The Australian Fashion Council (AFC) has urged the federal government to back a parliamentary inquiry into ultra-fast fashion. The call came after Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury Andrew Leigh said the decision rested with parliamentary committees.
Speaking to Ragtrader, Leigh was asked whether the government saw a case for an inquiry into the rapid growth of ultra-fast fashion platforms in Australia. The AFC first called for an inquiry in its 2025 federal budget submission, pointing to the customs duty threshold and transparency.
“That’ll be up to those parliamentary committees," Leigh said. "They’re able to self-initiate inquiries, and it’ll be up to them as to whether they choose to inquire into that."
“As a member of the executive, I’m not in those parliamentary committees, which rightly have independence from the executive.”
AFC executive chair Marianne Perkovic said the council welcomed the acknowledgement that an inquiry was possible. She said the scale and urgency of the issues facing local fashion businesses warranted a more proactive response from government.
“Parliament has mechanisms to initiate an inquiry, and we are calling for government support for an appropriate referral and a comprehensive, evidence-based examination of the competitive environment,” Perkovic said.
Perkovic pointed to France, where the AFC had showcased Australian designers recently. She said France has been progressing measures that address ultra-fast fashion’s environmental impact, advertising and producer accountability.
Last month, it was reported that France started imposing fees on fast fashion items, with fees predicted to hit nearly €20 per garment by 2030 – or just over $30 in AUD.
The levy came into force in late August, which reportedly follows a new law passed in June to regulate ultra-fast fashion companies such as Shein, Temu and AliExpress.
According to the BBC, China's commerce ministry described the French law as discriminatory and a trade barrier, saying it could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) principles.
Perkovic said Australia cannot afford to be a passive observer while other countries modernise the rules governing ultra-fast fashion.
“We are not asking government to shield Australian businesses from competition,” she said. “We are asking it to ensure that competition is fair.”
The AFC outlined five areas it wants an inquiry to examine. The first is whether the $1,000 customs duty threshold, border processing and enforcement give offshore marketplaces an unintended advantage. The second is whether designers have affordable ways to protect their work from copying, including through marketplace accountability.
The council also wants an inquiry to test whether platform pricing, promotions, seller identification and market conduct meet Australian standards. It also wants greater transparency on labour conditions and human rights in global supply chains. Finally, it wants to consider whether businesses selling fashion into Australia should contribute to the environmental costs of their products, including textile waste.
International businesses are bound by certain government rules in Australia. This includes registering with the Australian Taxation Office and remitting all GST collected from Australian-based purchases.
This also includes rules around the Modern Slavery Act, where businesses making at least $100 million per year need to supply a modern slavery statement each year.
Leigh added that offshore platforms were also bound by Australia’s product safety regime regardless of where they were based. He noted that major platforms had signed the product safety code of conduct and need to remove non-compliant products quickly.
“Just because you’re located overseas doesn’t mean you get to fail to comply with Australia’s product safety regime,” he said.
The Federal Government launched a consultation on the national product safety framework earlier this year, which the Australian Retail Council supported. However, the ARC noted that any new rules coming out of this should apply to local and offshore operators equally.
That came after the ACCC put ultra-cheap platforms in their crosshairs to prevent the sale of dodgy products into Australia.
Leigh was also asked how the government weighed low prices for shoppers against the impact on local retailers. He said the government’s focus was on protecting consumers and ensuring all retailers, online or offline, did the right thing.
Perkovic said product safety was fundamental but only a starting point. She argued a voluntary code did not address intellectual property, import arrangements, workplace standards, environmental obligations or platform accountability.
“Australian designers and retailers invest in their businesses, create employment, comply with Australian laws and contribute to our economy,” Perkovic said. “They should not be competitively disadvantaged because other businesses can operate through different regulatory and commercial arrangements.”
The AFC noted it would continue engaging with parliamentarians, relevant committees and industry stakeholders.
According to the AFC, the fashion industry supports nearly 500,000 jobs, and women make up about 77 per cent of the workforce.
Ragtrader has reached out to Shein and Temu for a response.
In an February 2025 article, a Shein spokesperson told Ragtrader the company’s cost competitiveness is driven by its on-demand, small-batch production model, which they claim minimises overproduction, reduces waste and lowers costs.
“Shein is committed to complying with the rules and regulations in the countries we operate in, including Australia,” they wrote in a statement last year. “Shein pays applicable taxes including, but not limited to, GST, tariff, corporate tax, and labour taxes, as required.
“We also work to the best of our ability closely with our manufacturing suppliers to ensure that they are compliant with the Shein Supplier Code of Conduct (CoC), which is generally aligned to and complies with local laws and regulations as well as international conventions and standards.”