Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Continued the debate

Blyth stated that the coalition supported the bill because consolidating trade remedies into a single specialist agency was sensible and requested by industry. However, Blyth argued that the government needed to address significant concerns regarding access, funding, and procedure. Blyth highlighted that industry currently lacks a clear application pathway to trigger inquiries, relying instead on ministerial referrals without published thresholds or obligations to explain refusals. Blyth also criticised the minister's continuing control over inquiries, noting that the minister could prevent recommendations or withdraw references without providing reasons or notice to parliament. Blyth called for published methodologies, clear procedures, and guaranteed funding to ensure the commission could handle its expanded workload without delaying existing anti-dumping cases.

Government response

Ayres agreed with the outline of issues presented by Blyth and affirmed the government's commitment to free and fair trade. Ayres argued that the bill strengthened Australia's trade remedy system to address global overcapacity and rising subsidisation, making it simpler and more effective for industry. Ayres stated that transferring safeguard inquiries to the Australian Trade Remedies Commission improved regulatory coherence and transparency. Ayres emphasised that the inclusion of a public interest test balanced the protection of domestic industry with the needs of consumers and international obligations. Ayres commended the bill to the Senate as a fit-for-purpose reform.