Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Sovereign Capability) Share this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026. Up front, the coalition position is this: the coalition recognises that counterfeit imports are a serious and growing problem frequently linked to organised crime. They undermine legitimate Aussie businesses, distort markets and can expose consumers to unsafe or substandard products. That's why the government's proposal to strengthen enforcement in this area is not unreasonable. Those importing counterfeit goods should be held to account, not just get a slap on the wrist. Giving the Australian Border Force additional enforcement tools has some logic to it. However, there are important questions around how this should be achieved which the government has not yet answered. For these reasons, we won't oppose this bill, but we will ensure it is better examined by referring it to a Senate inquiry.

What does this bill do? In short, the bill is designed to strengthen Australia's response to the importation of counterfeit goods. The bill introduces a new strict liability offence, ensuring importers face possible financial penalties in addition to the seizure of their goods. It also brings that offence within the Customs Infringement Notice Scheme. At the moment, the primary enforcement for counterfeit imports is the seizure or forfeit of goods, and there is limited ability to impose penalties on importers. It means that many importers face no real consequence beyond losing goods. Some treat it as simply the cost of doing business. This bill seeks to address that gap, enabling the Australian Border Force, the ABF, to issue infringements as a faster and more flexible enforcement tool.

The coalition does have key concerns with the bill. Our concerns are legitimate because, while this proposal is not unreasonable, we think the bill should be examined further. The first concern is the use of a strict liability offence. The bill relies on a strict liability offence, and that means there is no need to prove intent or knowledge; only that the goods were imported and bore a false trademark. That's a significant step in our laws. Strict liability can be appropriate in some regulatory settings, but it also carries risks. It can capture inadvertent or low-level conduct, and it may affect small businesses or individuals who are not deliberately acting unlawfully but are caught up in the crime itself unwittingly. So this raises legitimate questions about proportionality and fairness.

The second concern is that there is a lack of a clear trigger for the bill itself. Another issue is the absence of any obvious trigger for this legislation. To the best of the coalition's knowledge and understanding, there has been no major public incident. There's been no clear enforcement failure identified on the public record, and there's no new data or report that explains why this reform is being brought forward now. Now, that doesn't mean that the reform is wrong, but it does mean that we should ask the question: what is the reason that this bill is being introduced and why now? Why today does it need to be passed?

The third concern that we have is the limited recent consultation. It should be noted that there was a formal consultation process in 2020 on these kinds of measures, but there has been little stakeholder engagement since. In fact, the key stakeholders that the coalition contacted were not even aware of its existence, and that's concerning. For a reform that introduces a new offence and new penalty powers, we would have expected clear—and wider and greater—consultation with the community.

So, what's our intent today? Our intent is to refer the bill to a Senate inquiry. The coalition is taking a measured and responsible approach to this process. At face value, the provision of additional enforcement to address counterfeit imports appears reasonable. It's a reasonable approach, so we're not opposing the bill in this House. We recognise that the policy intent has merit. But we are also not prepared to wave the bill through without more scrutiny. This has been a bit of a habit of the last six months or so. We want to have more scrutiny of this bill, and that is why we're recommending that the bill be referred to a Senate inquiry on the papers.

This will allow us to hear directly from affected stakeholders, including small-business groups, retailers, brand owners and legal experts. It will allow us to test whether the strict liability approach is appropriate. It will allow us to examine how the new offence will operate in practice and it will allow us to ensure there are no unintended consequences, which is a very important function of the Senate as a house of review. Importantly, this response does not delay the bill indefinitely, but it ensures proper scrutiny before its final passage.

To sum up, the coalition supports action against counterfeit goods. We support stronger enforcement where appropriate, but we want to get the law right. This bill raises a number of questions. It introduces significant new powers and has not yet been subject to adequate scrutiny. Therefore, from our point of view, a Senate inquiry is reasonable, measured and definitely in the Australian public interest. We will not oppose this bill in the House, but we will ensure it is examined before it becomes law. We'll also allow relevant stakeholders to be given the opportunity to examine the legislation and have their say in a public setting—a very important part of our democratic process in Australia. That's the responsible approach. That's the response the coalition will take. Thank you for your time.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context