Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (10:35): 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 the people doing the work lack the resources they need.
Those are the concerns industry brought to the committee, and they deserve answers from the government. This bill transfers responsibility for the 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 an Australian industry.
It differs from 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. They're temporary measures, and their consequences extend beyond the industry seeking assistance. A tariff can raise costs for businesses that buy imported products and for consumers, and the inquiry must weigh these effects.
The bill includes a public interest test covering the economic significance of 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 is 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. A clear pathway for industry—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 is no application pathway that triggers an inquiry, no published threshold industry can meet to secure 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 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's 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 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. Secondly, there are the ministerial powers and accountability.
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 the 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 affected businesses and find serious injury yet be unable to recommend action.
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 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 a 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 would 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.
Thirdly, it's about the published rules and procedures. This concern is about how much detail remains outside the bill. The minister may make rules governing the commissioner's responsibilities, inquiry procedures, participation by interested parties and timeframes for 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. Industry questioned whether that is realistic, given the growth in the commission's antidumping and countervailing workload. The Australian Workers' Union, which supports prompt passage of the bill, also raised funding concerns.
It 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 injury and consideration of effects across the economy. Transferring that responsibility creates work.
A new name doesn't provide more investigators or any analytical capacity. Without adequate funding, safeguard inquiries could be delayed, or resources could be diverted from existing antidumping cases. Australian industry depends on those cases being handled properly too.
The government should state now how much funding the safeguards function will receive, how long it will last and how the 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 the industry wants the safeguards system to work better. Our support doesn't settle all 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 and the committee secretariat for its work. We will hold the government to the improvements it has promised Australian industry and press it to finish the job.