Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Holzberger argued that the bill addressed long-standing calls from industry to protect consumers from unsafe counterfeit goods, such as faulty medical devices and children's toys. Holzberger shared personal anecdotes about the difficulties businesses face in protecting intellectual property through costly civil actions. Holzberger contended that the new infringement scheme would relieve this burden and allow authorities to penalise importers effectively, contrasting the government's approach with previous neglect.

Wilson criticised the government's record on intellectual property, specifically citing plain packaging laws for tobacco as stripping trademarks and enabling organised crime. Wilson argued that removing branding created generic products that facilitated illicit trade and increased profits for criminal networks. Wilson claimed that government policies had inadvertently supported organised crime infrastructure and warned that failing to respect trademark rights undermined law and order.

Penfold supported the bill's aim to protect consumer safety and business integrity, noting the significant volume of counterfeit goods seized at borders. Penfold highlighted the risks posed by fake pharmaceuticals and vehicle parts but expressed caution regarding the use of strict liability offences. Penfold emphasised that legitimate businesses were already under severe economic pressure from rising costs and insolvencies, arguing that a strong economy was essential for protecting intellectual property.