-
McCormack noted the coalition would not oppose the bill but expressed little confidence in its effectiveness given the government's management of the crisis. McCormack described the illicit tobacco trade as out of control, citing violence against legitimate businesses and the failure of courts to convict offenders in some cases. McCormack argued that the government had neglected border security and that the high excise rates were driving consumers to illegal sources. McCormack called for stronger penalties and better support for police, suggesting that the current legislative changes did not go far enough to address the scale of the problem.
-
Gregg supported the bill, describing it as the most significant modernisation of the enforcement framework since 2018. Gregg explained that the new offences would allow law enforcement to act on observable facts rather than proving complex supply chain details, making it harder for criminals to insulate themselves from liability. Gregg criticised the coalition's proposal to cut excise, arguing that economic modelling showed illicit markets would simply lower their prices to maintain profit margins. Gregg pointed to successful enforcement actions in Queensland and South Australia as evidence that strong laws and resources, rather than tax cuts, were the effective solution.
-
Templeman supported the bill, highlighting the global nature of the illicit tobacco trade and the health risks posed by unregulated products containing harmful chemicals. Templeman detailed how the new framework would use a list of observable indicators to establish reasonable suspicion, simplifying prosecutions for serious offenders. Templeman emphasised the bill's measures to strengthen the proceeds-of-crime framework, ensuring criminals could not retain profits from their activities. Templeman argued that the reforms would close loopholes in duty-free tobacco controls and streamline seizure processes, allowing officers to focus on enforcement rather than paperwork.
-
Small described the bill as a band-aid solution that failed to address the core issue of high excise taxes driving consumers to the black market. Small argued that punitive enforcement alone could not solve a crisis where organised crime viewed product losses as a manageable business expense. Small reiterated the coalition's proposal for an 80 per cent excise cut, a law enforcement blitz, and public education campaigns. Small claimed that the government's current approach had led to billions in lost revenue and increased violence, and that reducing the price of legal tobacco was necessary to restore market integrity.
-
Miller-Frost strongly supported the bill, framing the illicit tobacco trade as a public health and organised crime issue that required a robust regulatory response. Miller-Frost cited data showing record low smoking rates and argued that lowering taxes would reverse this progress and increase addiction. Miller-Frost detailed the bill's provisions for targeting criminal profits, including strengthened pecuniary penalty orders and unexplained wealth frameworks. Miller-Frost highlighted recent seizure statistics and successful crackdowns in states like South Australia and Queensland as evidence that the government's enforcement strategy was working.
-
lead
Penfold stated the Coalition would not oppose the bill, supporting its enforcement tools for border agencies and asset confiscation. Penfold argued the legislation is insufficient because it does not address the price differential between legal and illicit tobacco, which fuels the multibillion-dollar criminal industry. Penfold highlighted the burden on legitimate retailers and the exploitation of postal networks for illicit distribution. Penfold outlined the Coalition's alternative policy, including an 80 per cent excise reduction, a $200 million enforcement surge, and a regulated adult market for nicotine products. Penfold warned that without addressing the commercial foundations of the illicit market, enforcement alone would not dismantle organised crime networks.
-
shadow minister
Tehan argued that high excise taxes have destroyed government revenue while funding criminal gangs with billions of dollars. Tehan claimed the Coalition's policy to cut excise by 80 per cent would increase legal sales, boost government revenue by $8 billion, and allow for anti-smoking campaigns and enhanced law enforcement. Tehan asserted that the current bill only addresses symptoms rather than the fundamental economic driver of the illicit trade. Tehan urged the government to adopt the Coalition's costed policy to protect communities from violence and ensure smokers access regulated products.
-
Urquhart supported the bill as a measure to protect public health and prevent criminal syndicates from undermining tobacco control policies. Urquhart cited evidence showing declining smoking rates and highlighted the social costs of tobacco use, including illness and financial burden on households. Urquhart argued that the new offences and streamlined seizure processes would help dismantle supply chains and recover criminal assets. Urquhart emphasised that enforcement and public health support are complementary strategies to help smokers quit and protect communities from violence.
-
Violi acknowledged the bill's importance but argued it fails to address the profit motive driving organised crime. Violi cited statistics showing a dramatic rise in illicit tobacco consumption and linked this to increased violence and car thefts in Victoria. Violi promoted the Coalition's plan to reduce excise by 80 per cent and invest $200 million in enforcement to crush criminal networks. Violi criticised the government's vaping policy and claimed the Prime Minister was avoiding questions on excise reform.
-
Cook strongly supported the bill, describing it as a vital step in cracking down on organised crime syndicates. Cook detailed government funding for border interdiction and asset confiscation, citing record seizure figures and the closure of illicit shops. Cook argued that the bill closes legal loopholes and strengthens penalties for corporations and individuals involved in the trade. Cook rejected the Coalition's proposal to cut excise, warning it would reverse public health progress and increase smoking-related diseases.
-
Joyce moved an amendment calling for an immediate 75 per cent reduction in tobacco excise to encourage consumers to return to legal products. Joyce argued that high prices drive smokers to the black market, funding violent crime and depriving the government of revenue. Joyce suggested that reducing excise would increase legal sales and government income, allowing for health education campaigns. Joyce claimed the policy was common sense and had been adopted by other jurisdictions to combat illicit trade.
-
Coker supported the bill for strengthening enforcement powers and protecting legitimate businesses from unfair competition. Coker explained how new offences and streamlined disposal processes would help authorities act on reasonable suspicion and reduce administrative burdens. Coker highlighted the importance of following the money through improved proceeds of crime provisions to remove financial incentives for criminals. Coker argued that cutting excise would not address criminal networks and would undermine public health achievements.
-
lead
Cook supported the bill, arguing it addresses sophisticated organised crime networks exploiting legitimate supply chains. Cook highlighted recent seizures in Queensland and the establishment of the Illicit Tobacco National Disruption Group as evidence of effective coordination. Cook emphasised that the legislation modernises offence frameworks by removing the need to prove intent to defraud, instead using reasonable suspicion based on observable indicators. Cook argued the bill protects public health progress, supports legitimate businesses in her electorate, and ensures criminals cannot profit from illicit trade.
-
shadow minister
Littleproud supported the bill but criticised the government for only addressing symptoms rather than root causes. Littleproud argued that high excise taxes have created a lucrative black market, costing billions in lost revenue and driving consumers to unregulated products. Littleproud advocated for an 80 per cent excise cut to reshape the market, alongside increased funding for education and law enforcement. Littleproud warned that without bipartisan reform, the illicit market would continue to expand, potentially affecting alcohol sales similarly.
-
Belyea highlighted the significant decline in smoking rates since 2001, attributing it to strong public health policies. Belyea argued that cutting excise would undermine these gains and increase health system burdens, citing negative outcomes from similar cuts in Canada. Belyea detailed government investments in border enforcement and state-level shop closures, noting that enforcement disrupts criminal profits and encourages quitting.
-
Farley acknowledged falling smoking rates but argued that illicit use is undercounted and the black market is growing rapidly. Farley stated that enforcement alone cannot solve the problem due to the economic incentives created by high taxes. Farley supported an amendment to the bill, advocating for tax cuts, legalisation of lower-risk nicotine products, and continued enforcement to reduce criminal profits.
-
Mascarenhas supported the bill as part of a broader legislative strategy to combat illicit tobacco syndicates. Mascarenhas explained new offences based on observable indicators, such as selling below tax value, which simplify prosecution. Mascarenhas highlighted successful enforcement in Queensland, where shop closures led to increased legal sales and quitline calls, and opposed opposition plans to cut excise or legalise vapes.
-
Price supported the bill's enforcement measures but argued they are insufficient without addressing underlying tax policies. Price cited significant losses for legitimate businesses and estimated billions in evaded revenue. Price outlined coalition proposals including an 80 per cent excise reduction, a law enforcement blitz, and regulated adult markets for vapes and pouches to shift consumers away from illicit sources.
-
Freelander strongly supported the bill, emphasising the health harms of smoking and the dangers of unregulated illicit products. Freelander argued that high excise remains a critical tool for reducing smoking rates and that cutting taxes would reverse public health progress. Freelander highlighted the bill's new offences and streamlined seizure processes as essential for disrupting criminal networks and protecting the healthcare system.
-
Wilson opposed the government's overall approach, arguing that high excise and plain packaging have fuelled the illicit trade and rewarded organised crime. Wilson claimed the current policy design fails to address market realities and creates large profit margins for criminals. Wilson advocated for reducing taxes to restore the legal market and prevent the spread of illicit trade to other products like alcohol.
-
lead
Caldwell stated that his party supported the bill to assist the government in addressing illicit tobacco enforcement. Caldwell argued that high tobacco taxes had reduced legal consumption while expanding the illegal market, depriving the country of tax revenue and health messaging. Caldwell noted that illicit operators bypassed safety controls and contributed to violent crime, including firebombings. Caldwell claimed that the issue was exacerbated by federal tax policies and inadequate state enforcement in Victoria.