension Act, which has enabled reciprocal (equal treatment among the countries) pension agreements with 28 nations through an exceptive clause. Results: The active government commitment and involvement of the Ministry of Health and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Australia, and of the Ministry of Health & Welfare and Ministry of Foreign Affairs in South Korea, would be essential for a successful RHCA process to come to fruition. Conclusions: While a potential health care agreement between Australia and Korea would constitute a significant step forward in strengthening people-to-people links between these two significant trading partners in the spirit of health diplomacy, the feasibility at the current time is very low indeed.

AbstractAt present, with the rapid development of foreign trade, trade friction of China has transformed from the microcosmic aspects of enterprise to the macroscopical aspects of government. Countervailing policy as a trade policy has a profound effect on many aspects. Based on constructing Binary Choice Model of the influencing factors of macro decision-making, this paper tries to carry out an empirical study on the influencing factors of macro decision-making form foreign countries against China with the data of the 38 countervailing files initiated by the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa and India from 2004 to 2009. This paper makes contributions to provide reference to China’s macro decision-making sectors.

The coronavirus epidemic 2019-nCoV in China has already led to a slowdown in the country’s economic growth and the fall of the yuan exchange rate on the stock exchanges. The Russian government has banned visa-free tourist trips between Russia and China and the issuance of work visas to Russia for Chinese citizens; Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Pakistan, and Italy have imposed similar bans. Great Britain, South Korea, Singapore and New Zealand have imposed quarantine for arrivals from China. Military aircrafts of Russia, India and Thailand take their citizens out of China. The US authorities have declared public health emergency and ban on the entry of all foreign citizens who have visited China over the past two weeks. This article gives forecast, how these measures of the governments will affect on global academic mobility and economic growth.

Four of the largest conglomerates in Sout h Korea are Samsung Group, Hyundai-KIA Automotive Group, LG Group and SK Telecom. In 2009, the joint market value of the assets these conglomerates owned amounted to aro und half of the South Korean GDP (Wang 2010). Ostensibly, the South Korean economy is dominated by the co nglomerates. Samsung and LG are the two major players in Korea’s electronics industry; Hy undai and KIA are the two major players in the automotive industry. The export dependency (Tot al Exports/GDP) of South Korea is 44.9% and its import dependency (Total Imports/GDP) is 38% (CIA 2010). This indicates that the South Korean economy is highly dependent on global trade as well as on the conglomerates. It has signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the European Union and will ratify FTAs with some of its other trading partners such as China, United States, Japan and Australia (YONHAP News Agency 2010a). It is our view that such changes in trade policy are supported by the conglomerates, which have considerable sway over the govern ment, due to their significant contributions to the economy. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the source and the nature of the impediments the government faces in implementing policies that enable freer trade in South Korea. We do this from the perspective of President Lee My un-bak, who we characterise as a key veto player, as he draws political support from groups that have conflicting agendas.

Indonesia has experienced an increase in users of e-commerce platforms, resulting in increased income for sellers, both individuals and entities, who conduct online sales transactions. Therefore, the Indonesian government sets a tax policy for online sellers. However, the Indonesian government still has several obstacles, one of which is that e-commerce transactions have an eternal nature. To answer these problems, the author compares the taxation policies on e-commerce transactions that apply in Indonesia with the tax policies on e-commerce transactions that apply in other countries, namely the European Union, Australia, South Korea, India, China, the United States, and Japan. The writing method used by the author is a literature study method. This paper shows that the taxation policy on e-commerce transactions in Indonesia, the European Union, Australia, South Korea, India, China, the United States, and Japan imposes a Value Added Tax (VAT) or the like as a consumption tax on goods. And services as well as sales tax and Income Tax. In addition, several countries have created platforms or special teams to manage taxes from e-commerce transactions, namely the platform Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS), now called OSS (European Union); Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) (South Korea); Professional Team for E-Commerce Taxation (Protect) (Japan). Therefore, Indonesia needs to follow the example of the European Union, South Korea, and Japan in terms of establishing a system or team dedicated to managing tax collection from e-commerce transactions

John Hartwell is Head of the Resources Division in the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra Australia. The Resources Division provides advice to the Australian Government on policy issues, legislative changes and administrative matters related to the petroleum industry, upstream and downstream and the coal and minerals industries. In addition to his divisional responsibilities, he is the Australian Commissioner for the Australia/East Timor Joint Petroleum Development Area and Chairman of the National Oil and Gas Safety Advisory Committee. He also chairs two of the taskforces, Clean Fossil Energy and Aluminium, under the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (AP6). He serves on two industry and government leadership groups delivering reports to the Australian Government, strategies for the oil and gas industry and framework for the uranium industry. More recently he led a team charged with responsibility for taking forward the Australian Government’s proposal to establish a global carbon capture and storage institute. He is involved in the implementation of a range of resource related initiatives under the Government’s Industry Action Agenda process, including mining and technology services, minerals exploration and light metals. Previously he served as Deputy Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council and the Commonwealth representative to the Natural Gas Pipelines Advisory Committee. He has occupied a wide range of positions in the Australian Government dealing with trade, commodity, and energy and resource issues. He has worked in Treasury, the Department of Trade, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy before the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. From 1992–96 he was a Minister Counsellor in the Australian Embassy, Washington, with responsibility for agriculture and resource issues and also served in the Australian High Commission, London (1981–84) as the Counsellor/senior trade relations officer. He holds a MComm in economics, and Honours in economics from the University of New South Wales, Australia. Prior to joining the Australian Government, worked as a bank economist. He was awarded a public service medal in 2005 for his work on resources issues for the Australian Government.

Indonesia sebagai salah satu negara yang sering dituduh melakukan dumping produk kertas A4 menimbulkan sebuah pertanyaan karena Australia menjadi negara terkini yang menuduh tindakan dumping atas produk Kertas A4 asal Indonesia, yang mana sebelumnya Indonesia pernah mendapat tuduhan dari Korea Selatan (2002), Afrika Selatan (2003) dan Jepang (2012). Hal yang seharusnya menjadi perhatian oleh produsen dan pemerintah Indonesia dalam kasus tuduhan dumping oleh negara luar adalah masalah like product serta kekaburan hukum atas klausul PMS (particular market situation), yang mana selama proses persidangan, baik Indonesia, Australia maupun pihak ketiga memiliki argumentasi masing-masing terkait interpretasi dalam menentukan definisi dari PMS karena belum adanya definisi yang jelas. Penelitian ini menganalisis bagaimana WTO menginterpretasikan makna PMS dari kasus sengketa. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dan analisis menggunakan metode kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kebijakan Australia mengenakan BMAD terhadap produk Kertas A4 asal Indonesia, telah melanggar Pasal 2.2 dan 2.2.1.1 Perjanjian Anti-Dumping WTO. Lalu, WTO menginterpretasikan makna PMS dari kasus sengketa anti-dumping ekspor A4 antara Indonesia dengan Australia menentukan bahwa tidak adanya elemen atau batasan terkait dengan intervensi pemerintah. Hal tersebut dikarenakan intervensi pemerintah tidak secara otomatis diterjemahkan secara negatif, karena tidak ada batasan pasti terkait kapan dan bagaimana intervensi pemerintah dapat dianggap berbahaya bagi pasar yang berdampak. Kata-Kata Kunci: Anti-Dumping, Particular Market Situation, Penyelesaian Sengketa Dagang Internasional, WTO. Indonesia as one of the countries that are often accused of dumping A4 paper products raises a question because Australia emerged as the latest country that accuse Indonesian products, in which Indonesia had previously been accused by South Korea (2002), South Africa (2003), and Japan (2012). Things that should be of concern to producers and the Indonesian government in cases of dumping accusations by foreign countries are the issue of like the product and legal ambiguity over the PMS (particular market situation) clause, which during the trial process, both Indonesia, Australia, and third parties had their arguments, each comply to their own interpretation in determining the definition of PMS because there is no clear definition. This study will analyze how the WTO interprets the meaning of PMS from dispute cases. The research is normative juridical law research which conducted the analysis using qualitative methods. The results of the study show that Australia's policy of imposing BMAD on A4 paper products from Indonesia has violated Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Then, the WTO interprets the meaning of PMS from the A4 export anti-dumping dispute case between Indonesia and Australia, determining that there are no elements or limitations related to government intervention. This is because government intervention is not automatically translated negatively, as there is no definite limit to when and how government intervention can be deemed harmful to the impacting market. Keywords: Anti-Dumping, International Trade Dispute Resolution, Particular Market Situation, WTO.

Markets for Australian beef throughout the 20th century have been moulded by world wars, economic depressions, droughts, transport technology, cattle breeding, trade barriers, global competition, livestock disease eradication, human health risks, food safety, Australian Government policy, consumerism and beef quality. Major ‘shocks’ to beef marketing include the development of successful shipments of chilled carcases to Britain in the 1930s, the widespread trade disruption caused by World War II, expansion (early 1950s) and then a reduction in beef exports to Britain (1956), the introduction and then proliferation of Bos indicus derived cattle in northern Australia (1960s), licensing and upgrading of Australian abattoirs to export to USA and the consequential brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign leading to record export tonnages of Australian processing beef to USA (1960–70). In 1980, increased beef trade to Japan began, leading in the late 1980s to expansion of high-quality grain finished products into that market. By 1993, beef exports to Japan (280.5 kt) exceeded those to USA (274.4 kt), signalling the significant shift in beef exports to Asia. Commencing in about 1986, the USA recognised the value of beef exports to Asian markets pioneered by Australia. Australia’s share of the Japanese and South Korean markets has been under intense competition since that time. Another major influence on Australia’s beef market in the early 1990s was growth in live cattle exports to Asian markets in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Live exports accounted for 152000 heads in 1992 and 858000 heads in 1996. Improved management systems (e.g. fences) and consequent regulation of cattle supply even in the wet season, a by-product of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, were indirect drivers of the growth in live exports. Throughout the period 1940–2000, domestic consumption of beef and veal declined from 68 to 33.3 kg/head.year, reflecting competition from other foods, perceptions of health risks, price of beef, periodic food safety scares, vegetarianism, changes in lifestyle and eating habits and lack of consistency of eating quality of beef. Despite this decline, the domestic Australian beef market still consumes a significant component (37%) of total Australian beef production. In 1984–85, the reform of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation set in train a major directional change (‘New Direction’) of the beef sector in response to beef market trends. Under Dick Austen’s leadership, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation changed the industry’s culture from being ‘production-driven’ to being ‘consumer-driven’. Market research began in Australia, Japan and Korea to establish consumer preferences and attitudes to price, beef appearance and eating quality. Definite consumer requirements were identified under headings of consistency and reliability. The AusMeat carcass descriptors were introduced and a decade later traits like tenderness, meat colour, fat colour, meat texture, taste, smell, and muscle size were addressed. These historical ‘shocks’ that shaped the Australian beef markets have all been accompanied by modification to production systems, breeding programs, herd structure, processing procedures, advertising and promotion, meat retailing and end-use. The increasing importance of the food service sector and the ‘Asian merge’ influence on beef cuts usage in restaurant meals and take-away products are the most recognisable changes in the Australian food landscape. The Cooperative Research Centre¿s research portfolio was built around the changing forces influencing beef markets in the early 1990s. Australia needed to better understand the genetic and non-genetic factors affecting beef quality. One example was the poor success rate of cattle being grain-fed for the Japanese premium markets. Another was the relative contribution of pre- and post-slaughter factors to ultimate eating quality of beef. The Meat Standards Australia scheme was launched in 1997 to address this problem in more detail. The Cooperative Research Centre contributed significantly to this initiative. In the year 2001, Australia, with only 2.5% of world cattle numbers retains the position of world number one beef trader. We trade to 110 countries worldwide. The Australian beef sector is worth A$6 billion annually. The diversity of Australian environments, cattle genotypes and production systems provides us with the ability to meet diverse specifications for beef products. A new set of market forces is now emerging. Strict accreditation rules apply to Australian producers seeking access to the lucrative European Union market. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies like bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie are a continuing food safety concern in Europe. This and the foot and mouth disease outbreak in Britain early in 2001 have potentially significant indirect effects on markets for Australian beef. And the sleeping giant, foot and mouth disease-free status of Latin American countries Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina continues to emerge as a major threat to Australian beef markets in Canada and Taiwan. As in the past, science and technology will play a significant role in Australia¿s response to these market forces.

This study investigates how South Australian wheat growers have adjusted to the deregulation of their industry since 1989. Prior to this date growers were obliged to deliver their wheat to the Australian Wheat Board which undertook the management of price risk on their behalf. Since that date growers have an increasing number of ways by which they can price their wheat.
Thesis (M.App.Sc.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 2004

This chapter discussed the multi- sectoral bilateral cooperation between Australia and Bangladesh during and post-COVID-19-related to interregional trade, foreign investment, ready-made-garments export, education, blue economy, microfinance, tourism, renewable energy, and finally, fulfillment of targets of SDGs. How do diverse areas of bilateral cooperation between Bangladesh and Australia become more efficient and effective in resource utilization and bring socio-economic benefits? Advancement in economic cooperation in both the countries may be improved from trade and investment, enhancement of education using Australian model, improvement and enhancement in energy, blue economy, education, health, and RMG sector. Australian partnership will be helpful for government agencies, policy makers, and associated stakeholders of Bangladesh for future improvements and development interventions in diverse multisector areas. Emphasis needs to be given to ecofriendly sustainability as suggested by the author to meet the climate change and sustainability goals.