Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

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

Senate · Thursday 14 May 2026

Continued from Wednesday 13 May 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated legislation introducing strict liability offences for importing goods with false trademarks and enabling financial penalty notices. The National Party supported the bill but highlighted concerns regarding strict liability and limited consultation, noting they had referred it to inquiry. The Greens raised significant concerns about the broad scope potentially catching personal imports and the lack of distinction between dangerous goods and low-risk items. The Assistant Minister commended the bill to the Senate, which passed the second reading.

Outcome

The bill was read a second time.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Susan McDonald (QLD) (National Party) Nationals

McDonald stated that the coalition supported the bill's objective of strengthening enforcement against counterfeit imports, which harm businesses and public safety. McDonald noted that the legislation introduces a strict liability offence and allows the Australian Border Force to issue financial penalties. McDonald highlighted concerns about the proportionality of strict liability and the lack of recent formal stakeholder consultation. McDonald explained that the coalition had referred the bill to a Senate inquiry to examine these issues but would not move amendments due to insufficient numbers. McDonald concluded that the coalition would support the bill while monitoring its operation.

Government response

Nita Green (Assistant Minister for Tourism; Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs; Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) ALP QLD

Green responded to concerns raised by the Greens regarding the scope of the legislation. Green indicated that the provisions must be understood in the context of broader guidance used by the Australian Border Force and existing defences in the law. Green did not address specific questions about personal imports directly, citing the non-controversial nature of the debate stage. Green commended the bill to the Senate for passage.