Public Health Amendment (Prohibited Tobacco & Other Products) Bill 2026 (No 8)
Thursday 25 June 2026
[11.56 a.m.] Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I thank the government and the Leader for bringing forward this bill. To my mind, it is important and contains necessary measures to facilitate public health and safety, which arises from prohibited tobacco products and the criminal activity that feeds into and results from it. This is something which is important to the community. That there is illicit tobacco in the community along with other similar products is an open secret.
There's flagrant flouting of the law occurring for smokers and vapers to obtain a product for far less than what it would cost to obtain legally. A market driven by supply and demand has been created, which has serious flow-on effects for things like revenue collection, the formation of organised crime and cartel behaviour and the quality assurance and safety of products which people are purchasing.
To my mind, it is a serious problem. It has been acknowledged that tackling these issues requires responses from all levels of government - from the Commonwealth level, where customs, importation, federal policing and taxation are concerned, to the state level, where health and state policing are involved, to the local level involving planning and retail regulation.
These issues are so significant that making progress in the right direction requires cooperation and coordination to ensure our laws adequately address them. I believe the bill is a good start. I will flag at this stage I do have amendments to the bill that have been distributed to members with regards to liability for owners of certain retail premises and penalties. Facilitating legal enforcement is an important element in tackling the problems raised by prohibited tobacco and other products.
It's not the only element, but as state legislators, it's something we're able to make meaningful changes to. As I may not move my amendments, depending on the answers from the Leader, I will mention in my contribution what they were, because I'm expecting the Leader to give me a reason not to move them. The amendments that I was bringing forward as an additional angle from which the sale of prohibited tobacco and other products can be tackled - these were amendments that were requested by people briefing us and also Tasmania Police.
When I spoke to them, they felt that they would be very helpful in their tackling of the situation as well. The first amendment was amending the Retail Leases Act 2022, and I will discuss that a little later. The Fair Trading (Code of Practice for Retail Tenancies) Regulations 1998 hold owners of certain retail premises criminally liable where they knowingly permit the use of those retail premises for the sale of smoking products other than in accordance with the Public Health Act, and the sale of prohibited smoking products within the meaning of Division 3A of the act.
The amendments that I would introduce have what I would call a three-strike system, where the owners of retail premises found in contravention would be subject to penalties. A natural person can be subjected to a fine not exceeding 200 penalty units, which is $41,000 based on the penalty unit for 2025-26, which is $205 per penalty unit for a first offence; 400 penalty units ($82,000) for a second offence; and 800 penalty units ($164,000) for a third or subsequent offence. I might add that these penalties came from within the bill, so they're fitting with other penalties within the bill. If they are bodies corporate, they can be subjected to a fine not exceeding 400 penalty units ($82,000) for a first offence; 800 penalty units ($164,000) for a second offence; and 16,000 penalty units ($3,280,000) for a third or subsequent offence.
It's important to emphasise that these amendments do not allow or endow retail owners with the ability to shut down a premises or a business. It does give them a lawful avenue with which they can enter a commercial rental arrangement with such a business, and in fact compels them to do so in circumstances where they're aware of the prohibited trading activity occurring by the lessee.
In some ways it does help a business if they do have someone leasing but they know is either undertaking a criminal activity or has been fined and caught doing so. As I mentioned in my second reading contribution, many illicit traders simply put the current fines and enforcements down to the cost of doing business, as they are otherwise making money hand over fist and can simply afford it. We hear that all the time, that they actually put how much money they may need to pay for fines and penalties into their business case; but they also need places to conduct business from, and this will make things harder for illicit traders to have a place where customers can find them and, frankly, make it harder for the customers themselves to access their products.
This will either compel them to purchase tobacco legally, which is both regulated and properly taxed, or consider quitting options. My questions are to do with the implementation of the bill should it pass. I've been advised that if my amendments were to pass, this bill would not be able to commence for many months. If the Leader could advise the reason: is it because the amendments would need to go back to the lower House, which would not sit until August? If so, perhaps they could be recalled; or is it because it would need to go out for further consultation? I'd really like to know what the reason is that I've been advised that my amendments would put a halt on this bill.
Obviously, the last thing I want to do is slow the progress of this bill. It needs to be implemented as soon as possible. If I could get some clarity, and then I will decide whether to move the amendments or not. Of course, they would have to pass the House. I believe this is separate to the fact that one of the acts that would need to be amended is the Retail Leases Act 2022, an act that has yet to be fully proclaimed. Remember, this is 2022 - not fully proclaimed. I might add, while I've been looking into the acts that haven't been proclaimed, I have come across one from 2007, so maybe 2022 is not as bad as I thought.
How many people would realise, though, that even when a bill has received royal assent, it hasn't been fully proclaimed? In this case, I'm advised that there are new amendments to this act planned for next year, which is interesting; there are amendments to an act that hasn't been fully proclaimed. I'm not sure about my amendments. The only sections of this act proclaimed are section 2, which deals with the commencement provisions of the act, and section 88, which continues the legal application of the Fair Trading (Code of Practice for Retail Tenancies) Regulations 1998.
It would be also appreciated if the Leader could confirm that if my amendments were passed, whether they would have any power if they're going into an act that's not fully proclaimed. How long would it take for my amendments in the Retail Leases Act 2022, which has only got sections 2 and 88 proclaimed; would my amendments be likely to be proclaimed, or would they sit there in a null-and-void act?
If that's the case, it's very confusing, but I don't want to delay a bill from starting unnecessarily if I put amendments into an act that's not going anywhere. It is confusing and I really would like some clarification on that.
Ms Rattray - Probably need legal advice.
Ms ARMITAGE - As I said, I don't want to delay the bill, but I do have some real questions about it. As mentioned in briefings, illicit traders, often operating as organised networks, are increasingly absorbing penalties currently available under the Public Health Act 1997 into the cost of doing business. As I understand it, in 2025-26 the Department of Health seized 3.3 million cigarettes, 2 tonnes of loose tobacco and 26,000 e-cigarettes or vapes, with an estimated value of $6.86 million with $10.3 million in excise avoided. Now, whichever way you look at it, this is unacceptable.
As the Leader mentioned, the influence prohibited tobacco and other products such as vapes have on the health and wellbeing of our communities is profound. You speak to people who smoke and they say, it's so hard to stop; I guess the cheaper you make it, the easier it is to continue. Many changes have been made regarding tobacco accessibility and appeal, such as the introduction of plain packaging and increasing associated taxes and therefore cost to the consumer, which have made meaningful reductions to smoking and therefore the risk to people's health.
With the rise of illicit tobacco and vape sales, we're seeing these efforts undermined. I was informed in briefings that nicotine markers have gone up by 4 per cent in our wastewater detection. We're also seeing a significant loss of revenue which is then funnelled back, hopefully, into providing health services for things like smoking-related illnesses. Shadow markets are invariably linked to criminal activity and even organised crime. Enforcement and investigation powers are therefore extremely relevant to addressing the rise in the sale of illicit tobacco and other products.
We did hear in briefings as well that they're now packaging the illicit cigarettes to look exactly like the normal cigarettes, and that the flat packs are sent in from other countries, and they're just packaged now, so it doesn't stand out that someone's buying a cheaper product or a different product. To this end, the creation of a new offence for the sale or supply of illicit vaping products and the sale and supply of illicit tobacco and vaping products will be very important steps. I emphasise that the purpose of this bill is overwhelmingly to reduce harm in our communities and especially to our young people.
This is not just regarding people's health and wellbeing, but also their physical, mental and financial safety. Markets, especially those related to the selling and purchasing of goods harmful to health, need to be stamped out if they're unable to be regulated. Products are untested, unverified and potentially unsafe, at least with regards to tobacco, and much more unsafe than regulated tobacco. The proceeds enrich and encourage further criminal activity and actors.
Before too long it will get out of control. You wonder how many people realise when they are buying the cheap cigarettes, where the money is going and what illegal activities it could be actually providing. We're already seeing the violence and destruction becoming significant issues in mainland jurisdictions and we cannot afford to have such a problem here. Obviously, when speaking to Tasmania Police, one of their main reasons for pushing all these, and particularly when I was speaking to the officers with regard to my amendments, is to try to prevent what's happening in some other mainland states from happening here. I believe it also shows that we're serious about how we address this sort of conduct. As the Leader said, the stronger penalties reflect the serious public health risks posed by these products and sends a clear message that engaging in unlawful trading in these products will not be tolerated. The bill also introduces stronger enforcement powers to support compliance with Tasmania's smoking product laws. This includes the provision of new powers to close businesses that sell illicit products or who seek to operate outside of the licensing framework. The bill also seeks to minimise accessibility, visibility, normality and appeal of smoking products, including the sale and supply of smoking products from vending machines and the banning of smoking paraphernalia in retail stores. Additionally, the bill strengthens enforcement provisions relating to the obstruction of nominated officers and sale of smoking products to children and young people. I would ask, Leader, about nominated officers. You may not realise, but about 20 years ago, I was a nominated officer.
Ms Rattray - I'm not surprised, Mr President. I mean, she's an independent person. She's a member of parliament, and now that. Not surprised.
Ms ARMITAGE - However, I'm just wondering whether they still have the same thing because when I was a nominated officer, we were volunteers. We were volunteers, we were nominated officers and we reported to - I'm trying to think of the chap's name now, it was in Henty House - it must have been when I was on local council - and we had a badge. We used to assist, because there weren't very many actual paid officers, we were nominated officers. Then we would go into premises -
Ms Rattray - Pretend to buy a packet of cigarettes?
Ms ARMITAGE - No, we didn't go that far. We would go into premises to actually view, to make sure that everything was where it should be, that things weren't on display. The other thing we could do was where sometimes they would send a young person in to buy a packet of cigarettes and we would be in the store. As a nominated officer, you could be there as a witness, you were there officially, so if they sold to that young person, you were there. I'm just wondering whether they still have volunteer nominated officers or whether it should be looked at again. It's something, I think, that worked very well; there were quite a number of us that did it. It helped to find places that were selling illegally.
Just a thought, it was something from the past that maybe should be revisited. It's all of these measures I was referring to earlier, when I said that tackling the problem of the sale and supply of prohibited tobacco and other products requires a multifaceted approach. None of these on their own will go very far to end the sale and supply of illicit tobacco and vapes, but altogether I'm confident that we could see a reduction in the sale of illegal tobacco and vapes and the consequent health and crime issues that come along with it. The honourable Leader spoke about a staged approach to our state's tobacco, vaping and nicotine laws, alignment with other Australian jurisdictions and the consolidation of these laws into a standalone Tasmanian act.
I believe this is a sensible way of approaching reform, but I do understand that it will take time to do it properly. I believe the measures contained in the bill and in the amendments I seek to bring forward - if I bring them forward - contain good steps which can be taken now and thus start to make strides towards eliminating illegal tobacco and vapes in our community. While I mention the amendments - and I might need to get some confirmation from the Leader on this, you might need to take some advice - it was suggested that if my amendments don't go into this bill, they might be put in the bill next year, into the Retail Leases Act 2022.
There are amendments planned for that act that my proposed amendments could be added to for that bill next year. I finally address the issue of harm minimisation. The honourable Leader mentioned that measures contained in the bill complement existing harm-reduction and smoking-cessation support measures. I would like to know if resourcing for things like Quit Tasmania - which I know celebrated its 30-year anniversary recently - and things like school programs, early intervention, and supporting settings like health care, urgent care and hospitals, are making quitting and support resources widely available to people in the community.
Programs obviously work, and people's efforts to quit harmful addictions like smoking and vaping are greatly increased when they have easier access to education and support like those offered by Quit Tasmania. Leader, could we be advised? Further, how much education do we provide in schools, particularly with regard to vapes? Because I'm hearing that vapes - and I'm not sure, do they still do flavoured vapes?
Ms O'Connor - Oh, yes.
Ms ARMITAGE - Things like that for children.
Ms Rattray - Bubble gum-flavoured apparently, all sorts.
Ms ARMITAGE - From what we hear, children and a lot of people don't seem to think that vapes are as harmful as cigarettes, that they can have vapes. It's an awful thought that children may think it's cool to have a vape, particularly a flavoured vape. I'm just wondering how much education we actually do in schools with regard to those things. I probably should be asking the Education minister. I do support the bill. I wonder about my amendments.
I would like to know whether it's simply because amendments would need to go to the lower House to be signed off or whether there are other reasons, because of consultation and whether this was proposed for further tranches. I spoke to the Health minister, Bridget Archer, last evening regarding my amendments and she was hopeful that the bill could progress as soon as possible. It would be interesting to find out the actual reason why the amendments would delay the implementation of the bill, which of course I don't want to do.
