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.

I rise today to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) 2026. At its heart, this bill is about protecting free and fair trade. It recognises that Australia is a trading nation, supportive of rules based trade and focused on the jobs, growth and opportunity from participating in a free, fair and sustainable international market. Free and open trade drives vibrant competition, innovation and economies of scale, allowing individuals and businesses to take advantage of lower prices and increased choice. Free trade is about rejecting favouritism and expanding economic opportunity for all, because it creates new, higher paying jobs for Australians as well as for Australia's trading partners. Attempting to restrict trade in order to protect existing jobs makes no more sense than attempting to ban the use of new technology. This government will always back Australian manufacturing to make sure it isn't compromised by unfair trade.

In this country, the benefits of trade are also shared with the community through the ongoing participation of women and First Nations Australians. First Nations Australians have engaged in trade for thousands and thousands of years, and they continue to share in the benefits of trade today, including through inclusive trade provisions in agreements with our trading partners. Foreign investment through trade and Australia's openness to foreign investment have helped to build Australia, create jobs and raise living standards through the introduction of new technology and by fostering competition. Foreign investment provides access to the additional capital we need and supports higher levels of investment by pooling risk and return across domestic and foreign investors.

Foreign investment has also played an important role in the development of our agriculture, resources, energy, infrastructure and financial sectors, and it's also critical in driving forward our transition to net zero. This speaks directly to a future made in Australia, which is directed at both maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the global net zero transformation and securing Australia's place in an ever-changing and complex global, economic and strategic landscape. Scaling up Australia's clean energy industries will assist in strengthening global clean energy supply chains and will underpin our ongoing role as a reliable energy supplier. Australia will continue to work with our international partners to build new clean energy industries and in particular to ensure regional energy security and advance practical action on climate change and climate resilience, as we clearly demonstrated at the recent Pacific Islands Forum.

A future made in Australia and international trade are also focused on encouraging and facilitating the private sector investment needed to harness these opportunities. The private sector is the engine room of our economy, and it supports the inclusive and sustainable productivity growth that is at the heart of the national agenda. It operates by promoting economic growth and opening up new trade opportunities through investments, knowledge transfer and innovation. Without the private sector, new markets are not created; competition is not fostered; and investments in critical national projects, perhaps through private equity or venture capital, are not made.

This all means direct employment; the provision of finance to many industrial sectors and geographic regions; acting to boost living standards and improve the availability and quality of goods and services such as housing, infrastructure, health and education—often through public-private partnerships that allow for risk sharing, so governments and the Australian taxpayer do not have to shoulder all of the financial and operational risks. Equally, with its capacity to invest, innovate and commercialise, the private sector also contributes environmentally friendly technologies, which are valuable in the face of climate change and the transition to clean, renewable energy, helping many positive impacts in many critical development goals such as food security, health and water.

The role of the Australian private sector in free and fair international trade cannot be underestimated. It cannot be restricted or limited. It must be an active partner with government. Government has a critical role to play here, because government invests in essential services. It builds infrastructure and supports education, research and skills development. Government provides the strategic leadership that helps Australia prepare for the future at the same time as recognising that innovation, entrepreneurship and investment are often driven by businesses in the private sector that are willing to take risks, develop new technologies and create new industries.

All of this works together in the international trade context. This bill represents an important step forward in creating fit-for-purpose national trade architecture for a complex world that is continually experiencing shocks. It does this by vesting responsibility for undertaking safeguard inquiries with the Australian Trade Remedies Commission, currently known as the Anti-Dumping Commission. This will streamline Australia's trade remedies architecture. The transfer is an important step in modernising Australia's trade remedy system, noting that this has not undergone significant reform in more than a decade. So it's incredibly important, and it's a signal of Australia's ongoing commitment to free and fair trade and our response to the current levels of volatility in approaches to international trade. It's important that we, in response to that volatility, have sought to rely on pre-existing mechanisms to develop solutions to this challenge rather than follow the volatility that has been displayed by other World Trade Organization members.

The imposition of the safeguard measures has been a feature of the World Trade Organization's legal structure almost since its inception. But, here in Australia, safeguard inquiries have actually been relatively uncommon. There have been only four since we entered the 21st century. But, as we have seen across the globe, governments are taking different approaches to trade with the consequence that principles of free and fair trade are under significant pressure. We have now consistently seen commitments regarding tariffs being dismissed with the stroke of a pen and treaty and fair trade agreement obligations simply disregarded because they don't suit a particular moment. Given the risks posed to the international rules based trade regime, it's imperative that Australia use all of its tools in its toolkit to back local industry to ensure it's not overpowered by the new approaches being prosecuted in the international trading environment.

This bill is a significant development in Australia's approach to safeguard measures. So what are they? They might be temporary quotas, increased tariffs or a combination that are imposed against the imports of a certain product, typically in circumstances where a product is imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers in a particular territory of similar or directly competitive products. Initially, these measures were designed as an emergency-style trade remedy intended to respond to a surge of imports that would cause or threaten to cause serious injury to a domestic industry producing the same product. But, as we have seen, because prohibitive tariffs are now being imposed by a number of major World Trade Organization member states, safeguard measures may need to have a broader and deeper application.

This bill will transfer responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Australian Anti-Dumping Commissioner, who would be renamed the Australian trade remedies commissioner. How it works is that the relevant minister can refer a matter to the Australian trade remedies commissioner to commence an inquiry. Importantly, before the commissioner recommends the application of safeguard measures, they must consider whether the application would be in the public interest. This might include, amongst other things, a consideration of the likely impact of any recommendation to impose or not to impose safeguard measures on the Australian economy, on downstream industries and on consumers. It will also require consideration of the benefits to Australian industry in removing the identified serious injury or threat of serious injury and the economic significance of the industry in Australia that might be affected.

This is an important guardrail on the application of the safeguard measures themselves because it requires consideration of the potential protectionist flavour that may arise through the implication of safeguard measures, noting that protectionism and a protectionist approach are not commensurate with free and fair trade and are also a potentially harmful response to unfair trading practices. This public interest test is critical in weighing up the consequences of what could amount to significant market intervention.

The bill establishes a framework for fair procedures for the parties involved and rigorous approaches in the conduct of safeguard inquiries. The bill ensures that the commissioner conducts these inquiries based on evidence to establish if there has been an unforeseen surge in imports that is causing or threatening to cause serious injury to Australian industry.

Australia has a strong history of free and fair trade. We have free trade agreements with multiple countries around the globe, including New Zealand, the US, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Thailand, Chile, Peru, Malaysia, Korea and Japan, just to name a few. Free trade agreements provide Australian exports with a better competitive position. They open up prospects for increased bilateral investment, and they reduce costs for Australian businesses and consumers. It cannot be disputed that free trade agreements contribute to the greater economic activity and job creation in Australia and that they deliver opportunities for big and small Australian businesses to benefit from that greater trade and investment.

Free trade agreements encourage investment. They help to improve the rules affecting issues such as intellectual property, the digital marketplace and government procurement. They provide significant competitive advantages for Australian businesses and consumers in that improved access to a wider range of competitively priced goods and services, new technologies and innovative practices are made available.

You can also achieve better regional economic integration and the development of shared approaches to trade and investment between Australia and our trading partners that are bilaterally beneficial, not just beneficial to one trading partner. And, in doing this, free trade agreements deliver enhanced trade and investment opportunities that contribute to the economic growth of less developed economies, which is critical for regional stability. Government-to-government and business-to-business relationships are greatly enhanced through the negotiation process and the implementation process.

With all these enormous benefits for Australian businesses, the Australian people and our future economic prosperity and regional security, it would be curious to take an approach that sought to hinder and complicate the implementation of a free trade agreement with, say, the European Union—especially one meticulously negotiated with the interests of all affected Australian industries at the forefront of mind and negotiated meticulously with the long-term sustainability of a fair, free trading relationship with the European Union that benefits Australian industry as a key priority.

The bill represents a significant step forward with respect to protecting Australian industry at the same time as continuing to prosecute free and fair trade. The inclusion of the public interest consideration provides confidence to the community that safeguard inquiries will assess both the benefits to Australian industry and the impacts on a range of stakeholders in the course of formulating a recommendation on their application. I commend the bill to the House.

The Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026 is about ensuring that Australia has the tools, the expertise and the institutions necessary to protect Australian industry in an increasingly uncertain global trading environment. It reflects a simple principle that should unite every member of this House: when Australian businesses compete, they deserve a fair contest. Local manufacturers should succeed because of their innovation, productivity and hard work. They should not be forced to compete against unfair trade practices that distort markets and undermine confidence. The Albanese Labor government believes strongly in the benefits of trade. We are an outward-looking nation whose prosperity has been built through engagement with the world from the earliest exports of wool and wheat through to today's advanced manufacturing, critical minerals, agricultural services and technology sectors, Australia's history has been shaped by our ability to trade with the world.

Millions of Australians' jobs depend on our ability to sell goods and services beyond our shores, attract investment and participate in global supply chains. One in four Australian jobs is trade exposed, highlighting just how important international commerce is to our national prosperity. The government has demonstrated its commitment to expanding trade opportunities for Australian businesses and workers. Manufacturing exports have grown substantially under this government. Our trading relationship with China has been repaired, and new free trade agreements have been secured with the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and the European Union. Those achievements strengthen opportunities for exporters, create jobs and support economic growth across our nation.

Support for trade, however, does not mean accepting unfair conduct when it occurs. Open markets must be accompanied by effective safeguards that ensure Australian industries are not harmed by practices that breach the spirit or the rules of international commerce. Free trade and fair trade are not competing concepts; they are complementary principles that work together to create confidence, investment and long-term prosperity. When overseas producers dump goods into markets at artificially low prices, when products benefit from unfair subsidisation or when sudden surges of imports threaten serious injury to domestic industries, governments have a responsibility to act. That responsibility is recognised under the rules of the World Trade Organization. WTO members are permitted to implement trade remedy measures in carefully defined circumstances to protect domestic industries from demonstrable harm. Those measures are not acts of protectionism; they are lawful mechanisms designed to ensure international trade remains fair, balanced and rules based.

Australia has long maintained a trade remedies framework to fulfil that purpose, yet the reality is that that system we inherited is no longer equipped to mee the challenges of the modern trading environment. As we all know, global markets have become more volatile, geopolitical tensions have increased and supply chains have experienced significant disruptions. Manufacturing sectors across the world are confronting excess capacity and heightened competition. Those developments have increased the demand for effective trade remedies and exposed weaknesses in Australia's existing arrangements.

The current framework divides responsibility between different agencies. The Anti-Dumping Commission undertakes investigations relating to dumping and subsidisation. The Productivity Commission conducts safeguard inquiries when concerns arise about import surges causing serious injury to domestic industries. That split structure may once have appeared workable, but today it represents an unnecessary fragmentation of expertise and responsibility. Australian manufacturers navigating the trade remedy system should not be required to understand multiple agencies, separate processes and different institutional arrangements simply to seek assistance. Industry deserves a system that is clear, accessible and fit for purpose. That is what this legislation delivers.

The bill transfers responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission. In recognition of its expanded role, the commission will be renamed the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. That new title accurately reflects the breadth of responsibilities the organisation will undertake. More importantly, it establishes a single specialist body responsible for Australia's trade remedy functions. Consolidating these responsibilities will strengthen capability, improve consistency and create a more coherent framework for industry engagement. Businesses seeking assistance will know where to go, government will benefit from greater alignment across trade remedy mechanism and stakeholders will interact with a specialist agency whose expertise is focused squarely on addressing unfair trade practices.

These reforms were announced by the Treasurer, Minister Farrell and Minister Ayres following the economic reform roundtables in August 2025. The announcement followed extensive advocacy from industry groups, manufacturers and unions who recognised the need for reform. Their message was clear: Australia's trade remedies framework required modernisation to meet contemporary challenges and support domestic industry more effectively. Under the bill, the Australian trade remedies commissioner will be empowered to conduct safeguard inquiries when matters are referred by the responsible minister. The legislation establishes a clear framework governing how those inquiries are undertaken. Detailed provisions set out referral arrangements, reporting requirements and transparency obligations. Once an inquiry is completed, the commissioner will provide a written report to the minister. That report must be tabled, ensuring parliamentary oversight and public accountability. Public notice requirements will ensure interested parties are aware of inquiries and have opportunities to participate. Hearings will generally be conducted openly while preserving the ability to protect sensitive information in appropriate circumstances. Documentation provided to the commission will be made publicly available, except where legitimate confidentiality considerations apply.

Transparency is a central feature of this reform. Stakeholders must have confidence that trade remedies are based upon evidence, rigorous analysis and clearly articulated reasoning. Public trust is strengthened when decision-making processes are visible and accountable. The bill also equips the commissioner with information-gathering powers necessary to conduct thorough investigations. Those powers mirror arrangements currently available to the Productivity Commission. They ensure inquiries can access the evidence required to make informed recommendations. Robust evidence gathering is essential because safeguard measures carry significant economic implications, and decisions made must be grounded in facts rather than assumptions.

The government is committed to maintaining a rules based system that balances competing interests responsibly. That commitment is reflected in the public interest test contained within this legislation. Before recommending safeguard measures, the commissioner must consider a range of relevant factors. Potential benefits to Australian producers will be assessed. The significance of affected industries to the national economy will be examined. Consideration will be given to downstream industries that rely upon imported inputs.

The likely impacts on consumers will also form part of the analysis. Ministers will retain the ability to specify additional matters through terms of reference where appropriate. These requirements recognise an important reality. Trade remedy measures can provide important support for industries experiencing injury, but they may also have broader economic consequences. Responsible policy requires decision-makers to weigh those considerations carefully. The framework established by this bill strikes that balance. It protects Australian industry while maintaining transparency, accountability and consistency with Australia's international obligations. The inclusion of a public interest assessment should provide confidence to businesses, workers and consumers alike. Recommendations will not be developed in isolation from their broader economic context. They will reflect a comprehensive examination of impacts across the economy. That approach is practical, balanced and responsible. It is also consistent with Australia's longstanding support for a rules based trading system.

Some have sought to characterise trade remedies as measures directed at particular countries. The suggestion that these reforms are directed towards any particular nation fundamentally misunderstands how Australia's trade remedies framework operates. Every investigation is conducted independently, guided by evidence and consistent with Australia's obligations under the WTO. Recommendations are reached on the facts established through each inquiry, not on political considerations or on the identity of a trading partner. The purpose is to respond to unfair trade practices wherever they arise while preserving Australia's commitment to an open rules-based trading system. Decisions are made in accordance with WTO obligations and established legal frameworks. The purpose is not to target any specific trading partner but instead to protect Australian industries from unfair trade practices wherever they occur.

Australia is not alone in maintaining such arrangements. Comparable economies around the world utilise trade remedies to ensure domestic industries are not disadvantaged by unfair conduct. The challenge facing governments today is ensuring that those mechanisms remain effective as global conditions evolve.

The need to reform is particularly evident in sectors experiencing intense international pressure. Australia's steel industry provides a clear example. Persistent global overcapacity has created significant challenges for producers around the world. Industry participants have expressed concerns regarding import pressures and their impact on domestic operations. The Australian Steel Institute formally requested a safeguard inquiry into certain fabricated structural steel products. In accordance with the current legislative framework, the government referred that application to the Productivity Commission for consideration; that inquiry is continuing. Nothing in this bill alters or interferes with that process. Existing arrangements remain in place for the duration of the current inquiry, and this legislation simply establishes a more effective framework for future cases. Industry has welcomed that approach.

Support for these reforms extends across a broad range of stakeholders. Representatives of manufacturers, producers, importers, unions and government agencies participating in the International Trade Remedies Forum have endorsed the transfer of safeguard responsibilities. Major industry organisations have called for these changes. Trade unions representing Australian workers have done the same. The Australian Industry Group, Manufacturing Australia, the Australian Steel Institute, the AWU, the AMWU, the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union and the ACTU have all advocated for reform. Such broad agreement is not always common in public policy. When employers, workers and industry bodies arrive at the same conclusion, parliament should take notice because these groups understand the practical realities facing Australian manufacturing. They recognise the importance of maintaining effective trade defences.

Even members opposite have previously acknowledged the need for stronger trade remedy arrangements. Senator Canavan has publicly raised concerns regarding imports that threaten Australian manufacturing jobs. He has also argued for investment in the Anti-Dumping Commission to ensure Australia can take evidence based action against international trade rules. Those observations reinforce an important point: strengthening Australia's trade remedies framework should not be a partisan issue; it is a matter of supporting Australian workers, Australian manufacturers and Australian communities.

The previous government spoke about changes to Australia's antidumping system. The difference is that this government is delivering the reform. The need for reform was acknowledged, but acknowledgement alone does not strengthen Australian industry. After almost a decade in government, the coalition left office without implementing the changes it had promised to Australia's trade remedies framework. Labor has taken a different approach. We have consulted widely. We have engaged directly with businesses, unions, manufacturers and importers. We released a consultation paper and sought feedback from stakeholders across the economy. Operational improvements have already been pursued within the Anti-Dumping Commission. Efforts to reduce complexity and improve accessibility are continuing. Greater engagement with small and medium-sized enterprises is underway. Work is progressing to provide stakeholders with timely information about global trade developments and potential trade diversion risks. This bill represents another practical step in that broader reform agenda. It is part of a comprehensive effort to ensure Australia's trade remedies regime meets the needs of modern industry.

The Albanese Labor government is determined to build a future made in Australia. Achieving that objective requires more than investment alone. Businesses need confidence that markets operate fairly. Manufacturers need confidence that unfair practices will not be ignored. Workers need confidence that government will stand behind industries that play a critical role in national prosperity. Strengthening trade remedies supports those goals. Consolidating expertise within a single specialist body improves effectiveness, enhances transparency and strengthens confidence. Modernising institutional arrangements increases accessibility and responsiveness.

Together, these reforms help create a stronger and more resilient economy. They ensure Australia remains committed to free trade while maintaining the capacity to respond when trade is not fair. In a period of growing uncertainty across global markets, that capability has never been more important. For all those reasons, I commend this bill to the House. It does a lot of great work in protecting great businesses and workers in communities like mine in the seat of Spence.

I'm pleased to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026. The Albanese government supports free trade and supports fair trade. Since coming to office, we have repaired our trading relationship with China and signed and/or implemented free trade agreements with the European Union, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. We're a trading nation, and one in four Australians in employment owe their jobs to trade directly or indirectly.

Rules based trade is good for Australia, Australian jobs and Australian households, but, when trade is not fair, we stand up for Australian businesses and Australian workers, using evidence based processes that safeguard the national interest. We take action to ensure Australian manufacturing isn't hurt by unfair trade. We act because we want a strong and resilient economy and a future made in Australia.

This bill represents an important step in creating fit-for-purpose national trade architecture for a complex and shock-prone world. The bill unifies all trade remedy responsibilities under one specialist body, enhancing the Albanese government's support for Australian manufacturers against increasingly unpredictable global trade dynamics. We're committed to strengthening the trade remedies regime, protecting the Australian economy from unfair trade and levelling the playing field for local industry.

Demand for trade remedies is increasing, but the trade remedies system we inherited is not fit for purpose. Currently, the responsibilities for the Australian trade remedies regime are split across the Anti-Dumping Commission and the Productivity Commission. The bill transfers responsibility for the WTO safeguards inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission, which will be renamed the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. The transfer of safeguard responsibilities was announced by Minister Farrell, the Treasurer and Minister Ayres back in August 2025, as an outcome of the economic reform roundtables, following strong industry and union advocacy.

Under the World Trade Organization regime, trade remedies can be put in place to protect Australian industries from injury caused by dumping or subsidisation of products manufactured overseas or by a surge in imports. What does this really mean? The Economics Legislation Committee of the Senate examined this particular bill in August 2026. Both sides of politics supported its implementation. But what is the safeguard mechanism?

A safeguard action is an emergency action, really, which can be taken by a government where there is a massive increase, or a surge, of imports which cause or threaten to cause serious injury to a domestic industry. We can take action. This can be done in the form of tariffs, import quotas or other measures and are applied on a global basis in accordance with the rules internationally. It's done temporarily to give domestic industry time to adjust, in those circumstances, to the new import surge.

A safeguard inquiry can be undertaken to determine remedial action by government. They are undertaken in accordance with our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) and agreement on safeguards contained in other safeguards agreements internationally. There is support for this legislation across the chamber. I am pleased for that. Under this bill, the Trade Remedies Commission will have powers to undertake safeguard inquiries to determine whether an increase in imports is causing or threatens to cause serious injury to a domestic industry.

So we've got a renamed commission. We've got the conferral on that commission of the functions to conduct safeguard enquiries when a matter is referred to it by the responsible minister; the capacity to outline safeguard processes, including how the minister refers the matter to the commission; the requirement for the commissioner to provide a written report to the minister; the requirement for that inquiry report to be tabled; public notice of inquiries and hearings; requirements for documents submitted to the commission to be made public except when certain confidential exceptions are necessary; the establishment of information collection methods for the commissioner; and the empowerment of the commissioner to do incidental safeguard functioning. Finally, the legislation includes a public interest consideration similar to that required by the Productivity Commission.

What will the commissioner consider? There are the benefits to the Australian producers in removing the serious injury; the economic significance of the Australian industries affected; the likely impact of the recommendation on the Australian economy, downstream industries and consumers; and other matters under the terms of reference. The inclusion of a public interest consideration, I think, provides some confidence to the community about the assessment that will impact on the range of stakeholders. The approach taken in the bill, I think, balances what is necessary and also transparency.

The bill supports our commitment to ongoing practical regulatory improvement. The bill will not remove the Productivity Commission's existing framework for conducting its own safeguard inquiries, including its current inquiry into steel imports. Given the increased likelihood of application for industry for safeguarding inquiries and calls for key stakeholders, the bill has been expedited ahead of the government's trade remedy reform effort.

The bill has overwhelming support from stakeholders. The member for Spence outlined some of them. The AWU supports it. The ACTU and industry also support it. There's a lot of support, and there's ongoing consultation. The Australian Steel Institute supports it. The Australian Industry Group supports it. Manufacturing Australia supports it. It has a broad range of support, and it demonstrates, I think, our commitment in this area. I note, as I said before, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee reported on it. The coalition members had some concern, apparently, but really they gave support as well. So there's some urgency in relation to the bill, as I've said.

I mentioned before that the bill won't remove the Productivity Commission's existing framework for conducting safeguard inquiries, and that safeguard inquiry is looking into allegations of dumping in the steel industry and will determine if increased steel imports are damaging our domestic industry. The PC will continue to undertake that inquiry. The current inquiry is being conducted in response to a formal request by the Australian Steel Institute, ASI, to introduce safeguard measures against importation of fabricated steel-structure products. That inquiry is looking at beams, guardrails, stairways and other types of things, and we're seeing a surge in imports, which really, in my view, do cause serious injury to the Australian domestic steel industry. And I'm looking forward to the outcome. I'm hopeful that the PC will do the right thing here.

We're doing this because we understand the pressures on the Australian and global steel sectors. The industry has called for action; we're responding here. The government referred the ASI's application to the PC, the responsible body, under that legislation, because it warranted formal consideration. I think it certainly did. That inquiry is very important for my electorate, as a number of local steel and aluminium producers have been severely affected by unfair practices.

For example, Capital Aluminium is a large aluminium extrusion plant in Bundamba and Ipswich. The member for Chifley has been there with me before, and we've been there a number of times. Those antidumping measures are very important, as they allow manufacturers like Capital to compete on a fair and level basis. I've met with Capital several times in recent years, and they have said the aluminium sector, particularly aluminium extrusion, is globally dealing with huge overcapacity in China and unfair trade practices that have resulted. So Capital welcomes the result of this case and the certainty it brings to the Australian domestic extrusion industry.

In addition, CASA Engineering has a facility in Bundamba in my electorate and supplies fabricated structural steel to builders. I met with director Peter Casa late last year, and he told me the firm had been significantly impacted by extensive structural steel imports from two countries, particularly China and Vietnam, and he had to close two workshops and reduce his workforce. At the time, CASA Engineering had called for the government to refer ASI's application to the PC for a safeguard inquiry, which we've done, and for safeguard measures to address the harm being done to the local steel fabrication industry and help firms like theirs to survive.

Importantly, these efforts build on other initiatives to tackle dumping and support local manufacturing. For example, in October last year, following an investigation by the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission, the minister for industry and science extended the duties on aluminium extrusion exported from China to Australia for a further five years. Initially imposed in 2010, these antidumping measures maintain the value of Australian produced aluminium extrusion, which are used in the construction, automotive, aerospace and electronics industries. Under these measures, Chinese aluminium extrusion manufacturers will be hit with import duties if it is priced below local market values. Again, Capital, who have a facility in my electorate, are the largest producer of aluminium extrusion in Australia, and they welcome the extension, which is helping to preserve local manufacturing industry.

The Albanese government is strengthening Australia's antidumping regime to support local manufacturing firms in my electorate and protect jobs in regional areas like Ipswich. As well as this, the government is providing the Anti-Dumping Commission with an additional $5 million to boost investigation capabilities. That's been an ongoing issue from my experience, my observation and the feedback I've heard from stakeholders.

On top of this, in January this year, the government launched a $20 million Made Right Here in Australia campaign to raise awareness of Australian products and encourage consumers around the country to buy Australian. Our grant to the Australia Made campaign is supported by a major 'buy local' push in stores, online, and across the media. Australia Made, including the Made Right Here campaign, gives local manufacturers like Capral a trusted, highly recognised mark which helps identify Australian made products and gives customers confidence they are buying quality and locally.

These reforms are part of a broader resilience plan anchored by a future made in Australia design to level the playing field, cut red tape and strengthen manufacturing at every stage. I want to thank the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science for bringing forward this important legislation and for the work done by the government to deliver Australia's Future Made in Australia agenda. That Future Made in Australia agenda is part of Labor's agenda, and we believe in it thoroughly.

In summary, this bill will create a specialist body that will be known as the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. It will comply with Australia's commitment to the World Trade Organization and the rules based trading system. It will provide stronger defences against sudden and unforeseen surges in imports by providing a single authority which can bring deep expertise to trade remedies. That has not always been the case here in Australia. It will support Australian industry, our regional areas like Ipswich and a future made in Australia. I know how important fair trade and a level playing field for job security of workers at blue-collar jobs in Ipswich are. Our government has the biggest pro-manufacturing package of any Australian government in Australian history. Part of that is making sure our antidumping and trade remedies regimes are fit for purpose and that their design is geared towards backing Australian industry. That's what this legislation is all about and that's why I commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Blair on this because I do know what a big deal this is for manufacturing in his electorate, as it is in many electorates. This bit of legislation, for many people who may have accidentally or deliberately tuned into parliament, may seem like an arcane, esoteric bit of work, but it's actually something that's been 30 years in the making. It reflects a journey that this country has been on.

Let me explain. I was a teenager in the Hawke-Keating years, at a time when we opened up the economy. We cheered on a lot of what was done back then because opening up the economy, breaking down tariff walls and integrating us into the world trading system at that point in time were a big deal. It hurt a lot of blue-collar workers. I saw that in my own family. A lot of pressure was placed on the companies they worked for and the wages that they earned from that work. We grew up in a time when we chanted the mantra of free trade. I spouted it many times over the years. Free trade is great when it happens, but the world is not that neat and it doesn't always abide by the rules. Free trade is great when it happens. That's why a lot on our side of the chamber and our side of politics have talked not just about free trade but fair trade—because in many cases there are big players that will use their position to be able to produce product in a way that is not fair trade and certainly isn't free trade.

One of the biggest turning points in world trade was the admission of China to the World Trade Organization in about the year 2000. At that point, you saw so many countries shift from domestic production and domestic manufacturing; this all shot offshore to China. China, from that point on, became an economic powerhouse. So much of the world's product came out of one country. It took us 20 years from when China was admitted to the WTO to the impact of a pandemic to make us take another look at the way in which world trading and the world trade mechanisms were operating—so many eggs in one basket. We said at that point that we had to learn the lesson of the pandemic and then we started to build our own capabilities to make the things we needed when we needed them most. But it took a long journey from us chanting, in a crowd, the virtues of free trade to recognise how much distortion had happened in trade flows across the planet.

As part of that, and to protect ourselves from it, we've had an Anti-Dumping Commission in place. When countries produce product at such a volume and, importantly, where they produce it and deliberately price it lower than what they produced it for and then sell it to other countries, that presents a huge economic risk. To us it means that, if you are a steelmaker or an aluminium producer or an extruder like Capral, which the member for Blair just referenced, and you're having to compete against product that has been deliberately undercut and which then secures market share in the country where you're producing that material—and that is priced so low that you see your customers shift from you to the importers of that product that has been undercut—and you are forced to close, that presents a big problem for a country like ours.

The Anti-Dumping Commission is made up of some great people. I saw them firsthand as the industry minister in the last term of this government. They do incredible work. It is not easy to do the work that they do, but it takes a long time for them. From the moment a local industry player calls out the pricing of that type of product, it takes a long time for the Anti-Dumping Commission to come up with a decision about what's going on. Then there's a long appeal process as well. It puts huge pressure on Australian industry. It takes a long time to make those decisions.

So, what's the alternative? The alternative is effectively what's contained in here. I'm grateful for the acknowledgement of the industry minister—that this work began in the last term of government, where we had attempted to shift these powers from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission. What these powers will allow is that, instead of taking a long period of time for those decisions to be made, we could go on the front foot, make an early assessment through these emergency powers that the parliament's debating right now and act way quicker. We could prevent and shield Australian manufacturers from cut-price product that would impact on them. Remember this: once manufacturers in Australia are forced out of business because of cut-price product, what happens? It creates yet another dependency, particularly on China, for that product. Then we get more and more entrenched and we fail to learn the lesson of the pandemic, which was that we should do more of this work on our own and be able to stand up on our own two feet.

Having the safeguard mechanism was something that I believed was really important to speed up the way we made decisions. But it gets resisted, and it gets resisted by the usual suspects that exist within the federal bureaucracy. I'm just going to make this point: it doesn't matter who's on this side of the chamber; we all get advice from the same places. We get it from Treasury. We get it from Finance. We get it from DFAT. We get it from the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission held this power not because it wanted to use it but because it didn't want it to be used. In the 20 years or so it had this power, how many times did it do safeguarding inquiries? I reckon around four times, and it did it in some arcane areas, probably as a result of pressure of the Howard government or the coalition government, but it wasn't using it actively. So, if it's not going to use it, it should lose it and it should go to the ADC, where they can make those decisions quickly. But it was those characters, the usual suspects—Treasury, Finance, DFAT. DFAT would argue that anything like this would threaten that the WTO would intervene and that it would breach free trade agreements. Donald Trump has given the biggest kick to the WTO. The WTO is in the corner nursing its injuries and its shins. It isn't going to do anything. It's up to individual countries to stand up for their own industries and take the steps to fairly, rigorously and in a detailed way determine when they have been impacted by dumping behaviour.

You'll get the arguments out of DFAT, Treasury, Finance and the Productivity Commission—which are occupied by people who are stuck in ideological permafrost and who find it hard to believe these types of powers should come in. In fact, there was an article in InnovationAus that talked about Treasury analysis of the economic implications of AI, and it quoted the Treasury, saying:

"In Australia, most productivity growth at the firm level related to AI will likely come from adopting and adapting technologies developed elsewhere."

That's the mentality for all parliamentarians. Like I said, regardless of who occupies the Treasury benches, you get advice from these types of people that believe the best way for us to use technology is to import it quickly and not develop it here. God forbid we spend our own money developing sovereign capability on anything!

Similarly in terms of safeguards, they take the view that free trade should occur unencumbered: if someone can price a product in a particular way, competition will be good, will strengthen local firms and will ensure that lower prices flow through the economy, and that's got to be a good thing. That's very superficial and does not factor in how bigger economies, bigger players, can undercut the prices at which they offer product for trade. When I say this bill has been 30 years in the making, it's going through that journey—the journey of recognising that the free trade mantra is only good if it's not superficial. It's got to be fair dinkum, and you've got to be able to test whether the prices for product are legitimate and not deliberately undercut.

There'll be a lot of people in this place and outside that talk about impending conflict with China and talk about having to get ready for some sort of military conflict, one they've concocted in their head and believe will occur any time soon. China don't need to fire a missile; they just fire product our way. And they fire product because we set up a world trade system where they took on so much of the work that we used to do, and they price it in such a way that creates dependencies. China don't have to fire a shot; they just fire a product at us.

If we don't think seriously, in a sustained way and in a determined way, about building sovereign capability, if we continue to listen to the same voices in Canberra—the PM&C, Treasury, Finance, DFAT and the Productivity Commission—and if we take as gospel what is put to us, we will always be dependent. Make no mistake. We will not build up serious sovereign capability. We will not be able to stand on our own two feet. All we will ever be is the best customer on an app store, buying someone else's product from some other land, instead of actually building the capabilities that matter here.

Having an economically diverse country, where we don't have all our eggs in one basket, where we build our wealth through different sectors and different activities, is really important. And, if you want to build greater productivity, look at the countries that are more economically complex in their make up and see how much more productive and stronger they are. That's the challenge for us.

I maintain the position that our commitment to sovereign capability has to be deeper than talk. It requires serious coordination across government at cabinet level, where all relevant portfolios are committed, on a yearly basis reporting, what has been done to advance sovereign capability in the key areas. We cannot do everything on our own, and it's certainly not something I would urge.

On the big, important things we have to have depth in capability. That can be across our existing behemoths of resources and agriculture, as well as energy production, medical sciences, advanced manufacturing and advanced tech. We need to be able to build our capabilities. And we have to do it in a way acknowledging the way that other countries do it, instead of having the ideological nineties version of the way in which we back industry, because the nineties version was that you don't put any government funding in. Other countries have been doing it and working smart in building up capability, and we have been the outpost that has ignored the way the rest of the world is working. It means investing more in R&D. It means investing more in grants to help grow companies at the relevant points of the technology readiness levels. It involves a scale-up approach that sees more small businesses become medium-sized enterprises and seeing the productivity uplift that occurs from there. Having a national scale-up strategy is really important. It's being able to keep a central tab on how we are developing capability. All this is critical for the long-term good of the country.

This type of legislation and this type of activity, where we take an important power out of the Productivity Commission, put it into the ADC and protect ourselves in a quicker way from dumping activity, is a big part of that process as well. So I congratulate the industry minister on landing this and the government in bringing forward this legislation, because it is very important and it does correct a behaviour that we have supinely just sat here and let the world dictate the terms in which trade occurs, comforting ourselves in the notion that we've chanted the mantra of free trade without recognising that that doesn't always occur that way and that sometimes you've got to step in and protect yourselves from the behaviours of others. Trade is important. It builds stronger relationships between countries. It does absolutely improve the strength of economies and the strength of incomes of the workers within those economies. But we can't be purist about it. We have to be pragmatic, and we have to step in where it's necessary to do so. This is one example of just that, and I absolutely commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.