Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026
Senator BLYTH (South Australia) (19:30): I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026. The coalition supports this bill. Australian industry has asked for this change, and the case for it is sound.
Bringing Australia's trade remedies together in one specialist agency should make the system easier to use and better able to respond when manufacturers face a surge in imports, but the government has more work to do. Changing the agency responsible for an inquiry will achieve little if industry can't bring a case forward. The process remains unclear, and people doing the work lack the resources they need.
Those are the concerns of industry brought to the committee, and they deserve answers from this government. This bill transfers responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission, which will be renamed the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. A safeguard is a temporary restriction on imports, usually a higher tariff, where a surge in imports causes or threatens serious injury to Australian industry.
It differs from the antidumping action. A safeguard doesn't require a finding that goods have been dumped or that anyone has engaged in unfair trade. It responds to the harm caused by increased imports, subject to the requirements of world trade rules.
These measures give an affected industry time to adjust. Their temporary measures and their consequences extend beyond the industry seeking assistance. A tariff can raise costs for a business that buys imported products and for consumers, and the inquiry must weigh those effects.
This bill includes public interest tests covering the economic significance of the affected industries and the likely consequences for the economy downstream—businesses and consumers. The coalition supports a system that examines the evidence and considers those consequences. Australian manufacturers need a credible remedy when the conditions for one are met.
That matters in the current trading environment. Global overcapacity, particularly in steel and aluminium, and sudden changes in trade flows can push large volumes of product into open markets, such as Australia. For a manufacturer, the consequences can arrive well before government responds.
Orders fall away, margins shrink, and investment is deferred. A business that has trained workers and built its capacity over decades can find itself struggling to survive. When a factory closes, the loss is significant.
Suppliers lose work, apprentices lose opportunities, and much-needed skills leave the industry. Australia therefore needs a safeguard mechanism capable of responding when it's needed, and that's why consolidating the three trade remedies functions makes sense. Industry already deals with the Anti-Dumping Commission, and its investigators understand trade remedies and the evidence required to assess them.
Housing these functions together should reduce duplication and build expertise. No submission to the committee opposed the bill, but support for the bill was accompanied by consistent concerns about access, funding and procedure, and we ask the government to take those concerns seriously. The first problem is that industry can't itself start a safeguard inquiry.
An inquiry can begin only when the minister refers the matter to the commissioner. There's no application pathway that triggers an inquiry, no published threshold that industry can meet to secure a referral and no obligation on the minister to explain a refusal. A business facing an import surge must first secure the minister's attention.
That takes time and resources while the commercial damage continues. In its submission, the Building Products Industry Council raised this as a major concern. The council represents industries across steel, timber, cement, glass, masonry and insulation.
Capral Aluminium, the Australian Aluminium Council and the Australian Forest Products Association all raised the same issue. They want a clear, published process through which industry can present a prima facie case to the commission and the minister, and that is a reasonable request. The Australian Steel Institute's experience shows why it matters.
In November 2025, it sought safeguard measures for fabricated structural steel. Its request passed through ministerial consideration before reaching the Productivity Commission in January this year. The final report isn't due to government until November 2026, and, according to the institute's evidence, that's three years after the damage began.
The businesses worst affected include small and medium enterprises. They don't have unlimited reserves to carry years of losses while waiting for decisions. A remedy that arrives after a business has closed offers very little comfort to its workers.
The government says this bill will improve accessibility. If that's the case, then it should establish a process that manufacturers can understand and use, with published guidance, application material and indicative timeframes. The second concern is the minister's continuing control over an inquiry.
The minister sets the reporting period, requires hearings and requires a draft report to be released. The minister also determines whether the commissioner may make a recommendation. It's that last power that deserves attention.
If the minister doesn't require a recommendation, the commissioner can't make one. An inquiry could take evidence, hear from the affected businesses and find serious injury yet be unable to recommend any action. The industry deserves to know why a process designed to investigate harm could be prevented from recommending a response to it.
The minister may also amend or withdraw a reference before receiving the report. The bill doesn't require reasons to be given or notice to be provided to the parliament. Ministerial responsibility is part of this system; it must be accompanied by transparency.
The government should publish every reference, together with any amendment or withdrawal, and the reasons for it. Parliament and affected industries should be able to see how these powers are exercised. There are also questions about the public interest test.
The minister may specify additional matters for the commissioner to consider. Further, the bill requires the commissioner to have regard to whether a recommendation is in the public interest, rather than to be satisfied that it is. The government presents this test as an important protection.
Published methodology and clear reasons will help parliament assess how that protection works in practice. The Australian Steel Institute told the committee that the methodology used in the current fabricated structural steel inquiry hadn't been disclosed. That made it difficult to judge what evidence would assist and how to present it.
The new commission should publish its methodology so participants understand what is required. The third concern is how much detail remains outside the bill. The minister may make rules governing the commissioner's responsibilities, inquiry procedures, participation by interested parties, timeframes and the handling of evidence.
These matters will determine how the system works for the businesses using it. But the power to make those rules is discretionary; the bill doesn't require the minister to exercise it. Industry's requests for clear procedures therefore depend on a further government decision.
Manufacturers and downstream users should have an opportunity to identify practical problems before the arrangements take effect. Finally, the commission must be funded to carry out its new responsibilities. The explanatory memorandum says the cost will be met by existing resources.
The industry questions whether that is realistic, given the growth in the commission's antidumping and countervailing workload. The Australian Workers' Union, which supports the prompt passage of the bill, also raised funding concerns. It is noted that the temporary funding increase provided in 2025 wasn't renewed in the 2026-27 budget.
Safeguard inquiries require demanding economic analysis, assessment of industry and consideration of effects across the economy. Transferring that responsibility creates work. A new name doesn't provide more investigators or more analytical capacity.
Without adequate funding, safeguard inquiries could be delayed or resources could be diverted from existing anti-dumping cases. Australian industry depends on those cases being handled properly too. The government should state how much funding the safeguard function will receive, how long it will last and how existing work will be maintained.
It should also address InfraBuild's concern that the public interest test remains confined to safeguards. Its introduction here shouldn't become a precedent for changing the assessment of antidumping claims, which serve a different purpose The coalition will vote for this bill because consolidating Australia's trade remedies is sensible and industry wants the safeguard system to work better.
Our support doesn't settle the questions raised by the inquiry. Manufacturers need a published pathway to bring cases forward, ministerial decisions need reasons and scrutiny, and the commission needs clear procedures and adequate resources. We thank the organisations that gave evidence to the committee and the secretariat for its work.
We will hold the government to the improvements it has promised Australian industry and press them to finish the job.