This bill became law on Sep 28th, 2026.
Immigration, border & security
Australian manufacturers facing a sudden surge in imports will have safeguard inquiries handled by one specialist trade body.
The government said Australia's trade-remedy system had not undergone significant reform in a decade and needed to respond better to turbulent global trade, industrial overcapacity and import surges threatening local manufacturers. It said bringing all trade remedies into one specialist commission would make the system easier for industry to navigate, reduce duplication and improve efficiency. Safeguard measures are intended as short-term emergency relief that gives affected producers time to adjust, restructure or become more competitive.
Australia already had a safeguard system in which the Productivity Commission investigated sudden import increases, while the Anti-Dumping Commission handled other trade remedies. As global trade disruption, industrial overcapacity and import surges put pressure on Australian manufacturers, the government announced in August 2025 that safeguard inquiries would move to a renamed Australian Trade Remedies Commission, then introduced the bill in June 2026 and secured passage in September to consolidate trade-remedy expertise and make emergency relief easier to access.
Kevin Hogan (The Nationals) argued that businesses still cannot start an inquiry themselves: they need a ministerial referral, with no published threshold and no requirement to explain a refusal. He said the minister could prevent the commissioner from recommending action, or change or withdraw a referral, without the bill requiring reasons or notice to Parliament. He also warned that important procedures are left to optional ministerial rules and that using existing resources could delay safeguard inquiries or draw staff away from other trade cases.
Senator Tim Ayres introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 28 Sept 2026
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
96 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australian manufacturers facing a sudden surge in imports will have safeguard inquiries handled by one specialist trade body. The bill transfers this work from the Productivity Commission to the Anti-Dumping Commission and renames that body the Australian Trade Remedies Commission.
An inquiry can begin only if the minister refers a matter to the commissioner. A referral may start a new inquiry or review an existing safeguard or provisional safeguard measureShort-term emergency protection that may be recommended for no more than 200 days.. The minister may set a reporting deadline and require hearings, a public draft report or a recommendation. If the minister does not request a recommendation, the commissioner cannot make one; the minister may also change or withdraw the referral before receiving the report.
Before recommending temporary protection from imports, the commissioner must find objective evidence that an unforeseen increase in imports is causing, or clearly threatens to cause, serious harm to an Australian industry. The commissioner must show a link between the imports and the harm, must not blame imports for harm caused by other factors, and must consider effects on other industries, consumers and the wider economy.
A recommended safeguard measureTemporary protection from imports, such as a higher tariff or a quota. can last no more than four years, while a provisional measure can last no more than 200 days. The commissioner may also recommend extending an existing measure for up to one year, or for more than one but less than four years with regular reviews. The commissioner can instead recommend that a new or provisional measure should not apply, or that an existing measure should not be extended. These are recommendations, not guaranteed protection.
People affected by an inquiry will receive public notice through the commission's website. Hearings must normally be public, although the commissioner may close all or part of a hearing when confidentiality or another public-interest reason justifies it.
Written submissions and documents must normally be made public, but confidential material is protected. The commissioner may disregard information when a confidentiality claim is unwarranted and its provider refuses both disclosure and a non-confidential summary, although verified information may still be considered.
The commissioner must give the minister a written report unless the referral is withdrawn. The minister must table it in each house of Parliament within 25 sitting days after receiving it, or within 25 sitting days after any delay recommended by the commissioner ends.
The new arrangements apply to inquiries beginning on or after the changes commence. Inquiries begun before commencement stay with the Productivity Commission under the current system. This includes the inquiry into fabricated structural steel.
7 Subsections 269SMB(1) and (2) Repeal the subsections, substitute: The body that was continued in existence under this section as previously in force by the name Anti‑Dumping Commission is now to be known as the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. Note: Subsection 25B(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that a body whose name is altered by an Act continues in existence under the new name so that its identity is not affected.Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) as-passed text
269ZHGC Establishing a safeguard inquiry Minister’s referral power (1) The Minister may refer a matter to the Commissioner for the Commissioner to conduct a safeguard inquiry in relation to the matter. (2) In referring a matter to the Commissioner, the Minister may, for the purpose of ensuring the inquiry is conducted in the manner appropriate to that inquiry and consistent with the Safeguards Agreement, do any or all of the following: (a) require the Commissioner to hold hearings for the purposes of the inquiry; (b) specify a period within which the Commissioner must submit the CommissioCustoms Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) as-passed text
Preconditions for positive recommendations (5) Before making a recommendation in relation to the matter that consists of a measure referred to in subparagraph (4)(a)(i), (iii), (v) or (vi), the Commissioner must: (a) be satisfied there has been an increase in importation of goods to which the matter relates as a result of unforeseen developments that is causing serious injury, or threatening to cause serious injury, to a like Australian industry for the goods, having regard to all relevant evidence of an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of that industry incCustoms Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) as-passed text
(4) If the Commissioner is required to make a recommendation in relation to the matter in accordance with paragraph (2)(d), the recommendation must: (a) consist of one or more of the following: (i) a safeguard measure should apply; (ii) a safeguard measure should not apply; (iii) a provisional safeguard measure should apply; (iv) a provisional safeguard measure should not apply; (v) an existing safeguard measure should be extended for a specified period of 1 year or less; (vi) an existing safeguard measure should be extended for a specified period of more than 1 year and less than 4 yeaCustoms Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) as-passed text
269ZHGF Notice of safeguard inquiry As soon as practicable after the Commissioner receives a reference to hold a safeguard inquiry, the Commissioner must give reasonable notice, by publishing a notice on the Australian Trade Remedies Commission’s website, of the Commissioner’s intention to hold the inquiry. 269ZHGG Notice of hearings Before the Commissioner begins to hold hearings for the purposes of a safeguard inquiry, the Commissioner must give reasonable notice, by publishing a notice on the Australian Trade Remedies Commission’s website, of the Commissioner’s intention to hold the hearCustoms Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) as-passed text
269ZHGI Written statements etc. to be made public (1) If a person gives a written statement to the inquiry or gives or produces a document to the Commissioner in connection with the inquiry, the Commission must make available to the public in any way it thinks fit the contents of the statement or document. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the contents of a statement or document if: (a) the person objects to the contents being made public; and (b) the evidence of which the Commissioner is satisfied would have been taken in private if it had been given orally at a hearing andCustoms Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) as-passed text
(9) The Commissioner must make a written report to the Minister on the inquiry unless the Minister withdraws the reference to the Commissioner. (10) The Minister may withdraw or amend the reference at any time before the Minister has received the report on the inquiry from the Commissioner.Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) as-passed text
25 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to safeguard inquiries beginning on or after the commencement of this Schedule. Note: This means inquiries under Part 3 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998 relating to the Safeguards Agreement that began before that commencement will continue to be conducted in accordance with that Part.Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) as-passed text
Context
Australia already had a safeguard system in which the Productivity Commission investigated sudden import increases, while the Anti-Dumping Commission handled other trade remedies. As global trade disruption, industrial overcapacity and import surges put pressure on Australian manufacturers, the government announced in August 2025 that safeguard inquiries would move to a renamed Australian Trade Remedies Commission, then introduced the bill in June 2026 and secured passage in September to consolidate trade-remedy expertise and make emergency relief easier to access.
Productivity Commission handles safeguard inquiries
Australia's existing system assigned safeguard inquiries to the Productivity Commission while the Anti-Dumping Commission handled other trade remedies.
Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) explanatory memorandum ↗Government announces a single trade-remedies body
The government said safeguard inquiries would move from the Productivity Commission to the renamed Australian Trade Remedies Commission, responding to turbulent global trade, industrial overcapacity and import surges.
Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) explanatory memorandum ↗Senator Tim Ayres introduces the bill
The bill was introduced in the Senate to transfer safeguard inquiries to the Australian Trade Remedies Commission and consolidate trade-remedy expertise in one specialist body.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing the proposed transfer of safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the Australian Trade Remedies Commission.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (02/07/2026): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (28/08/2026)
Report tabled 28 Aug 2026
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
Kevin Hogan (The Nationals) argued that businesses still cannot start an inquiry themselves: they need a ministerial referral, with no published threshold and no requirement to explain a refusal. He said the minister could prevent the commissioner from recommending action, or change or withdraw a referral, without the bill requiring reasons or notice to Parliament. He also warned that important procedures are left to optional ministerial rules and that using existing resources could delay safeguard inquiries or draw staff away from other trade cases.
Hogan said the Coalition would support the bill because combining the trade-remedy functions was sensible, and he noted that no submission to the parliamentary committee opposed it. The government said the single specialist commission would improve access and efficiency, while the new public-interest considerationA check of the wider effects on industry, consumers and the economy. would weigh benefits for local industry against costs to other businesses and consumers.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Ayres supports the bill, arguing that transferring safeguard inquiries to a single specialist trade remedies commission will improve regulatory efficiency and strengthen protections for Australian industries against sudden import surges.
Read in Hansard ↗Hogan says the coalition will vote for the bill because consolidating trade remedies in one specialist agency is sensible and industry supports the change.
Read in Hansard ↗Matt Burnell supports the bill because it consolidates safeguard inquiries and other trade remedy functions in a single specialist commission, improving accessibility, consistency and transparency while protecting Australian industries from unfair trade practices.
Read in Hansard ↗Claire Clutterham supports the bill because it modernises and streamlines safeguard inquiries to better protect Australian industry from damaging import surges while preserving free and fair trade through a public interest test.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
6 speakers · 7 contributions · 6 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tim Ayres on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Ayres supports the bill, arguing that transferring safeguard inquiries to a single specialist trade remedies commission will improve regulatory efficiency and strengthen protections for Australian industries against sudden import surges.
“In summary, this Bill will create one-specialist body in the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. It will comply with Australia's commitments 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 that can bring deep expertise to trade remedies—supporting Australian industry, our regions and a Future Made in Australia.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Ayres supports the bill because transferring safeguard inquiries to a specialist commission will make trade remedies more coherent and accessible while protecting Australian manufacturers from import surges and considering consumers and international obligations.
“The Albanese Labor government supports free and fair trade. When trade isn't fair or threatens our critical industrial base, we stand up for Australian workers and Australian businesses. That's why we're strengthening Australia's trade remedies regime, and that's why I commend this bill to the Senate.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“In summary, this bill will create one specialist body in the Australian Trade Remedies Commission. It will comply with Australia's commitments 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 that can bring deep expertise to trade remedies—supporting Australian industry, our regions and a future made in Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Report tabled 28 Aug 2026
Referred to Committee (2 July 2026): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (28 Aug 2026)
APH bill page notes
