This bill is currently before Parliament.
Immigration, border & security
Creates a new strict liability offenceAn offence where prosecutors do not have to prove fault such as intention or knowledge, although specific defences may still be available. for importing goods into Australia that bear a registered trade mark, a substantially identical mark, or an altered or removed registered trade mark without authorisation.
The government introduced the bill because, under the existing trade mark border system, suspected counterfeit goods could be seized but importers often faced no penalty beyond losing the goods if they abandoned them. The explanatory memorandum says this made seizure a cost of doing business for some counterfeit importers and left trade mark owners to bear expensive civil litigation. The bill adds an Australian Border ForceThe border agency that can seize suspected counterfeit imports and, under this bill, issue infringement notices for the new offence. infringement notice pathway to create a faster financial deterrent.
Australia already had border powers that let trade mark and copyright owners ask customs to detain suspected counterfeit imports, but the government said the system left a gap: once counterfeit goods were seized and abandoned, importers often faced no further financial consequence while rights holders remained responsible for civil action. The bill responds by creating a strict liability offenceAn offence where prosecutors do not have to prove fault such as intention or knowledge, although specific defences may still be available. for importing goods with false trade marks and putting that offence into the Customs Infringement Notice SchemeA customs penalty notice system. On this page it means the ABF could issue a financial notice as an alternative to prosecuting the new offence.. The main parliamentary debate was not over whether counterfeit goods are harmful; the Coalition and Greens both accepted the enforcement objective. The contested points were whether strict liability was too broad, whether personal or low-risk imports could be caught, and whether the law should more clearly distinguish dangerous commercial counterfeits from lower-risk imitation goods.
Criticism focused on breadth and safeguards rather than the basic goal of stopping dangerous counterfeit imports. Coalition speakers supported stronger enforcement but questioned strict liability, consultation and the lack of a clear trigger. The Greens warned that the offence did not include a commercial-purpose limit and could technically reach personal imports or low-risk imitation goods unless enforcement discretion prevents that outcome.
Julian Hill MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
77 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
Creates a new strict liability offenceAn offence where prosecutors do not have to prove fault such as intention or knowledge, although specific defences may still be available. for importing goods into Australia that bear a registered trade mark, a substantially identical mark, or an altered or removed registered trade mark without authorisation.
Makes the new offence subject to the Customs Infringement Notice SchemeA customs penalty notice system. On this page it means the ABF could issue a financial notice as an alternative to prosecuting the new offence., so Australian Border ForceThe border agency that can seize suspected counterfeit imports and, under this bill, issue infringement notices for the new offence. officers can issue a financial penalty notice instead of relying only on seizure, civil action by the trade mark owner, or prosecution.
Leaves the existing Notice of ObjectionA request a trade mark or copyright owner can give to customs asking it to detain imported goods suspected of infringing their rights. process in place, but adds a border penalty after counterfeit goods have been identified and the existing compliance process has run.
Sets a maximum court penalty of 60 penalty units for an individual, with lower maximum infringement notice penalties available under the Customs Act.
Includes exceptions where the trade mark use was authorised by the trade mark owner, an authorised user, the Trade Marks Act, the Registrar of Trade Marks or a court order.
Gives Australian Border ForceThe border agency that can seize suspected counterfeit imports and, under this bill, issue infringement notices for the new offence. discretion in practice, with the explanatory memorandum saying officers can consider first-time offences, genuine mistakes, the quantity of goods and the type of goods before deciding whether to issue a notice.
A person commits an offence of strict liability if: (a) the person imports goods into Australia; and (b) any of the following applies: (i) there is a registered trade mark on the goods; (ii) there is a mark or sign on the goods that is substantially identical to a registered trade mark; (iii) a registered trade mark on the goods has been altered, defaced, added to, wholly or partly removed, erased or obliterated.Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) as-passed bill text
prescribe the new offence in the Customs Infringement Notice Scheme, by amendments of the Customs Regulation, enabling the Comptroller-General of Customs (and delegates in the Australian Border Force) to issue infringement notices as an alternative to prosecution for the offence.Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) explanatory memorandum
These amendments do not alter or change the existing Notice of Objection process, rather, these amendments complement the existing framework. At the point when the importer forfeits the goods, and the Notice of Objection process concludes, the Infringement Notice Scheme can commence through an ABF officer issuing an infringement notice.Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) explanatory memorandum
The maximum financial penalty of the new offence is 60 penalty units for an individual, or 300 penalty units for a body corporate. By operation of section 243X of the Customs Act, the maximum penalty specified in an infringement notice may be either by 15 penalty units for an individual or 75 penalty units for a body corporate.Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) explanatory memorandum
Subsection (1) does not apply if the registered trade mark, or mark or sign, was applied, altered, defaced, added to, wholly or partly removed, erased or obliterated, as the case requires, with the permission of the registered owner, or an authorised user, of the trade mark.Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) as-passed bill text
ABF officers will have a great deal of flexibility as to whether or not they levy an infringement notice, as the power to issue an infringement notice is discretionary. Considerations such as first-time offences, genuine mistake of fact, quantity of goods, and type of goods with regard to community safety can all be taken into account.Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already had border powers that let trade mark and copyright owners ask customs to detain suspected counterfeit imports, but the government said the system left a gap: once counterfeit goods were seized and abandoned, importers often faced no further financial consequence while rights holders remained responsible for civil action. The bill responds by creating a strict liability offenceAn offence where prosecutors do not have to prove fault such as intention or knowledge, although specific defences may still be available. for importing goods with false trade marks and putting that offence into the Customs Infringement Notice SchemeA customs penalty notice system. On this page it means the ABF could issue a financial notice as an alternative to prosecuting the new offence.. The main parliamentary debate was not over whether counterfeit goods are harmful; the Coalition and Greens both accepted the enforcement objective. The contested points were whether strict liability was too broad, whether personal or low-risk imports could be caught, and whether the law should more clearly distinguish dangerous commercial counterfeits from lower-risk imitation goods.
Trade mark owners could ask customs to seize suspected counterfeits
The explanatory memorandum says the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act already let rights holders give a Notice of ObjectionA request a trade mark or copyright owner can give to customs asking it to detain imported goods suspected of infringing their rights. so the Australian Border ForceThe border agency that can seize suspected counterfeit imports and, under this bill, issue infringement notices for the new offence. could detain suspected infringing imports, with rights holders responsible for later civil action.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Border seizures show the scale of counterfeit imports
The minister told the House that more than 700,000 individual counterfeit items were seized at the border in 2024-25, with an estimated genuine value of more than $35 million.
Minister's second reading speech ↗Government introduces infringement notice bill
The bill was introduced in the House to add a strict liability offenceAn offence where prosecutors do not have to prove fault such as intention or knowledge, although specific defences may still be available. for importing goods with false trade marks and make that offence eligible for customs infringement notices.
Parliamentary timeline and explanatory memorandum ↗Opposition backs scrutiny before final passage
In House debate, the Coalition said it would not oppose the bill but wanted a Senate inquiry to test strict liability, consultation and possible unintended consequences.
House second reading debate ↗Bill referred to Senate committee
The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, with a report date recorded as 5 May 2026.
APH bill page notes ↗Senate passes the bill after airing proportionality concerns
The Senate debate recorded Coalition support and Greens non-opposition, alongside concerns that the offence had no commercial-purpose limit and could treat very different counterfeit goods in the same way.
Senate second reading debate and parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step. For this bill, the Federation Chamber reported back later the same day and the House then completed its remaining formal steps that day.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step. The official House record shows the referral out and return both happened on the same day, before the House moved to its final formal votes.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee before final Senate passage.
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
Key criticism
Criticism focused on breadth and safeguards rather than the basic goal of stopping dangerous counterfeit imports. Coalition speakers supported stronger enforcement but questioned strict liability, consultation and the lack of a clear trigger. The Greens warned that the offence did not include a commercial-purpose limit and could technically reach personal imports or low-risk imitation goods unless enforcement discretion prevents that outcome.
Government material says the offence is needed to deter counterfeit importers, is not punishable by imprisonment, has an honest-and-reasonable-mistake defence, and will be enforced through discretionary Australian Border ForceThe border agency that can seize suspected counterfeit imports and, under this bill, issue infringement notices for the new offence. decisions.
Strict liability and personal imports
Critics argued the offence does not require proof that an importer knew the goods were counterfeit, and Senator Shoebridge said the absence of a commercial-purpose requirement meant a person buying a single item online could technically be caught.
Same framework for different levels of harm
The Greens argued the law should better distinguish dangerous counterfeits such as batteries, medicines or vehicle parts from lower-risk designer imitations, instead of relying on enforcement discretion alone.
Consultation and timing
Coalition speakers said the bill had limited recent consultation, no obvious public trigger and significant new penalty powers, which justified referral to a Senate inquiry before final passage.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Julian Hill says the bill will protect consumers and genuine businesses by adding a strict liability offenceAn offence where prosecutors do not have to prove fault such as intention or knowledge, although specific defences may still be available. for importing counterfeit goods and letting the Australian Border ForceThe border agency that can seize suspected counterfeit imports and, under this bill, issue infringement notices for the new offence. issue infringement notices.
Read in Hansard ↗Rowan Holzberger supports the bill as a consumer safety and small-business protection measure.
Read in Hansard ↗Tim Wilson supports strong trade mark protection in principle but uses most of his speech to criticise Labor policy on branding, tobacco, customs and organised crime.
Read in Hansard ↗David Shoebridge says the Greens will not oppose the bill, but warns it is too broad because the offence has no commercial-purpose limit and does not require proof of knowledge.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
4 speakers · 4 support
“Here we are dealing with what is really an insidious problem for small business but also an insidious problem for consumers, who have every right to expect that the product that they buy is genuine, quality, warrantable—they can take it back if the product needs repairing or is faulty in any way—and, most importantly, safe.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Bill also includes amendments of the Customs Regulation2015 that enable Australian Border Force officers to issue infringement notices as an alternative to prosecution for the new offence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026 will create a new strict liability offence for importing goods with false trademarks—that is, counterfeit goods. This will bring the importation of counterfeit goods within scope of the Infringement Notice Scheme under the Customs Act 1901 as administered by the Australian Border Force.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want to respond very briefly to Senator Shoebridge's comments and, rather than answer the particular questions he has raised, offer him a briefing from our minister on these particular issues and note the complexity of the law that we're talking about today and how quite a lot of the provisions we're talking about need to be taken in the context of the broader guidance the ABF uses and the defences in the legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 4 mixed
“Of course, we all fundamentally believe in making sure that we have the legislative arrangements in place so that Australia's intellectual property framework continues to operate confidently and works to respect the property rights of rights holders.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The intent of the bill is certainly something that I support, because those who create value, who build brands, who invest in quality and who employ Australians deserve to have their work protected.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition supports action against counterfeit goods and stronger enforcement where appropriate, but we also support getting the law right.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 mixed
“The Greens won't be opposing this bill, but we do have a series of concerns we wish to put on the record. First, as the Law Council has pointed out in its submissions to the inquiry, there is the question of strict liability.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Referred to committee
The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee before final Senate passage.
The APH source notes record referral on 1 April 2026, with a committee report date of 5 May 2026.
APH bill page notes
