Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Thursday 17 September 2026

Continued from Tuesday 15 September 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate concerned the transfer of safeguard inquiry responsibilities from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission, which would be renamed the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. The Coalition supported the consolidation of trade remedies but raised concerns regarding ministerial accountability, funding adequacy, and the lack of a clear application pathway for industry. Government members argued the reform modernises Australia's trade architecture, enhances transparency, and protects domestic industry from unfair trade practices while maintaining a public interest test. The bill was passed on second reading.

Outcome

The bill was read a second time.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Kevin Hogan (Page) (National Party) Nationals

Hogan stated the Coalition supported the bill as consolidating trade remedies into a single specialist agency was sensible and requested by industry. However, Hogan argued the government needed to address concerns about access, funding, and procedure. Hogan highlighted that industry cannot currently initiate inquiries, relying instead on ministerial referral without published thresholds or obligations for the minister to explain refusals. Hogan also noted concerns that the minister retains significant control over inquiries, including the power to prevent recommendations, and called for greater transparency regarding ministerial decisions. Finally, Hogan questioned whether existing resources were sufficient for the expanded role and urged the government to publish clear procedures and funding commitments.

Government response

Ed Husic (Chifley) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Husic argued the legislation corrects a long-standing weakness in Australia's trade defence capabilities by moving powers from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission. Husic stated that the previous system was too slow and that the Productivity Commission had rarely used its safeguard powers, creating a barrier to protecting local industry. Husic emphasised the need for sovereign capability and economic diversity, arguing that reliance on imports creates vulnerability. Husic criticised bureaucratic resistance to these reforms and asserted that the changes would allow for quicker responses to unfair trade practices, thereby supporting Australian manufacturing and jobs.