The Australian Steel Institute (ASI) has questioned the "fundamentally different" approach taken by the Productivity Commission (PC) to interpreting the impact of imported fabricated steelwork on Australian fabricators, saying it clashes with its own expert advice and feedback from the field.
Speaking after reviewing the PC's September 3 interim report that concluded the imports of fabricated steelwork were not "significant enough" to show serious injury to local fabricators, ASI chief executive Mark Cain said the industry had significant concerns about the methodology used by the PC.
"It differs fundamentally from our own analysis and we are seeking urgent advice from the PC on why," Cain said.
"Specifically,
- We have concerns about the import data that the PC has used and their consequent finding that a 'surge' has not occurred. The ASI will need to investigate the rationale behind their choice of data and why it is so different from ours.
- The ASI will also need to understand why their assessment of 'injury' and 'threat of serious injury' varies so dramatically from our assessment, particularly given that our approach and methodology was based on legal advice from experts who have successfully prosecuted Safeguard investigations in other countries.
- The ASI used and provided filtered ABS data sourced via Australian Border Force and it doesn't appear that this has been considered by the PC.
"We are urgently seeking advice on why there is such a big gap in the data. We need to understand how theirs and ours are so different. Their assessment of injury is also markedly different to what fabricators are telling us in the field."
The PC's interim report "found some firms are under pressure, but industry-wide data shows growth in key indicators such as sales and profits over the investigation period, albeit with a weakening in employment in later years".
ASI is now preparing a final submission based on expert advice to provide evidence in support of its original application seeking protection for the local industry.
As part of its ongoing comprehensive advocacy campaign on behalf of the local industry, the ASI conducted two fabricator surveys in July 2024 and a similar but updated survey run in August 2026 asking Australian structural steel fabricators about the impact of imported fabricated steelwork on their businesses.
Far from abating, pressure on local fabricators has intensified on almost every measure, as follows:
- Every comparable impact category - reduced margins, inability to win work, higher quoting costs, smaller/less attractive jobs, and restructuring - increased in prevalence between 2024 and 2026.
- Reported price undercutting by imports widened, from a mean of 27.9% in 2024 to 36.8% in 2026.
- The 2026 survey asked a new, direct question on business survival: only 43% of respondents expect to still be operating in 12 months without relief such as the proposed Safeguard tariff/quota - 42% are unsure and 13% said no.
- The 2026 survey also captured contemplated workforce actions: 58% are considering an overtime ban, 50% reduced staff hours, 50% removing casual/indirect staff, and 40% a hiring freeze and 40% not taking on apprentices.
About the Australian Steel Institute
The Australian Steel Institute (ASI) is the peak body representing Australia's steel industry, including manufacturers, distributors, fabricators and allied industries. The ASI advocates for policies that support a competitive, sustainable and sovereign Australian steel industry. The ASI represents 7,000 members and 700 companies nationally.
