Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026: what it would change about trade remedy investigations

The short answer

Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026: what it would change about trade remedy investigations

The Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026 is a government bill introduced in the Senate on 24 June 2026 under the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio. According to the official summary on the Parliament bill page, the bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to rename the Anti-Dumping Commission as the Australian Trade Remedies Commission and to transfer responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the renamed Australian Trade Remedies Commission, with consequential amendments to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. Safeguard measures are distinct from anti-dumping duties: they address surges of fairly traded imports and can apply to all imports of a product regardless of origin. As of 10 August 2026, the bill is before the Senate; it has been referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, with a report due by 210 August 2026.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The Customs Amendment (Safeguard Inquiries) Bill 2026 proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 to change the institutional arrangements for Australia's safeguard inquiry system. The official summary on the Parliament bill page states that the bill renames the Anti-Dumping Commission as the Australian Trade Remedies Commission and transfers responsibility for safeguard inquiries from the Productivity Commission to the renamed Australian Trade Remedies Commission, with consequential amendments to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975.

Safeguard inquiries investigate whether a surge in imports of a particular product is causing or threatening serious injury to an Australian industry producing a like or directly competitive product. Under the current arrangements, the Productivity Commission conducts safeguard inquiries; the Anti-Dumping Commission investigates anti-dumping and countervailing matters. The bill would consolidate trade remedies work under a single renamed commission.

The bill is primarily an institutional change rather than a change to the injury test or the criteria for safeguard measures. The renamed Australian Trade Remedies Commission would take on the safeguard inquiry function previously performed by the Productivity Commission.

Evidence review

Parliamentary status and prospects

Introduced in the Senate on 24 June 2026, this is a Senate-initiated government bill. Bills introduced in the Senate must still pass the House of Representatives to become law. The Senate will consider the bill first, and if passed, it will be transmitted to the House.

On 2 July 2026 the bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, with the committee due to report by 210 August 2026. Committee scrutiny typically involves public hearings, submissions from affected industries, importers, unions and legal experts, and a report with recommendations. The Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest for the bill was published on 30 June 2026.

Evidence review

What are safeguard measures?

Safeguard measures are a form of trade remedy permitted under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Safeguards. Unlike anti-dumping duties (which address unfair pricing) or countervailing duties (which address foreign subsidies), safeguard measures address a surge of fairly traded imports causing serious injury to a domestic industry. Because safeguards restrict fair trade, the WTO imposes a higher injury threshold — 'serious injury' rather than 'material injury' for anti-dumping.

Australia's safeguard framework is in Part XVA of the Customs Act 1901. The system was reformed in 2013 with the establishment of the Anti-Dumping Commission, but Australia has used safeguard measures rarely compared with anti-dumping measures. The Productivity Commission has previously recommended that the system better account for costs to downstream industries and consumers.

Evidence review

Who would be affected

The bill directly affects Australian industries seeking safeguard protection against import surges — manufacturers in steel, aluminium, chemicals, processed food, paper and textiles where import competition can be intense. Downstream industries using imported inputs would also be affected: if safeguard measures increase the cost of imported steel, for example, those costs flow through to construction and manufacturing.

The transfer of the inquiry function from the Productivity Commission to the renamed Australian Trade Remedies Commission changes which agency conducts safeguard inquiries and how they are staffed and resourced, but the bill as summarised does not change the statutory test for safeguard measures. Importers, retailers and consumer goods businesses have a stake in ensuring safeguard measures are not imposed unnecessarily. Australia's trading partners, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, would monitor the bill for changes affecting market access under existing free trade agreements.

Evidence review

The trade-law context

Australia's use of trade remedies has been debated extensively. The Productivity Commission's 2016 review recommended significant reforms, arguing that the costs of trade remedies to the broader economy often exceed the benefits to protected industries. A 2022-23 review by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources also recommended procedural improvements to the safeguard inquiry system. The bill raises questions about how to balance domestic industry protection against maintaining competitive markets for Australian businesses and consumers. International experience suggests that well-designed safeguard mechanisms can provide temporary relief without creating permanent protection — but poorly designed ones can become entrenched, raising costs for downstream industries and households. The WTO Agreement on Safeguards requires that measures be temporary and subject to progressive liberalisation, principles that Australia's domestic framework must reflect.

Evidence review

Evidence and uncertainty

The specific provisions require examination of the bill text and explanatory memorandum. Key questions include: how the transfer of the safeguard inquiry function from the Productivity Commission to the renamed Australian Trade Remedies Commission will be resourced; whether the bill changes any procedural aspects of safeguard inquiries; whether it addresses the Productivity Commission's 2016 recommendation that the safeguard system better account for costs to downstream industries and consumers; whether stakeholders including domestic manufacturers, importers, and trading partners have been adequately consulted; and what the regulatory impact statement says about the costs and benefits of the proposed changes. The explanatory memorandum should be examined for costings and a statement of compatibility with human rights.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer