Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Wednesday 19 August 2026

Continued from Monday 22 June 2026.

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

At a glance

The debate centred on the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Bill 2026, which aims to strengthen penalties, expand law enforcement powers, and enhance proceeds-of-crime measures to disrupt organised criminal networks involved in the illicit tobacco trade. Government members and independent senators supported the bill, arguing that illicit tobacco undermines public health gains, fuels violence, and harms legitimate businesses, while emphasising the need for coordinated federal and state enforcement. The Shadow Assistant Minister supported the bill but argued it was insufficient without addressing high excise taxes, which he claimed drove consumers to the black market. The Assistant Minister refuted this, stating excise is a health measure, not a revenue tool, and highlighted successful enforcement actions and the need for states to close illegal retail outlets.

Outcome

The bill was debated at second reading; the transcript does not state the final passage result.

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

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Mike Freelander (Macarthur) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Freelander supported the bill, identifying illicit tobacco as a significant risk to public health and community safety driven by organised crime. Freelander argued that reducing excise would increase smoking rates and that the legislation was necessary to shift the balance of risk and reward for those involved in crime. Freelander highlighted the health consequences, noting that smoking rates have fallen significantly but are threatened by cheap illicit products, and the criminal consequences, including firebombings and violence linked to the trade. Freelander emphasised the requirement for a unified government approach to disrupt the business models of criminal groups and protect public health achievements.

Government response

Julian Hill (Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) ALP Bruce

Hill defended the bill as a critical step in reversing the low-risk, high-profit equation for illicit tobacco operators. Hill clarified that excise is a Pigovian tax designed to reduce consumption, not generate revenue, and rejected opposition calls for cuts, noting that illicit tobacco remains cheap even in low-tax jurisdictions. Hill highlighted the effectiveness of the Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group and record seizures at the border, while urging state governments to enforce closure orders against illegal retailers. Hill also criticised the Coalition's association with the National Party's pro-vaping stance, asserting that vaping rates have stabilised and that unregulated vapes pose serious health risks.

Opposition response

Simon Kennedy (Shadow Assistant Minister for Finance) Liberal Cook

Kennedy supported the bill but argued it addressed only a fraction of the problem, attributing the proliferation of illicit tobacco to excessively high excise taxes. Kennedy cited constituent concerns about the density of tobacconists near schools and the impact on legitimate retailers, claiming that high taxes have driven consumers to the black market and reduced tax revenue significantly. Kennedy called for a serious conversation about retail regulations and excise levels, asserting that the current policy has failed to deter organised crime and has allowed criminal networks to operate in plain sight.