Bills

Statutes Amendment (Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products - Closure Orders and Offences) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from1 April 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:23): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products—Closure Orders and Offences) Bill 2025, which amends the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 and the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products Act 1997 to address deficiencies in the enforcement of illicit tobacco and e-cigarette sales.

Following the introduction of stricter regulations in December 2025, SAPOL identified gaps that hindered their ability to act against unlicensed premises engaged in the illegal tobacco trade. This bill seeks to close those gaps by strengthening enforcement mechanisms, increasing penalties and introducing new offences related to property owners who knowingly facilitate illicit sales.

One of the most significant changes in this bill is the increase in penalties. Maximum fines for large-scale violations will increase to $4.5 million for commercial offences and $6.6 million for large commercial quantities of illicit tobacco and e-cigarette products. These penalties send a strong message that the illegal sale of these products will not be tolerated.

The bill also creates a new offence for landlords who knowingly permit illicit trade on their premises. This is a critical step in ensuring that those who enable this illegal activity are held accountable. However, it is important that these provisions are implemented with caution to ensure that legitimate property owners are not unfairly penalised.

Furthermore, the bill grants authorities the power to issue immediate closure orders on businesses involved in illegal sales, which is an essential enforcement tool to allow SAPOL to act swiftly against offenders. Landlords will have the ability to apply to the courts to amend or revoke long-term closure orders, ensuring that premises are not permanently affected by the actions of a rogue tenant.

The bill further expands police powers to conduct searches and investigations into illicit tobacco and e-cigarette sales modelled on the Tattooing Industry Control Act 2005. The enhanced enforcement capabilities will allow SAPOL to take decisive action against organised operations involved in this illicit trade.

Another key feature of the bill is the improvement of information sharing and transparency measures. SAPOL will be permitted to share information with enforcement agencies, and details of closure orders will be made publicly available. This ensures that agencies can work together effectively to combat the problem and that the public is aware of businesses that have been found in breach of the law.

While these amendments strengthen enforcement, it is critical that legitimate business owners and property owners are not unfairly penalised. The opposition supports measures to combat illicit trade, but will closely scrutinise the implementation of these new powers to ensure they are used appropriately.

This bill represents an important step in addressing the illicit tobacco trade, but it must be implemented carefully to ensure that it does not create undue burden for legitimate businesses and property owners. The opposition will support strong enforcement measures while continuing to scrutinise this government's approach, to ensure clarity, fairness and effectiveness. With those comments, I indicate support for the bill and look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:26): I rise to speak very briefly today on this bill. When the tobacco and e-cigarette reforms were debated in this place last year, the Greens were very supportive of the measures that were aimed at minimising the harm caused by the tobacco industry and, of course, vaping. Those reforms included closure orders that could be put in place to limit the sale of illegal tobacco and e-cigarettes. At the time, the Hon. Ben Hood moved some amendments regarding the rights of the lessor in relation to a closure order. At that time, we indicated we were not in a position to support those amendments because we had not had enough time to consider them.

The bill seeks to address some of the complications with respect to implementing the closure orders now that the legislation has been in place for some months. We are supportive of the general provisions of this bill, which will provide certainty around responsibilities and rights of lessors where closure orders are put in place in their premises. We know that the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros have filed a number of amendments that would introduce additional types of closure orders, namely, a short-term order.

Similar to last time, we have not had a great amount of time to consider the amendments or to consult with stakeholders. Therefore, in terms of considering the amendments, we will be guided by the advice that the government provides during the committee stage. I am certainly open to the amendments, but I am keen to understand how they might work in practise, and obviously the government has access to that level of information via the department so I will watch the debate closely. We are supportive of the substantive bill and certainly are open to the amendments should they be considered workable by the government.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:28): I rise to speak in support of this bill, which, as other honourable members have said, comes from the need for additional changes around enforcement to target illicit activity, illegal tobacco activity, including arson linked to the illicit tobacco trade and organised crime; new offences for owners who permit premises to be used for the trade of illicit tobacco; additional search powers; changes to retail and commercial leases to allow leases to be terminated where premises have been used for trading in illicit tobacco; sharing of information between agencies; and, of course, I suppose the centrepiece of this legislation, which is even tougher penalties for those offending.

I am not going to lose the opportunity to say, as I have said before, 'I told you so.' When I introduced these bills in 2021 it was a problem then and it is a problem now. Sadly, had we paid a little more attention in 2021, the horse would not have bolted as far as it has now. The reality is that we are very much playing catch-up with organised criminal activity involved in the trade of illicit tobacco.

That brings me to the crux of what I would like to discuss today, because I think what is missing in all this discussion is a much bigger discussion we need to have that we have not quite arrived at. When I introduced that bill, illicit tobacco and vapes on the black market were already trading at best at about $5 billion in lost excise and at worst at about $3.5 billion. That is what we were losing as a country to illicit tobacco in 2021. Lost tobacco excise has been a growing problem that we have known about, and those figures are indicative of the extent of that problem.

I think one of the problems that we have had is that we have failed to look at this issue holistically. Tobacco use has increased by something like 282 per cent in Australia since 2013. When you buy a legitimate packet of cigarettes today and you pay $50 for them, about $35 of that $50 is going to the government in taxes. There is not a huge profit margin being made by those retailers who sell legal tobacco, and of course it is that group of retailers who are subject to very stringent laws around the ability to sell tobacco in the first place.

We know that excise for tobacco is trending downwards. From a government perspective, those are scary figures. I note that the Financial Review has recently published data on just how far downwards that trend has gone. Of course, we need to respond to that, and the government has responded by taking the laws that I introduced in 2021 and making them tougher, and this week making them tougher again—and that is an absolutely good thing—but we are scrambling to shut down an activity, and a real problem is always going to be border control and enforcement.

We have a gang war between states now breaking out. It is a lucrative business for competing organised criminal activity members. The penalties have not yet kicked in, so they have been fighting. There have been fire bombings. We have seen that starting in Victoria and creeping its way over the border into South Australia. In fact, what that points to is a turf war between those people who are running this organised criminal activity. The reason it is resulting in the fire bombings and the arson is short: it is worth a motza. It is absolutely worth a fortune, something like $6 billion a year in illicit tobacco trade.

The penalties are obviously going to make a dent, but we cannot look at the penalties in isolation because, mark my words—and I know I have stood up in here and said that a lot on this issue and others—a penalty of even $4.5 million or $6.6 million, up from $1.5 million, is a drop in the ocean compared to the $6 billion net worth of this industry. So it may deter an individual retailer from selling these products.

We know therein lies another issue, because we have seen investigations done into the underhandedness of this organised criminal activity when it comes to standover tactics of individuals trading—standover tactics in terms of walking into a place and saying, 'You will sell this and I will be here once a month to collect my takings from it,' standover tactics like, 'You will be out of this store and we will be taking over control of this store by tomorrow at 5 o'clock.' Those things have all been reported as happening because it is an industry that is worth $6-odd billion.

An amount of $6.6 million may sound like a great deterrent for the little operator or the convenience store or the shisha store selling things they should not be selling, but there are two factors we are ignoring: firstly, the standover tactics; and, secondly, how that compares to the money to be made in this trade. That is precisely the reason why we are seeing the sorts of gang wars that we are seeing at the moment in this area.

As I said, the horse has already well and truly bolted, and we are now playing catch-up. If we do not actually get serious about how this stuff is getting into the country, then we are going to continue to play catch-up. I was asked this on radio the other day on the ABC. They said, 'What if we make the fine $50 million?' Well, $50 million is going to make a huger dent to $6 billion than $6.6 million, but it is still a drop in the ocean compared to the money to be made in this trade. I will speak to the federal element in a moment.

I guess the point I am getting at is that given the attention—and we are leading the nation now in terms of these reforms—on this trade at the moment, it is also naive of us to think that those in charge of a trade that is bringing in some $6 billion worth of revenue to their pockets are not going to be creative in the way that they (a) overcome any state laws, and (b) change their practices in terms of getting their products into Australia in the first instance, and that is where our Border Force control measures kick in. Minister Butler, late last year—I cannot remember the precise date—came out and announced $166 million over three years. One of the aims of that $166 million was to toughen up border control—but again, what we know is it is not enough.

We are dealing with the tail end of a problem that the federal government has been on notice about now for a very long time, and we are effectively trying to mop up with penalties. That is not to detract from the fact that we need them, but it is certainly reflective of the lack of cohesion between the state and federal governments when it comes to this issue, the very creative tools that those organised criminal syndicates have used to overcome these laws and the need for us to focus more heavily and intently on those products coming into the country.

We have seen recently—I cannot remember what the haul was worth—an intercepted haul of illicit tobacco by the AFP where it was diverted back to its country of origin, and it was worth millions and millions of dollars, but the bottom line is we need to be doing more in that space. Unless and until we do that, penalties alone will not address the underlying root cause of this issue. It will address to a degree the gang wars that are going on in Adelaide at the moment, and Victoria, but it will not address the root cause of the issue.

I have also spoken about the fact that, of course, there are two elements to this debate: one is the public health debate and the other one is the trade in organised criminal activity. My concern around cigarettes has not only been trading in cigarettes that are duty-free and so fail to comply with our laws when it comes to labelling requirements. I think it was just yesterday that the federal minister announced new laws in relation to cigarettes. We have heard lots about now being able to walk into a store and buy a cigarette per stick for about a dollar, if you cannot afford a packet for about $17 or $20, compared to the $50 that you would be paying at Coles, Woolworths, X Convenience or On the Run, and the banning of menthol cigarettes from a public health perspective.

As of yesterday, every stick of cigarette now has to have a special type of code encrypted on it so you know it is a legitimate product being sold and we are banning menthol flavoured cigarettes. I think retailers have something like a three or six-month grace period to ensure compliance with those laws before they start issuing penalties.

I can tell you that a smoker does not care if there is a print on a cigarette that shows it is a legitimate cigarette or not. They do not really care if there is a little mark on a cigarette that shows this is a legitimate cigarette versus one that is sold on the black market that is going to cost them a quarter of the price. They want a cigarette and obviously that 282 per cent increase in taxes has diverted them to this black market and that is where we have failed to act in a timely manner and, as I said before, we are now playing catch-up.

But from a health perspective—and I have raised this with the health minister's department, and I understand that we do wastewater treatment testing and I understand that we collate and collect lots of data on smoking rates in Australia—I am concerned about two things. First is that many of the products that are coming in are not actually legitimate cigarettes, so we do not know where they are made and what conditions they are made under and what they actually contain. So somebody buying one of those cigarettes because of the 282 per cent tax increase on the legitimate packet has no idea what they are actually ingesting.

They do not know if it is a Marlboro or a rip-off of a Marlboro cigarette. They do not know if it is a Dunhill packet of cigarettes or a knock-off of a packet of Dunhill cigarettes. They simply have no way of knowing because so sophisticated is this market that it is actually really difficult to tell a counterfeit cigarette from a legitimate cigarette. Some would say that it comes down to taste and you can tell pretty quickly from the burn on the back of your throat that it is a dodgy cigarette and not actually a legitimately made cigarette that would otherwise be sold as duty-free, but the reality is people are still smoking them.

That is the first issue with the public health element that I think we need to be focusing on. The second one is that we know the effect this is having on our health system and people's health outcomes overall. We know we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on tobacco-related cancers each and every year and that the death toll is unacceptably high and cancer rates are unacceptably high.

But when I hear we are doing really well on this, I think we need to actually back that up with data because if there is a $6 billion blackhole in your excise and we are using that to say smoking rates are trending downwards there is a problem because we are not necessarily taking that into account. I think we need to test the veracity of the argument that wastewater treatment shows us that rates are still trending downwards. That is my view. It is something I have raised with the health department and something that I will continue to discuss with the health department.

I want to remind honourable members that obviously we have moved a long way since I spoke when I first introduced the bill in 2021. I know we had a bit of a giggle about it at the time, but the penalties that we applied then when the opportunity was before us for smuggling a packet of cigarettes into Yatala or Cavan or the women's prison was a maximum of about five years in jail, compared to the $500 expiation or $10,000 maximum penalty that could be applied. Contraband cigarettes in jail, in detention, had that sort of penalty attached to them when we were trying to deal with this issue back then.

We cannot underestimate the value of those trading in this black market, and when we look at that, then we need to be looking at all the things that we need to be doing to ensure enforcement. There are amendments around cross-agency sharing of information. We have an announcement from last year, which I mentioned before, from the Minister for Health, or the relevant minister—who was it? Butler—for a $166 million extra injection of cash to deal with all elements of illicit tobacco, but not necessarily Border Force control, and that is an area we absolutely need to be looking at in further detail.

The states and the feds need to be working hand-in-hand if we are actually going to seriously deal with this issue because unless and until we do that, we will continue to play catch-up, we will continue to penalise people who are further down the pecking order of the people who are sitting at the top making these billions of dollars in the black market trade of cigarettes. Clearly, we need to get serious about this because they are conversations that make us uncomfortable.

I referenced this the other day, but one of the first announcements I heard just before the federal election was called was a freeze on beer in the lead-up to the next federal election. I think we can all understand that. It is a pretty popular election policy to go into an election with, but we appear to be too scared to have the same sort of debate and to ask the hard questions when it comes to illicit tobacco and legal tobacco. I do not think we can shy away from those difficult conversations any longer.

I am not suggesting we lower the excise. That is not my claim here today. I am saying let's go back and look at this holistically and what role everybody plays in this from the federal level down, because that is the only way we are going to tackle this issue overall. That, for me, has been the elephant in the room. That, for me, has been the one area where we have kind of not got this right and failed a little bit. Again, we need to be having serious conversations about that in terms of stamping out this illicit tobacco trade, breaking down the organised criminal activity and the public health impacts of smoking on smokers.

I think I have canvassed that enough but I would encourage honourable members to read some statistics from a report that was published very recently in relation to how we lost control of illicit tobacco in this nation, because it is a very good backdrop to now how we are trying to play catch-up with laws around illicit tobacco in this state. I will speak, though, very briefly now in relation to the amendments that are being moved. There has been lots of discussion about the fact that the Small Business Commissioner's group of authorised officers go into a shop one day, tobacco is removed, and the next day they are open, trading again.

What I have attempted to do through the amendments I have moved is to close a very big loophole that none of us anticipated when we first sought to amend those laws of 2021. Based on discussions that I have had with the minister and people who work in this area, it is not that simple to just go in and stop somebody from trading and slapping on a closure order. The bar we have set for the compliance officers to be able to do that in the legislation is too high.

I will speak to it further when we get to the amendments, but it is a critical element of making sure we are maximising the provisions we have before us in this legislation. It is imperative that we have those provisions when it comes to enforceability, it is imperative we have those when it comes to dealing with breaches of orders and it is absolutely imperative when we start talking about prosecuting individuals for continuing to trade in illicit tobacco.

I will save further comments and explanations for when I get to the amendments themselves, but my very strong view is that, in the absence of procedural fairness buffers for the minister and, more importantly, in the absence of the ability for the minister (I mean those who are responsible for enforcement) to go in under any circumstances and slap one of these stores with a closure order and then being able to prosecute an individual for breaching that order, is key to ensuring that we deal with trade in this state more appropriately than we have been. I will explain that further in the committee stage of the debate. With those words, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:52): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products—Closure Orders and Offences) Bill 2025. The bill before us today follows on from legislation that passed the parliament last year and came into effect on 13 December 2024, introducing new enforcement powers and penalties to tackle the sale of illicit tobacco and vapes.

The government reported that these new measures have already been used by both Consumer and Business Services and South Australia Police to seize illicit products across the state. It was reported that, as of 13 February this year, approximately $12.5 million worth of illicit products have been seized by SA enforcement teams. This includes more than 10 million cigarettes, more than four tonnes of tobacco, more than 400 kilograms of shisha and more than 55,000 vapes.

These seizures occurred between July 2024 and February 2025—less than an eight-month period. My understanding is that, since the law started on 13 December 2024, the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs has issued six interim closure orders and applied for one long-term closure order, which is currently progressing through the courts.

The government reported that this new bill comes at the request of the SA Police commissioner and from close consultation with Preventive Health SA, Consumer and Business Services, the Small Business Commissioner and the Crown Solicitor's Office. I have been advised that SAPOL has identified a number of deficiencies in the current legislation and has requested additional powers to enable them to more effectively crack down on the illicit tobacco trade in South Australia.

This bill creates greater penalties for the possession or supply of illicit tobacco and e-cigarette products, with the introduction of a new penalty tier for commercial and large commercial quantities. Fines will now increase to up to $6.6 million for large-scale violations. A new offence will also be created for the property owner or landlord who knowingly permits their premises to be used for illegal activities. It will also enable owners to make an application to the court to amend or revoke a long-term closure order to allow the premises to be leased to a new tenant.

Furthermore, a new provision will allow a landlord to terminate a retail shop lease if a long-term closure order is made. The bill will also provide additional powers to police to undertake expanded searches of suspected premises to search for other illicit items, such as weapons, explosives and drugs, and will allow for greater information sharing between enforcement agencies.

With intelligence from law enforcement agencies showing that up to 75 per cent of the illicit tobacco and e-cigarette trade in Australia is being controlled by organised crime, it is vital that our police and enforcement agencies have the powers they need to stamp out this trade. I indicate my support for this bill. I understand the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros have filed a number of amendments to the bill, and I will consider those amendments during the course of the committee stage.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:55): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Tobacco and E-Cigarettes Products—Closure Orders and Offences) Bill 2025. This bill represents an overdue but welcome response by the Malinauskas government to what has been evident to most of us for years, and that is the flourishing illegal tobacco trade. This trade, which is hiding in plain sight, so much so that you cannot even call it a black market, has a wide range of negative consequences for all South Australians.

It is robbing our federal government of excise payable on legal cigarettes and undoing the excellent work we have done to discourage smoking through a range of multifaceted approaches, including increasing excise, mandatory health warnings on packages and individual cigarettes, strict limits on advertising, and public health education initiatives.

Research shows the availability of cheap illegal tobacco facilitates the recruitment of more smokers at a young age and ensures that addicted smokers are more easily able to fund and maintain their smoking addiction. Illegal tobacco is not only substantially cheaper than legal tobacco, it is easier to obtain without proof of age and more affordable for lower socio-economic groups, who are more likely to be smokers and to suffer the ill-health effects of smoking than their wealthier and better educated fellow citizens.

The illegal tobacco industry has shown it operates under its own code of lawlessness and that penalties and punishments for any infringements against the illegal operators are likely to result in having your premises burnt down or your life threatened. There is very strong evidence from the AFP and SAPOL of criminal gangs controlling and profiting from the industry in South Australia, and we have seen a huge increase in arson attacks here and interstate.

Our current illegal tobacco and vaping device laws and enforcement are ineffective and need a comprehensive overhaul, including, in my view, the need to move them out of the CBS portfolio. However, in the meantime I want to make sure this bill addresses at least some of the enforcement issues that have become patently obvious and brazen.

The illegal tobacco and vape industry has shown a complete disregard and disdain for government enforcement efforts. Despite more frequent and serious crackdowns in recent times through the establishment of SAPOL's Operation Eclipse task force, these operators still think, and indeed show, that they can operate with complete impunity and disregard for the law.

There are more than 200 shops selling illegal tobacco products in South Australia. I do not have the latest figures, but back in December there were just 15 shops raided, with 105 residential, business and storage premises being searched and vehicles stopped on transit routes into South Australia. These operators are exploiting a desire by those smokers under cost-of-living financial pressures to seek out the cheaper non-excised products, essentially encouraging and supporting law breaking—which is unfortunate.

As I have already flagged, I hold grave concerns about the ability of the Consumer and Business Services portfolio to police and enforce these laws, including the current bill. I have recently been informed that these outlets know that CBS officials do not work after 5pm or on weekends. They also know that the raids or visits are conducted by relatively junior CBS officers without any of the powers SAPOL has. They also get tip-offs about where and when CBS staff are active, and take steps to avoid detection. They are outsmarting them.

If, like I have, you have tried to get CBS onto an issue or a case as a matter of urgency you will often get the response, as shocking as it is, that they do not have sufficient resources to deal with the problem. They will thank you for raising the issue and commit to getting onto it when resources allow, or, 'Why don't you contact Crime Stoppers?' Well, good luck with that. What is the point of encouraging the public to contact CBS or Crime Stoppers to report illegal activity when nothing is done to put a finality to it?

What about the regions where this is happening on a big scale? CBS does not have a presence there, and it is left to local police to crack down. Whether it is this activity or other consumer protection complaints against dodgy builders, plumbers, electricians or backyard car dealers, I currently have numerous active files where consumers have been badly failed by CBS—but that is largely for another day.

I am sorry to keep saying this but, as I have pointed out so many times in the past, they are toothless watchdogs, and I would welcome the day this government frames legislation that gives them stronger enforcement powers, additional staffing resources and dramatically lifts its consumer protection role. It would be a vote winner. Minister Michaels and her new CBS Commissioner Humphrey may take umbrage at my criticism, but it is justified.

Here is one example of their incompetence. Two years ago, almost to the day, I was contacted by a licensed retailer in a servo in Kadina informing me of the illegal stores operating at Frances Terrace and Digby Street. At the time, he reported he was losing up to $100,000 a month in sales. That has now doubled: his profit is down $300,000 a year. He says that what was a good business that took him 20 years to build up is now in danger of closing.

I spoke with him today and he told me it is soul destroying to see those two illegal outlets still being able to trade while he suffers a downturn. What is even worse is that for months he kept reporting them to CBS, but nobody responded to the messages he left on their message bank; that is, until he finally heard back from the minister's office only a few days ago. It is simply not good enough. He now warns that the ban on menthol cigarette sales, which came into effect on 1 April, is going to drive even more business to these illegal operators.

Just stop and think about the roll-on effect this illicit trade is having on legitimate and licensed small businesses. When people do not go into their stores, sales not only drop off for cigarettes but also for other products they sell. In the meantime, the more than 200 clandestine shops selling the illegal products make huge profits. As I have repeatedly reported in this place, my office—and even myself, with something of a profile—have been able to easily purchase and witness the sale of illegal tobacco and vapes openly throughout the Adelaide CBD and in the suburbs and regions.

Illegal tobacco crime syndicates are thumbing their noses at the law and making police and consumer affairs officers look impotent by continuing to sell unlawful products hours after being raided and shut down. Nearly $7 billion in unpaid excise will be wiped from the federal budget over the next four years. These criminals are recklessly destroying law-abiding small businesses across the nation. They have to be stopped.

I have named four convenience stores in the city blatantly selling illegal tobacco and vaping products in parliament a month ago. I produced packets purchased there by one of my staff. Unit 19, 136 North Terrace, trading as Ultimate Convenience—just across the road. These same tenants operate The Ultimate Convenience store at 210 Rundle Street, which was recently closed for 72 hours. Rundle City Convenience, at 282 Rundle Street, was closed for 72 hours on 13 March—so what? The day after the order expired they resumed trading, and no immediate further enforcement action has been taken against them. Another running the gauntlet is 240 Rundle Street.

In early March, I reported another illegal operation on Marble Terrace at Stonyfell to the health minister and the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs' office that was also selling individual cigarettes for $1 each. As far as I am aware, they were not shut down and continue to break the law as I speak. As for those other city fag speak-easies I mentioned earlier, while I have been talking I have received images—I will just check my phone; here we go—of packets bought at 210 and 282 Rundle Street. Just coming through now is a picture of Manchester cigarettes that were purchased a moment ago at the Bank Street Ultimate Convenience. This is the ultimate two-finger salute to authority.

I have been contacted by exasperated and legitimate licensed tobacco retailers and worried property owners complaining that their calls dobbing in these rogues are not being acted upon as a priority—not by the enforcement officers, not by their property's owners, not by their property's managers, who could and should be able to terminate their leases on the spot.

Let me cite an example of the apathetic attitude. The same frustrated retailer who contacts me daily and has just sent me those images had notified the owners of the unit 19, 136 North Terrace property on 4 February about the law breaking and that they could face hefty fines for knowingly allowing a tenant to operate illegally from their unit. On Monday this week at 4.06pm—and remember he contacted them on 4 February—he emailed the property manager responsible, a Corinna Hall, a director and specialist in commercial property management at Key Rentals, informing them they were selling illegal products at the weekend, including a photograph of what he had purchased.

He passed on reliable intel that the tenant, The Ultimate Convenience, would now only sell to regular customers between 9am and 5pm during the week and to anyone else outside of normal business hours because CBS officers do not work after 5pm. Here is Ms Hall's disingenuous response, which she had also sent to another property management company, Whittles. I quote:

If the alleged activity is occurring on the property and the Lessee is formally charged with an offence prohibited by law, we will seek legal advice and pursue any remedies available under the lease at that time.

This matter falls within the jurisdiction of the relevant authorities, and the accuser should consider referring their concerns to the appropriate agencies in the first instance.

While we acknowledge and have noted the notification of the alleged activity, we are not in a position to adjudicate matters beyond our authority.

Here is my interpretation of Ms Hall's take on that: if this illegal activity you are claiming is happening—and it is plainly obvious, actually—we will take it up with our lawyer because it is not up to us to make the call, and we have no interest to act, so why do you not go and take your concern to someone else who might listen to you? My advice to Ms Hall is she needs to open her eyes and pay her client's tenants a visit to see for herself and inspect the premises. Is that not what property managers are obliged to do?

Tim Pozza, a property manager for McGees, has played dumb too, after being made aware of the criminal activity going on at 240 Rundle Street by the East End Coordination Group in early December 2024, and then again by Steve Maras, the group managing director and CEO of the Maras Group. On 25 March, Mr Maras asked whether Mr Pozza had been in touch with the building's owner, as the whole East End community was aware of the issue and were up in arms. Here is Mr Pozza's detached response. Again, I quote:

Yes, I have spoken with the lessor on this. The discussion has been that if they are selling illegal products then they should be shut down. There is no room to [sic] illegal activity in any retail sense with this sector.

And this is underlined:

The convenience store has been warned and have advised they are not selling illegal products. I believe they are in the process of obtaining their tobacco license.

I have just been given more examples of these stores still selling these products, and there you have the property manager, Mr Pozza, who is just basically doing a Pontius Pilate and washing his hands of the whole thing while this illegal activity is going on. So what is going on here? They are lying to Mr Pozza, who seems to be taking no notice of Mr Maras's warnings—and he is the one person you would believe. And they say they are getting a tobacco licence? Seriously? So they have been selling legal and illegal products without a licence all this time?

Why are McGees or Key Rentals not doing their job, just as any other responsible property manager or landlord would do when there are real risks? Why are they blind to what every man and his dog, cat and budgerigar can see openly? You would think the authorities would be there in a flash, given they had been there only hours before.

Giving a paltry $5,000 fine to the hapless individual behind the counter—and unfortunately often it is a person on a visa and not the actual owners—is not going to deter them when they can make 10 times that amount in a few days. Fortunately, that penalty increases significantly with this bill, but let's see if they continue chancing their luck.

If you are serious about cracking down on this multibillion-dollar criminal enterprise that continues to grow and is as big as the illegal drug trade, you would be straight back and hitting them up with even tougher penalties to teach them all a lesson, shutting them down for a considerable period so it hurts their bottom line, which is what my amendments will do. There are also grave concerns about safety and security, as we have seen here and interstate where tobacco stores have been firebombed as part of an escalating turf war between rival gangs. There have been fatal shootings.

In a letter dated 10 March to the owner of the property at 282 Rundle Street, which was raided twice, the East End Coordination Group's Frank Hannon-Tan expresses fears the building could be at risk, along with the welfare of traders nearby and the safety of the general public.

I fully endorse the tougher financial penalties in this bill, which range from $1 million to $4.4 million, and $6.6 million for large commercial quantities. Those caught dealing and selling these products are on notice, as are the property owners who knowingly continue to allow this activity to flourish. Property owners and their property managers need to take action against these rogue tenants and terminate their leases, which they can do.

However, I believe the legislation does need to go further. My amendments will strengthen the bill with even tougher penalties to include short-term rolling closure orders of 28 days and much longer—12 months, should the operators reoffend. There is also an amendment that relates to the seizing, storage and destruction of illegal products and making convicted persons liable for associated costs in testing, transporting, storing, dismantling and destroying or disposing of property, along with prosecution costs.

This is very similar to legislation that was passed only last year, relating to drug paraphernalia that had been stored by South Australia Police across many locations in the metropolitan area, to the point where they were running out of room. The police wanted to be able to destroy these materials very quickly. There is concern in SAPOL that this could also happen in relation to the seizure of these illegal products—they cannot just store them indefinitely, and something needs to happen. My amendment will give authority for those products to be destroyed.

While SAPOL's Operation Eclipse has carried out several raids and has seized large quantities of illegal products worth millions of dollars, it still does not seem to have deterred these operators from continuing their business. It has become the modern-day equivalent of the prohibition era of the Roaring Twenties—that is, the 1920s. Commonwealth and state governments must wear the blame for allowing this huge black market racket to thrive after having been warned constantly that it was going to explode. I hope it is not too late to bring these racketeers under control.

In closing, I again urge the Premier and the health minister to support and move quickly through the other place my bill to ban young people, born from 2007 onwards, from being able to legally buy tobacco products once they turn 18. If you are serious, and if the Premier says that social media is as bad an addiction as tobacco, you must support this legislation. I commend the bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:18): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products—Closure Orders and Offences) Bill 2025. Tobacco remains the leading cause of disease and death in Australia, with there being approximately 260,000 current adult smokers. In fact, smoking is estimated to cost our state health system in excess of $2 billion each year. An article in The Advertiser on Saturday, titled 'Illegal tobacco shops raking it in', highlights the issue the Labor Malinauskas government is confronting head-on.

In Labor's most recent budget, we committed $16 million over the next four years to tackle the growing trade in illicit tobacco and to take more action against the illegal sale of tobacco and e-cigarette products. Other steps this government has taken to make this illicit trade less profitable and less accessible include:

banning the supply of vapes to any person under 18 years old, even by prescription;

increasing penalties to $1.5 million; and

banning vending machines selling tobacco products in public areas.

We have introduced a new authority to ban novel products which are marketed as an alternative to vapes, and used this measure to ban nicotine pouches. The government has also created a smoke-free and vape-free buffer zone for enclosed public transport areas and allowed the issuing of a closure order on a property. This allows authorised officers and the courts to immediately close down unlawful activity relating to illicit tobacco.

Importantly, we have also updated our licensing and enforcement provisions to increase capacity to enforce breaches of the law. From 1 July 2024, Consumer and Business Services assumed responsibility for the licensing and enforcement functions related to the illegal sales of e-cigarettes and illicit tobacco. They are now responsible for assessing new licence applications, ensuring existing licensees are complying with the law, and investigating and prosecuting offenders.

Since the new laws started, the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs has issued nine interim closure orders and successfully applied to the courts for one long-term closure order. This occurred between 13 December 2024 and 6 March 2025. With the help of new measures, enforcement teams have seized products worth approximately $12.5 million between July 2024 and February 2025.

This Labor government has supported schools by providing resources, education campaigns and staff training aimed at preventing children from taking up vaping, and working with those who want to quit. Hard-hitting media campaigns on radio and digital platforms about vaping—including Instagram, TikTok and YouTube—have also been running.

The South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute has had a significant role in informing policy. Its most recent findings showed that vaping rates among 15-29 year olds in 2024 reduced by around a third, dropping to 10.8 per cent compared to 15.1 per cent in 2023. It was also heartening to hear that the Minister for Education has reported that suspensions related to vaping at South Australian schools have dropped by a staggering 50 per cent. In term 1 of 2023, there were 388 suspensions compared to 186 in term 1 of 2024.

It is not surprising to learn that enforcement agency intelligence has identified that up to 75 per cent of illicit trade tobacco and e-cigarette products are controlled by organised crime groups. In response to this finding, the Commissioner for Police has requested additional powers to tackle this issue in South Australia. This government is willing to act and is prepared to provide our enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt and end illicit tobacco trade in this state.

The new amendments in the Statutes Amendment (Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products—Closure Orders and Offences) Bill 2025 seek to amend both the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products Act 1997 and the Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995, with this bill including:

harsher penalties and fines, with fines up to $6.6 million for those caught supplying or possessing large amounts of illicit tobacco and vapes;

new offences for property owners who allow their premises to be used for illegal sales of these products; and

better information sharing to help law enforcement agencies work more effectively with business owners, landlords and the public.

In addition to this, South Australian police will be authorised to conduct random drug, weapon and explosive searches using detection dogs and metal detectors in places suspected of selling illegal tobacco or other banned products.

These amendments will give South Australia the harshest fines of any state or territory in the nation for supplying or possessing 'commercial' and 'large commercial' quantities of prohibited products. By implementing a combination of legislative measures, this government is continuing to work hard to tackle the illicit trade of tobacco and e-cigarettes. I therefore commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (16:25): I thank all members for their contributions on this bill. The government has a strong commitment to tackling illicit tobacco and e-cigarette sales in South Australia, which is demonstrated by the action that has been taken to date and further supported by this bill supporting South Australian police and CBS enforcement officers to ensure they are equipped with the tools they need to disrupt and end the illicit tobacco trade in the state.

I particularly want to acknowledge both the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the amendments they have put forward to this bill. I note that both members share the government's passion and determination to stamp out the illicit tobacco trade. Both members have supported the government's efforts to crack down on the illicit trade in the state, including supporting legislation that was passed last year.

I acknowledge the Hon. Connie Bonaros's dedicated work over a long period of time. Her efforts, particularly through her amendment bill in 2023 to increase penalties, are an important step in strengthening enforcement measures. I note the government supported that bill and is again supporting amendments put forward today, recognising the impact this will have in combating the illicit tobacco trade. The government is happy to work with members to strengthen our tobacco laws to ensure police and CBS are appropriately equipped to deal with this issue. With that, I look forward to the committee stage. I know there are a number of amendments to work through.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–3]—

Page 7, after line 9—Insert:

(1) Section 69(1)—delete 'If' and substitute:

Subject to this section, if

This is an administrative procedure, basically deleting a word and substituting the addition of clause 9, page 7, which I will go into next.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Similarly, I might take the opportunity to speak to this amendment, which is consequential on the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment No. 2. I might speak to both of them now as we prepare for those. The measures proposed regarding the destruction of seized products in the amendments, I am advised, are currently included and adequately prescribed in the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products Regulations 2019, so the government's view is the addition of the amendment would not add any further benefit to the existing regulation.

I am advised that, as proposed, the amendment would remove some of the features which are currently present in the regulations and would reduce the flexibility built into the current forfeiture and disposal legislative regime to its inclusion regulations. It is the government's view that this flexibility is important as we are dealing with an industry which is constantly adapting. In addition, the current regulation includes a broader definition for tobacco products that is not limited to just prescribed tobacco products.

This allows CBS to seize legitimate products that have been sold unlawfully but it is not included in the amendment. For example, if CBS inspected an unlicensed store and seized packaged cigarettes which meet the plain packaging requirements, as well as packaged cigarettes without the plain packaging, the amendment would only apply to the packet of cigarettes without plain packaging. This would result in the regulations needing to be made to address the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of correctly packaged cigarettes which were seized from the unlicensed store.

It is the government's view that the current regulation also includes a provision that allows for property to be destroyed if considered too dangerous to be stored, and a provision to allow for other properties such as business records to be returned, whereas the amendment does not expressly address these important aspects of the current legislation.

I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his consideration of the measure. The government completely understands why he has put forward these amendments but it is the government's view that there is already the provision with greater flexibility in the regulations to allow this, so although the government will be supporting quite a number of amendments, it will not be supporting this particular amendment.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, I might get you to move your next amendment, which really explains the thrust of what you are doing, and then we will put them at the same time.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–3]—

Page 7, after line 11—Insert:

(3) Section 69—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) If a prescribed product is seized under this Part, the following provisions apply:

(a) the Minister may direct that the prescribed product be destroyed, whether or not a person has been, or is to be, charged with an offence in relation to it;

(b) the prescribed product referred to in paragraph (a) may be destroyed at the place at which it was seized or at any other suitable place;

(c) if a charge is laid, or is to be laid, for an offence in relation to the prescribed product, a representative sample of the product must be taken in accordance with the regulations and kept for evidentiary purposes;

(d) if a person is convicted of an offence in relation to a prescribed product destroyed in accordance with paragraph (b), the court may order the convicted person to pay the reasonable costs of storage and destruction of the product to the Minister (including, without limitation, the costs of the Minister, or a person acting at the direction of the Minister, collecting, transporting and dismantling the product as may reasonably be required for the purposes of destroying the product).

(4) If the Magistrates Court on application by the Minister, or any court hearing proceedings under this Act, finds that a record or thing seized under this Part (the seized property)—

(a) was the subject of an offence against this Act; or

(b) consists of material or a thing used or intended for use for, or in connection with, an offence against this Act,

the court may make 1 or both of the following orders:

(c) an order forfeiting the seized property to the Crown;

(d) an order requiring the person from whom the property was seized to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the Minister as a result of the offence including (without limitation)—

(i) the cost of testing, transporting, storing, dismantling, destroying or disposing of the property; and

(ii) the reasonable costs of investigating the offence; and

(iii) the reasonable costs of preparing for the prosecution of the offence.

(5) The Minister may, if seized property is the subject of an order for forfeiture under subsection (4), sell, destroy or otherwise dispose of the property as the Minister thinks fit.

(6) No right of compensation arises out of any action taken by the Minister or an authorised officer under this section or the regulations made under this section.

(7) In this section—

prescribed product means—

(a) an e-cigarette product; or

(b) a prescribed tobacco product within the meaning of section 33(2); or

(c) a prohibited product.

Basically, this amendment mirrors what has been passed in Queensland only in recent days. I am surprised at the attitude of the government on this, but perhaps it may need more consideration as it may well be early days. Essentially, if a prescribed product is seized under this part, the provisions that will apply are:

(a) the Minister may direct that the prescribed product be destroyed, whether or not a person has been, or is to be, charged with an offence in relation to it;

(b) the prescribed product referred to in paragraph (a) may be destroyed at the place at which it was seized or at any other suitable place;

(c) if a charge is laid, or is to be laid, for an offence in relation to the prescribed product, a representative sample of the product must be taken in accordance with the regulations and kept for evidentiary purposes;

(d) if a person is convicted of an offence in relation to a prescribed product destroyed in accordance with paragraph (b), the court may order the convicted person to pay the reasonable costs of storage and destruction of the product to the Minister (including, without limitation, the costs of the Minister, or a person acting at the direction of the Minister, collecting, transporting and dismantling the product as may reasonably be required for the purposes of destroying the product).

In essence, what this amendment does, without going through it in detail, is it actually provides a layer for enforcement officers to be able to dispose expeditiously the seized products rather than have them piled up in some storage shed controlled by SAPOL. We have seen something like $12 million worth of product that has been seized in only recent months. It is a considerable amount and it amounts to tonnes of this product.

If this legislation goes through and there are constant crackdowns on this illegal activity, whether they get them from shops—and, as I pointed out, there are something like 200 shops out there, maybe even more—you will have truckloads coming in, probably in shipping containers. Where are you going to store all this stuff before the matter finally winds its way into court? I am pretty sure that police would support what this move intends to do, and that is to relieve them of having to store large quantities of illegal products on sites until the matter is dealt with.

We did this only last year, when police had about eight locations around the metropolitan area where seized drug paraphernalia and equipment were stored to the rafters, and they wanted them removed. It was costing the taxpayers a lot of money for the storage costs. At the same time, this amendment will also ensure that the taxpayer is not burdened with any ongoing costs in relation to not only storing this equipment and destroying it but also investigating the offence and the prosecution of the offence. It is a measure designed to be a real deterrent to these people, because at this point they will continue their operations and will flout the law. It is intended to make it tough.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: For the ease of the committee, we will not support this particular amendment, but we will support a number of the crossbench amendments and will indicate as we proceed.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To assist the committee stage of the bill, I indicate that the Greens will support the amendments from the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

New clauses 9A, 9B and 9C.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–3]—

Page 7, after line 11—Insert:

9A—Amendment of section 69CB—Interim closure order

Section 69CB(4)—delete subsection (4) and substitute:

(4) The interim closure order has effect from the time specified in the order until 72 hours after the time specified in the order (but nothing prevents the making of a subsequent interim closure order in respect of the same premises).

The amendment provides that a closure order has effect—and this is the closure order that the Hon. Frank Pangallo is moving—from the time specified in the order until 72 hours after the time specified, but there is nothing preventing the minister from making a subsequent interim closure order in respect of the same premises. It is making it explicit that, when we make those 72-hour closure orders, the minister has the ability—for whatever reason, and there may be very legitimate reasons and we suspect that this is a power the minister has already, it is just not explicit in the bill—if required, to make a subsequent interim closure order in respect of the same premises in question. That is the gist of the amendment and it works in parallel with the other amendment being proposed with respect to the same interim closure orders.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Pangallo–3]—

Page 7, after line 11—Insert:

9A—Amendment of section 69CA—Interpretation

(1) Section 69CA, definition of closure order—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) a short term closure order; or

(2) Section 69CA—after the definition of prescribed product insert:

short term closure order—see section 69CBA.

9B—Amendment of section 69CB—Interim closure order

Section 69CB—after subsection (5) insert:

(6) For the purposes of this section, the Minister is not required to act in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.

9C—Insertion of section 69CBA

After section 69CB insert:

69CBA—Short term closure order

(1) The Minister may, by notice in writing, order that specified premises be closed (a short term closure order) if the Minister reasonably suspects that—

(a) prescribed products are being, or are likely to be, sold or supplied at the premises as part of a business being carried on at the premises; or

(b) tobacco products or e-cigarette products are being, or are likely to be, unlawfully sold or supplied at the premises as part of a business being carried on at the premises.

(2) A short term closure order has effect for a period of 28 days from the day specified in the order (but nothing prevents the making of a subsequent short term closure order in respect of the same premises).

(3) The Minister may, by notice in writing, vary or revoke a short term closure order.

(4) A notice under this section must be—

(a) given to the person apparently in charge of the premises; or

(b) given to the owner of the premises; or

(c) posted in a conspicuous place—

(i) in the case of premises other than mobile premises—at the entrance to the premises; or

(ii) in the case of mobile premises—

(A) on the mobile premises; or

(B) at the entrance to premises that are connected to the business carried on from the mobile premises.

(5) A short term closure order may be made regardless of whether an interim closure order is, or has been, in effect in relation to the premises.

(6) For the purposes of this section, the Minister is not required to act in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.

As I mentioned in my second reading speech, and as I have actually demonstrated even here today, it does not matter what you do; you can issue an interim closing order and within 72 hours they are back selling it. Across the road, down in Rundle Street right now as we are speaking, they are still selling these products, and they do so without thinking there may be any consequences to them.

What I initially wanted with this amendment was that the minister be able to impose not a 28-day closing order, but that as well as having the ability to impose an interim order of 72 hours the minister also can, regardless of whether there is one in place or not, impose a 60-day order when these operators are caught in the act, and caught red-handed—to teach them a lesson. That is what it is all about: ensuring that they get the message that they need to stop this practice.

It is quite clear from the raids that have been conducted on these stores—and we are talking not about just one isolated one; there have been several—that they just come back and keep selling them. It is beyond me why you should not support a longer closure of these stores, to actually stop them from trading, not just stop them from selling tobacco products or illegal ones. You stop them from trading: 'That is the risk you are going to take if you are going to break the law. We are going to shut you down for 60 days.'

That is what I wanted initially, but I had consultations with the minister and we came to a compromise that it would be 28 days, that these could be rolled out continuously over a period of time, and also that the minister would be able to make the short-term closure regardless of whether there was an interim order in place or not. That, in effect, is what my amendment is about now. I have agreed to the 28 days, after consultation with the minister.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be supporting both the amendments that are put forward. I will address the one that was most recently put forward by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. The government will be supporting the amendment that will allow the minister to make a short-term closure order for a period of 28 days, providing that tier in between interim and long-term closure orders. We thank the member for bringing the amendment. The government will be supporting it.

We will also be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment, which in effect allows for the interim closure orders of 72 hours to be made multiple times if necessary. These are both sensible amendments that the government is pleased to support.

The CHAIR: What I am going to put is, firstly, that 9A as inserted by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, section 69CA, be agreed to.

New clause 9A inserted.

The CHAIR: Now we are going to go to the Hon. Ms Bonaros's amendment.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, you have moved 9B and 9C, so I am going to put those questions.

New clauses 9B and 9C inserted.

Clause 10.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Pangallo–3]—

Page 7, after line 14—Insert:

(1a) Section 69CC(1)—delete '6 months' and substitute '12 months'

Essentially, what this does is it deletes the six months' closure order that a minister can make and substitutes it with a 12-month closure order.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be supporting these two amendments.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Pangallo–3]—

Page 7, after line 16—Insert:

(2a) Section 69CC(2)—after 'interim closure order' insert:

or a short term closure order

(2b) Section 69CC(2)—delete 'under section 69CB'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 10A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–3]—

Page 7, after line 24—Insert:

10A—Amendment of section 69CD—Tobacco of e-cigarette products not to be sold or supplied at closed premises

(1) Section 69CD, heading—delete 'Tobacco or e-cigarette products not to be sold or supplied at' and substitute:

Offences relating to

(2) Section 69CD—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person who is present on premises in relation to which a closure order is in effect is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of a body corporate—$500,000;

(b) in the case of an individual—$250,000.

Expiation fee:

(a) in the case of a body corporate—$10,000;

(b) in the case of an individual—$2,500.

(3) The Minister may, by notice in writing (an exemption notice), exempt a person from the operation of subsection (2) in relation to specified premises on terms and conditions specified in the notice.

(4) An exemption notice must—

(a) be given to the person to whom the exemption applies; and

(b) specify the closed premises in relation to which the exemption applies; and

(c) set out the details of the condition of the exemption specified in subsection (5).

(5) It is a condition of an exemption under subsection (3) that the person to whom the exemption applies must not carry on a business, or cause or permit another to carry on a business, on the closed premises specified in the exemption notice.

Section 69CD of the legislation currently provides that a person must not, while a closure order is in place, sell or supply or carry on a business of selling or supplying tobacco or prohibited products at the premises. The onus, of course, is on the authorities to prove that tobacco—and we are talking about illicit tobacco and vapes—is actually being sold. I note that the Hon. Mr Simms said he will listen to this carefully, in terms of their support for this, so I will outline a good argument for the Hon. Mr Simms but certainly one I think is necessary for this piece of legislation.

We can sit and pontificate about how effective these increases will be, but the bottom line remains that what those responsible for enforcement lack—and this was an oversight by this parliament when we first introduced these measures—is the ability to go onto premises and actually prosecute for breach of an order, because we set the bar too high. It is extremely difficult to prove that a convenience store is reopening and that they are only selling milk, water, chewies and soft drinks unless, of course, they are caught in the act, and that in and of itself is difficult because of the vast number of outlets taking part in this conversation.

However, whichever way you spin it the bottom line is that it is a barrier we simply do not need and cannot overcome under the current legislation. Now we know, with the amendments I am proposing, that if a person is present on premises subject to a closure order that in and of itself will be an offence. The only qualifier to that is if somebody has sought an exemption and approval from the minister, then they may be able to be on the premises for reasons other than selling anything.

That is an important qualifier, because there may well be very legitimate reasons for being on premises subject to closure orders. It might be that the landlord has sent in a cleaner, it might be that the owner of the building needs access to remove fixtures from the premises. There are a whole host of reasons why somebody may need to access the premises but not for the purpose of trading in anything. This is not envisaged in this. Simply by virtue of being on the premises you will be guilty of an offence unless you have applied for an exemption for legitimate reasons and been granted approval for that entry onto premises.

It may not be the actual person carrying on the illicit trade. That is a very important point to make. It may be the landlord themselves, or it may be an electrician. There are other reasons for entering premises. The important part is that unless they have sought an exemption to go on there and that has been approved, there is no other legal reason to be on those premises because they are the subject of a closure order.

The amendment has been drafted in this way because it puts the onus on the person seeking access, rather than the enforcer and their enforcement officers, to establish that they have a genuine reason to be on the premises. It is easier than having to prove, as we do now, that a person was on the premises to sell illegitimate cigarettes, tobacco or vapes or any other prohibited product.

It is a measured approach and, importantly, one that will apply regardless of the length of the order in place; that is to say, whether it is an interim order, a short-term order, or a long-term closure order. We have just heard about the East End convenience store in particular, and I am pleased to say that Mr Maras Jr and Mr Maras Sr, who I have discussed this with at length, have expressed their gratitude for these amendments, because they do not want to see this sort of conduct taking place down in the East End.

The order that was slapped on the convenience store during the Fringe—that is a significant period during which to slap a closure order, interim or not, on a convenience store. It is aimed at repeated trading in properties that leave a bad stain on areas like the East End and absolutely everywhere in between in allowing continuous trade because people know how easy it is to overcome, not because of the penalties but because the bar is too high for prosecutions. That is the bottom line.

It is a good example of why we need this amendment, though, because, in short, the penalties themselves, I maintain, will not overcome the core issue that the bar is too high. If you want said convenience store at the East End or anywhere else to stop reopening and continuing to sell you need to give the authorities the ability to do that. They do not have it today. It is critical they do, and in the absence of this amendment we will keep going round and round the same merry-go-round, and all the harsh penalties in the world will not make a dent.

We have gone round and round about what the appropriate length of an order is. Frankly, it does not matter what the length of an order is. We need the ability to prosecute, and we simply do not have that now. It is for that reason that I am moving this amendment. It is too difficult to prove that a person is trading in illicit tobacco, which means that individuals are bypassing those provisions in the act.

It is important to remember that this provision will apply to all closure orders—interim, short-term and long-term closure orders—and it will give the authorities the ability to go in and say, 'You're not supposed to be there. We don't have to prove you're selling illicit tobacco to be there. We can prosecute you for being on the premises.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment. This amendment proposes a tighter approach to ensuring premises cannot continue operating when a closure order is in place, and we will be pleased to support it.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (11 to 15) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (16:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.