The message couldn’t be clearer – high tobacco taxes are a gift to organised crime.
Why won’t the government listen?
Cut the tobacco excise and put criminals out of business.
Transcript | Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Shopping Centre Council of Australia
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. You have both been pretty comprehensive in your comments and your submissions. Could you tell me briefly and in detail about some of the solutions that your members are advocating and that you would like to pass on. Especially, do they have any comments or much comment about cutting excise rates in legal tobacco?
Mr Nardi: As per our principal recommendation in our submission, the key solution from our role in helping to address illicit tobacco trade is ensuring that all jurisdictions have strong and effective closure order and lease termination powers, and that ultimately means that any landlord is just given that express right to terminate a lease with being immune from any damages or the tenant having any mediation rights, just so that tenant can be moved on and we can actually lease the premises to someone else and get on with our business. That’s our principal solution that we are commending to the committee.
Ms Bitsis: We certainly don’t disagree with Angus on that point, but, to the substance of your question around excise, there is a particular situation here in Victoria relating not just to tobacco anymore but also to alcohol. We did recommend in our submission that excise rates are looked at, and we have done that really as a means by which we can address the significant penetration of organised crime into both of these industries and the impact that is having on the business community, which I have just outlined in terms of what those costs are.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me just clarify and maybe summarise. High excise rates on tobacco and alcohol create fertile ground for illegal businesses’ crime. Is that correct?
Ms Bitsis: From our perspective, the evidence of that is very clear now in Victoria, unfortunately.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your clarity. Thank you, Chair.
Cheap illicit tobacco keeps smoking rates alive – and the Health Department confirmed it.
They admitted that illicit cigarettes are cheaper because they avoid excise, and that cheap cigarettes encourage people to smoke.
When criminals flood the market with excise-free cigarettes, people keep smoking. It’s that simple.
Yet the government refuses to reduce the tobacco excise, clinging to the claim that high prices are the key to lowering smoking rates.
Make that make sense.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. We are all agreed that smoking is very, very harmful to human health. Let’s put that aside. We are not agreed that the low price that people face when it comes to buying tobacco illicitly is overwhelmingly attractive to people. We know of policemen and policewomen and public servants who are buying illicit tobacco. The barriers to entry are very small. How much do you allocate to the quit smoking campaign? Isn’t it true that in recent years the decline in smoking rates has stopped and it’s been flat in Australia? It’s continuing to decline in other countries but it is flat in Australia.
Ms Clancy: Thank you for your question, Senator. I will take the second part first, if I may, and then come back to the first part. Smoking prevalence has trended downwards over three decades, with some occasional flattening or plateaus as we go. Recent studies have shown that this decline continues. Our highest quality data is brought out every three years. At the moment, our most recent is 2022 data. One in 10 adults, 10.6 per cent, were current daily smokers. That is a steady decline from 22.4 per cent in 2001. More recent national representative estimates support this trend. In 2022-23, 8.3 per cent of people aged 14 and over smoked daily. In 2023, approximately one in 10, 10.8 per cent of representative adults, were current daily smokers in the HILDA study, which is a slightly different cut or set of data. The next high-quality data release will be at the end of this year, which will look at 2025 rates. We are very much anticipating those rates and will use those to tweak our policy settings as necessary. There are also a number of other data sources we use in the intervening years that tend to show that we’re still on a downward trajectory, although we are concerned. Our job is to be concerned about smoking rates.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I agree with you that the data shows that, over decades, smoking rates did decline. But the data I’ve seen shows a graph that clearly shows that in the last few years it has been flat, whereas in other countries it has continued declining. How much is budgeted for the quit smoking campaign? How much has been paid?
Ms Brown: I don’t have the expenditure amounts here. The government has committed, since 2023-24, $78.7 million over a four-year period. That’s invested in the Give up for Good smoking, vaping and tobacco public health campaigns. That’s at the Commonwealth level. As I mentioned in relation to other measures, there are also campaigns implemented through the states and territories to varying levels.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the total spending around about half a billion dollars over four years, the total projected spending?
Ms Brown: On the campaign, no, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: On all the campaigns.
Ms Brown: I am not sure that the Commonwealth has the total figure of investment in all campaigns across all states and territories. The federal government has committed $78.7 million over four years, since 2023-24.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you agree that the low price of cigarettes through the illicit tobacco industry makes it attractive to smoke?
Ms Clancy: We know that price is a determinant of whether people smoke and how much they smoke.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver of the cheap price of illicit tobacco the fact that it is illicit tobacco and is not paying excess?
Ms Clancy: Sorry; can you repeat the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver of low priced illicit tobacco the fact that it is escaping paying any excise, so we have very low priced cigarettes illicitly?
Ms Clancy: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Ms Clancy: Criminals are bringing tobacco into the country without paying the excise they should pay and therefore their products are cheaper.
Senator ROBERTS: We have got, as Senator Colbeck tried to establish, a low-price cigarette/tobacco industry; it’s illicit but it’s still there.
Ms Clancy: Yes, illicit tobacco is available and it is evading the excise.
Senator ROBERTS: It makes it very attractive to smoke because the price is low. This is an issue for the department of health in terms of preventing people smoking, because it is encouraging people to smoke because of illicit tobacco.
Ms Clancy: Cheap cigarettes do encourage people to smoke. We, along with all of our partner agencies in the Commonwealth and the states and territories, are looking at a range of measures—some of which you’ve heard about this morning and in previous hearings—to tackle the illicit market and reduce their ability to sell in this country.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. These questions are for the ATO. The revenue decrease has been around about three-quarters of the revenue it was a few years ago, which is a big impact on the ATO revenue and a big impact on the people. Could you walk us all through the process of how the excise rate is set and particularly what is the minister’s role? Do you consult the department of health?
Ms Hawkins: Thank you for the question. As I mentioned earlier, the excise rate is legislated through government. A change would be a policy issue for Treasury. That is set and then the ATO’s role is to administer it. It’s important to recognise, though, that it’s been illegal to grow or manufacture tobacco in Australia without a licence. There are no current licences. What that means is that all tobacco sold in Australia that’s legal is imported. As such, there is actually no excise collected on domestic tobacco. The Department of Home Affairs is responsible for the administration of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act, from which customs duty is applied to imported tobacco at rates which are equivalent to excise duty. It is a policy issue. It is legislated through government and it is not a rate that is determined by the ATO.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that clarification. That’s understood. Could you tell me what consultation is asked of the ATO? Do you provide advice in that process? What is your role in the process of developing the excise rate? You don’t have responsibility for it. I accept that’s the government and the Treasury. But how do you get involved in that? Do you get involved in it? Are you concerned about losing $12 billion in tax revenue?
Ms Hawkins: The ATO are involved in that discussion, when it comes to Treasury, in providing any input that they seek from us, but we do not have direct control over what that rate is set at. We are always open to providing information, as requested, and being part of discussions where we can provide intelligence or information that would be useful in the process.
Senator ROBERTS: What advice have you given over the last four years?
Ms Hawkins: There was a question which I took on notice previously which was asking about whether the ATO was in direct discussions with regard to where the excise rate landed. I said I would take that on notice because I am not privy to, at that point in time, exactly what discussion we would have contributed to. I am more than happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you specifically mention in the answer on notice the advice that the ATO has given to the government. I understand that the government sets the excise rate. Could you give us the advice you’ve given to the government?
Some have claimed that no One Nation Senators showed up to the Senate hearings into the Illicit Tobacco industry.
I sat through it myself, questioning publicans, tobacconists and small business owners about what this trade is doing to their towns.
What they told me was blunt. Smoking rates rising, legal tax revenue in freefall, and organised crime filling the gap — firebombings, shootings, communities losing businesses that will never reopen.
That’s exactly why One Nation will cut tobacco excise by 75 per cent – to take the market back off the criminals who are getting rich off this Government’s failed policy.
I did the work. I heard the evidence. And it backs our plan.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today and for the effort you’ve gone to. I’d like to go to each one in turn. Mr Allen, you’re a publican. You used to make some money out of cigarette sales?
Mr Allen: I did.
Senator ROBERTS: And you’re not a smoker?
Mr Allen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: But you have come up with a comprehensive integrated solution in your submission. It’s multifaceted and it includes a component to decrease smoking rates. So you’re not against cutting smoking, but you just want it to be done fairly, sensibly, honestly and legally.
Mr Allen: Correct. If you look at the trends in Australia at the moment, smoking rates have—for a threedecade period, they were on their way down, until now. I’d argue that when this household survey comes out towards the end of this year, not only will they have flatlined; they’ve gone up. That’s based on the Roy Morgan research report and the wastewater report. That wastewater report, you’ve got to remember, says between 2024 and 2025. We’ve still got this year to go, so we could go up even further. I’ve lost my train of thought.
Senator ROBERTS: This is defeating the actual purpose of the—
Mr Allen: Sorry, yes. Smoking rates are coming down, alcohol consumption is coming down naturally, sugar consumption is coming down. If you look at soft drink consumption in Australia—it’s all naturally coming down. We don’t have a sugar tax in Australia. People are making better choices about their lives. It’s as simple as that. My kids don’t smoke, they don’t drink a lot. Some of them don’t drink at all. And that’s the choice they’re making. We don’t need big government telling us what to do, putting in these punitive taxes on things to try to stop us having choices in life. People are making their own choice to live a healthier life and that’s why we’re seeing tobacco, we’re seeing alcohol and we’re seeing sugar consumption come down. But unfortunately, because of what government has done with tobacco, we’re starting to see that plateau and then potentially even spike.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. You said margins are so big that an illicit tobacco store gets shut down and they lose $200,000 of stock confiscated and it means nothing.
Mr Allen: It’s a cost of doing business; that’s all it is. When you’ve got a $10 billion—the illegal illicit tobacco market in Australia is as big as the footwear industry. It’s huge. That’s how big it is. We’re taking a knife to a gunfight at the moment with the states trying to control this. It’s just not working.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve spoken up and spoken out in Bega. You’re speaking out very plainly and clearly here. Is there any fear behind that?
Mr Allen: No. As I said, I’m not renewing my licence in three months. I can see no future in selling tobacco in my bottle shop, and that’s my position. I’m here to tell people how it is. I’m not here to hide behind things or try to fiddle at the margins. I’m trying to tell people what is happening in Australia and what it’s doing on a fiscal level, on a health level and on a crime level. And, as I think my evidence has shown, it’s a disaster.
Senator ROBERTS: But there have been threats against people. There have been murders.
Mr Allen: Absolutely. There was one in Melbourne: the young lady who was in the wrong house at the wrong time. The wrong house was firebombed. She was killed along with the dog. It’s terrible. And there have been people just killed. There’s the lady who was making kebabs in Auburn last year and just going about her business and they’ve come in and shot her and she’ll never be the same again. There was an armed robbery in Narooma a few months ago where that the poor guy behind the bar was hit in the side with a shotgun—in Narooma. He’ll never be the same again. It’s all to do with this criminality that’s coming into our regions because of illicit tobacco.
Senator ROBERTS: So we either comply with the law or we let the unlawful—
Mr Allen: The underworld will take it over, I’ve got no doubt. I went to the state inquiry last year and all the senators, whether they were Labor, Liberal, Green, National—like Cate Faehrmann, the Green, Stephen Lawrence from Labor—grilled Amber Shuhyta, the ITEC Commissioner, fairly hard. They were interested in what excise levels are doing. This inquiry is very politicised. The Greens and the Labor senators seem to be interested in anything else but excise. And if we don’t focus on excise, nothing is going to be solved here. I can guarantee that.
Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of excise, I’ll just divert slightly. One Nation policy is to cut excise on alcohol—on beer and spirits served in hospitality venues. And the reason for that is that the excise is so damn high and alcohol prices are so high that they have binge drinking and what they now call preloading, tanking up before you go out, so the hospitality venues get bugger-all revenue.
Mr Allen: I absolutely agree, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: It is causing a decrease in service from where they have responsible serving of alcohol to now binge drinking.
Mr Allen: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s damaging.
Mr Allen: It was very similar when the alcopops tax came in, if you can remember, back in, I think, 2008. Kevin Rudd said, ‘We’ve got a binge drinking problem in Australia, so we’ll bring in the alcopops tax. We’ll tax premixed or RTD drinks at the same level as spirits, at 66 per cent.’ So what happened? Everyone went out and bought spirits. The kids went to the parties; they took their bottle of spirit and their bottle of Coke and just mixed it up. And often it was a much higher concentration than the four per cent premixed RTD in the can. God knows what percentage it was. But that’s the problem when you try to solve things with taxation and excise. It’s just madness.
Senator ROBERTS: What you’re all arguing for is getting back to the core issue, the core problem, the driver of this problem, and that is excessive excise tax.
Mr Allen: The sweet spot was 2020. We collected $16.3 billion in tax, and that adjusted is $20 billion in today’s money. In 2020 we collected $20 billion. In 2030 we’re going to collect $2 billion. And I doubt that’ll be right. That’s a 90 per cent drop in 10 years. Now, if that is successful policy, I’m not here. I don’t know what is.
Senator ROBERTS: And smoking rates are going up.
Mr Allen: And smoking rates are going up. It’s just absolute madness.
Senator ROBERTS: All of you have given very direct answers, so I’ll move on to Ms Wishart. You’re a legal family-owned tobacconist. In a small town in regional New South Wales, Junee. You say that the illegal tobacco industry has devastated your small business, with income down by 80 per cent. So you’re down to 20 per cent of what you had. In your submission you’ve called for the excise to be rolled back because of the huge social aspects for the community and society in general. Is that correct?
Mrs Wishart: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you want to expand on that?
Mrs Wishart: Particularly in regional centres, if a business closes down, another one may never open.
Senator ROBERTS: You lose that knowledge of the community.
Mrs Wishart: Yes. And banks don’t like small business. You’ve got to fight to open one, let alone to survive in one. And small towns are communities. That word just isn’t a catchphrase. We are communities. So when the four local schools, when Can Assist, when the swimming club, the football club and the soccer club all come in for donations, they’re guaranteed it, or they were. I haven’t been able to donate for two years, which is horrible as a member of the community. They know not to even ask now because they know the position that I’m in.
Senator ROBERTS: And the criminal pushing illicit tobacco doesn’t donate.
Mrs Wishart: He’s not supporting anyone but himself. Nothing’s getting put back.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Mr Rodie, you’re a tobacconist at Margate?
Mr Rodie: I’m a tobacconist at Deception Bay.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, you said that. That was my mistake. You’ve come up in your submission with a list of 10 recommendations that show the comprehensiveness of the solution. You’re not opposed to cutting smoking; you just want to go about it fairly so that everyone benefits—correct?
Mr Rodie: Yes, that’s right. I’d like a level playing field. At the moment there’s no level playing field at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Alexiou, you’re from Devonport, Tassie?
Mr Alexiou: Yes, Senator Roberts, I am.
Senator ROBERTS: And you’ve got a Foodworks, so you’re a supermarket?
Mr Alexiou: Yes. We’ve been in our business for 40 years.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re asking the Senate to recognise that illicit tobacco is not a victimless issue. It’s hurting real businesses, real workers and real communities in Tasmania—correct?
Mr Alexiou: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: And the social knock-on effect is important to the whole community. You’ve also said that the long-term viability of neighbourhood retail in Tasmania is at risk.
Mr Alexiou: Of course. Have you heard the previous speakers? I concur with those comments.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all because your evidence has been succinct and direct. I appreciate that.
This is my interaction with federal agencies at the Illicit Tobacco hearing in Canberra on 18 May 2026.
Tobacco excise tax losses range from $7.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually (ITEC report).
The agencies confirmed that illicit tobacco is a massive, highly sophisticated, and growing threat tied directly to organised crime.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) stated that intergang violence, property destruction and loss of lives can be directly linked to this illegal black-market trade.
I pointed out that the real safety issue facing everyday Australians involves fire bombings, gang violence, and murder on our streets, not just general health advice.
The agencies pointed to successful operations, such as the AFP citing specific busts netting millions of illegal cigarettes and $93 million in evaded excise. However, when I pressed them on concrete metrics to show whether they are actually making a dent in the trade or if these seizures are just a “drop in the ocean,” they struggled to give a clear percentage or ratio against the total market.
Success isn’t just about slowing down market growth or rattling off isolated seizure statistics. The Australian public deserves to know the exact scale of the impact being made.
We shouldn’t be merely managing or stopping this illegal trade from “growing,” we should be eliminating it entirely.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing. Let’s explore your understanding. I’m going to give you free rein to show the people of Australia and the parliament of Australia what you know and are doing. Perhaps you could answer these questions in turn, please, starting on the left. Do you accept that there is a significant problem with illicit tobacco? If so, why? If not, why not? How do these problems manifest? Could you be specific about the impacts on human life and also the dollar cost.
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, I’m not sure whether we’re best qualified to provide an answer. We’re prosecuting offences, but we’re certainly very much engaged in relation to prosecutions arising from the illicit tobacco trade.
Ms Sirec: As we said in our submission, any criminality is a concern for the Australian Federal Police. Illicit tobacco is an illicit commodity and we will target that. We do know that it’s having an impact. As we’ve heard from our ACIC colleagues, it’s impacting our communities, it’s impacting health and it’s obviously causing some violence and harm in the community. So, certainly, we work very strongly with our partners on being able to impact and disrupt the criminal environment in connection with illicit tobacco. I have forgotten the second part of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: How do these problems manifest—if you could be specific—in terms of the cost to human life and the dollar cost?
Ms Sirec: As for how it manifests, we know that competition is happening across organised crime gangs, so we see intergang violence. We see property destruction occurring in our jurisdictions, which our state and territory partners also have to target. We’ve heard from the ACIC regarding the loss of three lives, and I think the ACIC are on the record already about the dollar value of illicit tobacco being in the billions, in terms of impacting community.
Mr Meyer: Building on what has been said already, I think the other element, from our perspective, is the recycling of the profits that are made through illicit tobacco into a range of other organised crime activity, as I mentioned, whether it be drugs or a range of other activities which flow on to a range of harms within the community. Just in terms of metrics and numbers, I know that the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s report estimates the total amount of excise evaded in 2024-25 to be between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that the total economic and social cost of illicit tobacco in 2023-24 was approximately $4 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: The other group, AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: In response to your first question, in 2024 AUSTRAC developed the national risk assessment on money laundering. At the time, it assessed the illicit tobacco market as posing a medium and increasing threat of money laundering. That same product forecast that, over the next three years, the illicit tobacco threat was likely to increase. We have recently published an update to that national risk assessment which shows that illicit tobacco has increased in volume and we’re seeing that criminal groups are becoming more sophisticated and diverse in the ways in which they’re laundering that money. That’s really driven by high market demand and profitability. I think, to your second question, just referencing the ITEC annual report 2024-25, ITEC estimated that in 2024-25 the illicit tobacco market was worth up to $6.9 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Again, each in turn, what are the three most important points that you would like to make to this committee?
Mr de Crespigny: From the CDPP’s point of view, there are two things that we are seeing about the place. Firstly, of the prosecutions that we’re doing, more of them involve multiple defendants, indicating large, organised crime groups. The other thing that we’ve seen about the place is a rise in state prosecutions, so the states are very much taking it on. In both New South Wales and Victoria, they’ve increased the penalties for relevant offences, such as the sale of illicit tobacco. It’s not something which is just being done by the Commonwealth; it’s also being done by the state authorities.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a third point?
Mr de Crespigny: I do think that there’s possibly a need to understand its impact upon the community, both in loss of revenue and in the health impact that it has. That’s something that we try to get across in our sentencing matters, because part of the point of the exercise is to, in actual fact, lower Australia’s smoking rates.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the safety of people?
Mr de Crespigny: People are safer if they don’t smoke.
Senator ROBERTS: I meant in terms of firebombings and murders.
Mr de Crespigny: That’s something that, certainly, I observe because I have heard it at the committee and read it in the newspapers, but it’s not something which falls within the CDPP’s speciality.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AFP?
Ms Sirec: The AFP knows that the threat is dynamic, interconnected, tech enabled and resilient. There are three points that I would like you to take away. Firstly, our approach, with our partners, is that we target supply chains, enablers and trusted insiders. Secondly, we exploit and dismantle criminal communication systems. Thirdly, we identify, restrain and seize criminal assets and financial facilitators to take the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you be more specific, please. How do you do these things? What do you need? What actions do you actually take?
Ms Sirec: As for actions, we target the supply chains. For instance, in New South Wales, we partner with New South Wales police and the Crime Commission to target trusted insiders—that is, those individuals who allow the illicit flow of tobacco to come through the borders. We exploit and dismantle the criminal comms systems, through understanding our capabilities around encrypted communications, and being able to infiltrate and use our powers to be able to identify organised crime. Through the additional funding that the government has provided regarding our Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, we can identify, restrain and seize the criminal assets, and we’ve done that successfully. We’ve seized directly over $39 million worth of property since 26 June 2025.
Mr Meyer: As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, serious and organised crime see there being lower barriers to entry and lower penalties associated with illicit tobacco and the market. A bill is going through parliament at the moment, and I know that, across our state and territory counterparts, they’re also looking to have greater consistency, in terms of their own regulatory and legislative approach. Firstly, being able to level out and make it harder for serious and organised crime to operate, and increase the penalties, obviously will help to deter some of those actors. Secondly, targeting the efforts the whole way through the supply chain, as Deputy Commissioner Seric said, not just here in Australia but at the border and internationally with our partners, will be incredibly important, and we continue to do that. Thirdly, in addition to the commodity itself, it’s being able to dismantle the actual groups behind it. Those groups are involved in a range of other illicit activity as well. By effectively deterring and dismantling those groups, we’re actually going to have a significant effect across a range of threat types.
Senator ROBERTS: AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: Coming to this from the perspective of an intelligence agency, the first point that I’d make is about partnering with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies that we work with. AUSTRAC is a member of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, we support the national disruption group and we work with the ITEC. It’s really through those partnerships, and their ability to leverage our data, that ensures there is financial intelligence that gives a good picture of the activities there—the supply chains, and how profits are generated and moved. It gives those investigative agencies greater insights, in order to target these groups. The second point I’d make is that it’s essential for AUSTRAC, as both an intelligence agency and the financial regulator, to work very closely with our industry partners—the banking sector, the remittance sector and the digital payments sector—so that we can not only continue to get those insights from them but also work with them on increasing their risk controls, their transaction monitoring and their understanding of the nature of the threat and the way it’s evolving, in order to help them detect that activity. The third point that I’d make goes to a real investment in our crypto-tracing capability. With the impact that government is having, we’re starting to see that increase in online sales and more movement of these proceeds through digital currencies. It’s important for us to keep up with that and continue to be able to have the tools and the capability to follow those fund flows through those digital transactions that are made as well.
Senator ROBERTS: How do each of you measure your effectiveness? Is the taxpayer getting value? And, if so, how do we know? We’ve pretty much all agreed that this problem is worth billions of dollars, it is costing lives and it has health impacts. What are you doing to reassure the taxpayer?
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, our effectiveness is measured by the prosecutions that we undertake; we think we’re undertaking those effectively and we’re getting quite reasonable results. The offence provisions are quite complex. These offence provisions—say, the Customs Act provisions—aren’t just focused on the actual importation of the tobacco; it’s a requirement that the person also had an intention or was reckless in defrauding the revenue. They’re not the most straightforward offence provisions. Our effectiveness is in working with our referring agencies and pursuing prosecutions.
Ms Sirec: From the AFP’s perspective, we would measure our effectiveness by our ability to partner, disrupt and dismantle organised criminal groups. Only months ago, Commissioner Barrett identified her No. 1 target, who was involved not only in a myriad of other crimes but also in illicit tobacco. Through our partnerships with our offshore law enforcement agencies, we’ve been able to disrupt his ability, to directly impact. There’s a success measure there. Of course, the number of prosecutions and seizures of illicit tobacco and our ability to understand the criminal networks are another measure of success. Finally, as I said before, with the investment that the government has made in terms of our asset restraint, we’ve been able to restrain more than $39 million since June 2025 and taken the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me some quantified specific effect that you’re having with each of those measures? What indicates success, and what indicates how far we have yet to go?
Ms Sirec: Sure. I can give you a couple of case studies. As per our submission, for instance, with Operation Collinsville, late last year, with the Australian Border Force and Victoria Police, we arrested six senior syndicate members and charged them with various charges. There were 14 search warrants across various factories and premises. We seized over 24 million cigarettes, six million kilos worth of looseleaf tobacco and 51,000 vapes, while also being able to seize various other items and instruments of the commission of the crime—mobile phones, cash machines et cetera. That’s just one investigation. In another investigation, in 2024, Operation Centinel-South-Tyres, over 10 million cigarettes were seized and a number of the syndicate members were arrested. This syndicate was responsible for the importation of more than 77 million cigarettes, so we disrupted that syndicate, which equated to $93 million in excise tax. In 2025, we also successfully obtained restraining orders for over $800,000 in property.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a big problem. How big is it? Is this a drop in the ocean, or has this had a significant impact on their illegal business?
Ms Sirec: Every criminal group that we can disrupt creates an impact.
Senator ROBERTS: In your answer, you’re not giving me anything specific, in terms of indicating your understanding of how big the problem is financially.
Ms Sirec: We’ve heard already from our colleagues here about the dollar value, in terms of the cost of this criminality, and also—
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, I want to know what your understanding of it is.
Ms Sirec: As we’ve heard, it’s a $7 billion harm to the community.
Senator ROBERTS: Is what you’ve done, in the cases that you’ve just rattled off, five per cent or 50 per cent of the trade?
Ms Sirec: I can’t give you a quantum of the percentage of the trade, but they are only two examples—they’re in our submission—of multiple examples that I could provide of the impact that we’re having.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s good to see that success, but is that five per cent, 50 per cent or 90 per cent? How much further do we have to go?
Ms Sirec: I won’t speculate on the percentage; I believe that sits there. Certainly, the fact that we are sitting here today means that we’ve obviously got more to go. But we have the right capabilities and the right people involved in this to do everything that we can to disrupt this.
Senator ROBERTS: How do the people and the parliament know from your answers—you’re not being very specific—in terms of the overall figure? Are you making a dent in it; again, is it five per cent?
Senator COLBECK: It’s $93 million worth of excise seizure versus a $12 billion loss in excise; it’s a drop in the ocean.
CHAIR: Perhaps I can assist, Senator Roberts. We’re all here to try to stop this market growing, and it’s great to have numbers of cigarettes, like 10 million, being confiscated at the border and so forth. But it would be really helpful if you could provide to the committee, on notice, in percentage terms, the amount of disruption that you are making with what is being confiscated versus the size of the illicit market. I can appreciate that you may not have that in front of you, and this is not to take away from any of the great work that you are doing, but I think it is an important piece of evidence for the committee, so that we are able to look at just the pure scale of what is coming into the country.
Ms Sirec: I’ll have to take that on notice.
CHAIR: Thank you; that would be very helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to make the point that we’re not just interested in stopping the business growing; we’re interested in stopping the business altogether.
Black market tobacco and vaping in Australia is a real problem. I raised concerns that, while seizures have increased by 38%, there’s no clear data showing whether that’s actually making a dent in the total illicit market.
Even the department couldn’t tell me how much illegal tobacco is getting through compared to what’s being stopped. They admitted that assessment is still pending in a report from the Illicit Tobacco and E‑cigarette Commissioner.
I asked for clarity on illegal vape consumption, noting that import figures alone don’t tell the story, especially when some products are being made domestically. Again, the answer was that they don’t know how many illegal vapes are actually being used across the country, only how many have been intercepted at the border.
I raised serious concerns about the criminal activity tied to this black market — violence, intimidation and organised crime. Yet no-one present could provide figures on how many violent incidents are linked to illegal tobacco and vaping. I was told that that information sits with law enforcement agencies, not the commissioner.
On the financial side, I asked how much revenue Australians are losing due to illegal tobacco. While officials highlighted that billions in evasion have been prevented through seizures, they still couldn’t provide a clear figure for total revenue lost. I pointed out that estimates suggest the cost could be as high as $8–9 billion annually, which underscores just how massive this black market has become.
What we’re dealing with here is a large, organised criminal enterprise, often driven from overseas, and that we need proper data on the size of the market and the broader social costs. Without that, we’re flying blind.
Finally, I asked Minister Watt directly on whether its excessively high tobacco taxes are driving ordinary Australians into the illegal market by making legal products unaffordable.
True to form, Minister Watt flatly rejected that connection, yet offered no evidence to support that position. I pointed out to him that this approach risks empowering organised crime while reducing government revenue, placing greater burdens on taxpayers.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reynolds, a constituent says: ‘If the seizures have increased by 38 per cent, what has been the proportion of the total growth in the illicit tobacco market? Has it grown by more than 38 per cent? How do we know that?’ Compliments to you for the seizure, but how do we know if that has had a big impact?
Mr Reynolds: It’s a reasonable assessment that there has been an increase in the amount of illicit tobacco coming into the country. But I’m not in a position to tell you what the delta is. The amount that we get on the border to the amount that is coming into the country is not a figure that I have for you.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t have it?
Mr Reynolds: What I’d offer is this: the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner is working through an assessment of what that delta is, and that will be provided in a report to the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, when do we expect that report?
Ms Foster: The commissioner gave evidence earlier that she was just finalising the report at that moment.
Senator ROBERTS: So we should see that soon? Will that report contain an assessment or an estimate of the total illicit tobacco market size?
Ms Shuhyta: It will.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s good. How many illegal vapes were consumed in Australia in the last 12 months? I say ‘consumed’ because I understand some are being made here. Importation figures are less relevant than they are for tobacco; is that correct?
Mr Reynolds: I can tell you we allowed 1.2 million legal vapes into Australia and we intercepted six million illegal vapes on the border coming into the country. But I’m not in a position to tell you how many illegal vapes were consumed in Australia during the financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many acts of violence were committed in Australia that were directly related to illegal tobacco and vapes? I’m talking about murders, fire bombings, assaults and similar acts or threats of violence. We know from tobacconists that they’ve been threatened. Some have been shut down.
Mr Reynolds: I think that’s really a question for, potentially, the Australian Federal Police—or the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission may have an answer to that question for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there someone from the AFP who could answer that—or perhaps the commissioner could.
Ms Foster: The AFP is appearing later this evening.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the commissioner have any idea of that? You’re in charge of coordinating stopping this.
Ms Shuhyta: I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, no.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to get them on notice?
Ms Shuhyta: I will do my best to work with law enforcement.
Ms Foster: I think the question is best directed to the law enforcement agencies rather than the ITEC commissioner. They will be here later.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t the ITEC commissioner overseeing and coordinating everything?
Ms Foster: She’s coordinating the response, but, where there is a specific function like law enforcement, those questions are best directed to the specific agency.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, how much government revenue has illegal tobacco taken out of the budget?
Mr Reynolds: I don’t have that figure. That may be an inclusion in the ITEC commissioner’s report to the government. What I can tell you is that we have prevented $4.4 billion worth of evasion by intercepting 2.5 billion cigarettes and over 400 tonnes of loose tobacco on the border.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. Those figures and the number of cigarette sticks you’ve intercepted are pretty impressive, but my understanding is that the government has lost about $8 billion or $9 billion a year on excise due to illegal tobacco coming into the country. We need to understand the size of the overall market, because it’s huge. We also have to understand the costs of the crimes being committed. We’ve got criminal gangs working from overseas, as I’m sure you’re aware, who are taking over tobacco trade in this country.
Mr Reynolds: Indeed. The ITEC commissioner has already given evidence that that report will be provided to government; that’s yet to be forthcoming.
Senator ROBERTS: I must compliment you on your evidence; you’re very direct, which is good. Minister, do you consider the government’s very high tobacco duty is the reason otherwise law-abiding citizens are prepared to buy illegal tobacco for generally a third of the legal price?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Any reasons?
Senator Watt: There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that argument.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re joking?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is this office designed to make it look like you’re doing something to solve a problem your greedy tax grab created—and your predecessor’s?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: No data, just meetings—empowering organised crime, decreasing revenue that taxpayers have to make up, and you just say ‘no’.
Senator Watt: You asked me a question, and I said ‘no’.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you: are you ignoring the data to just put in meetings, empowering organised crime and decreasing the revenue to the government?
Australia faces a serious crime problem. Many Australians believe our crime rate is low compared with countries like the United States, yet sadly that myth stems from misunderstanding statistics about how crime is measured.
Media coverage reinforces the myth and the real questions are why that misunderstanding persists and what can be done about it.
Consider a simple example. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that only about 19 per cent of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police, while in the United States about 45 per cent are reported. Obviously, simply comparing reported crimes therefore dramatically understates the extent of the problem in Australia.
Both countries try to address this gap using large-scale surveys that estimate total crime, not just crimes reported to police. The Australian Bureau of Statistics runs such a survey annually. In the United States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the National Crime Victimisation Survey, which surveys about 240,000 people each year.
When we compare these broader estimates, Australia’s rape and sexual assault rate is roughly three times higher than that of the United States. Australia’s assault rate is about twice as high, and its burglary rate is about 2.5 times higher. Robbery is the only category where the two countries report similar rates.
Whether people report crimes depends a lot on whether people think the criminals will be caught and punished.
Although, key methodological differences still affect these comparisons. Australian data count the proportion of people or households victimised at least once during the year, while US data count the total number of crimes. If someone in Australia is robbed twice in a year, the survey records only one victimisation. In the US, the survey counts two. This difference means the figures still understate how much higher Australia’s crime rates may be.
Image: Pexels
Earlier international comparisons reinforce this pattern. The International Crime Victimisation Survey used consistent definitions and methods across countries. Even in 2000, it found Australia’s violent crime rate (including robbery, sexual incidents, assaults, and threats) was 104 per cent higher than in the United States. Robbery was 150 per cent higher, sexual assaults 167.9 per cent higher, and assaults and threats 72.3 per cent higher.
Australia is clearly safer in one area: homicide.
Latest data show Australia’s homicide rate at about 2 per 100,000 people in 2024, compared with roughly 4 per 100,000 in the United States in 2025. But homicides make up a tiny share of overall violent crime – less than 0.1 per cent in Australia and about 0.3 per cent in the United States – so they do not reflect most people’s risk of victimisation.
In the United States, murders concentrate heavily in very small geographic areas. Just 2 per cent of counties account for about 56 per cent of all murders, and within those counties, roughly two-thirds of killings occur within areas spanning about ten city blocks. Gangs drive most of these murders, and about 90 per cent of offenders already have prior violent criminal records.
In contrast, 52 per cent of counties report zero murders, and another 15 per cent report just one.
Reducing crime is straightforward: policymakers must raise the risks criminals face. Three ways that can be done are to increase arrest and conviction rates, to lengthen prison sentences and to allow victims to defend themselves.
Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect data on arrest or conviction rates for specific crime types. This glaring omission prevents direct comparisons with the United States.
Another major difference separates the two countries. In practice, Australians cannot use guns for self-defence. In the United States, in contrast, people use guns defensively far more often – roughly five times more frequently to stop crimes than criminals use guns to commit them.
Those who benefit most from owning guns are often the most vulnerable – people who are physically weaker, such as women and the elderly, and those who face the highest risks of violent crime. In the United States, that risk falls disproportionately on poorer Black residents in high-crime urban areas.
The National Crime Victimisation Survey provides detailed breakdowns that highlight these patterns, unlike the more limited data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In most cases, a man commits the crime, and when a man attacks a woman, the strength disparity is typically greater than when a man attacks another man. A firearm can significantly offset that imbalance and increase a woman’s ability to defend herself.
Additionally, research shows that women who respond passively face much higher risks. Women who do not resist are about 2.4 times more likely to suffer serious injury than those who defend themselves with a gun.
The issue goes beyond guns. Outside of Western Australia, Australian law prohibits people from carrying pepper spray or mace for protection. It also bars individuals from carrying knives for self-defence – and in any case, knives offer limited help to women, since using one requires close contact, where a male attacker can more easily overpower them.
Australians cannot address crime effectively if they underestimate its scale or ignore how measurement differences distort comparisons. Policymakers should focus on raising the risks to criminals – through higher arrest and conviction rates – and on giving law-abiding citizens more ability to protect themselves.
Until Australia confronts these realities, it will continue to misdiagnose the problem and fall short on solutions. Australian lives will continue to be endangered more so than in the USA.
Australian and American data point to the solution needed to reduce Australian crime rates and improve Australians’ safety.
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world-recognised expert on crime. He is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center in the United States. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the US Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions, including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/5e6c9019-f874-4f7d-8db9-a83823f4d721_3888x2592-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=117072560Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-06-16 11:00:282026-06-16 11:00:36The Shocking Truth About Australian Crime Rates
How government greed turned citizens into criminals …
As a government, if you wish to stop a destructive public behaviour – you punish it. This can be through fines, incarceration, or economic coercion (taxes).
If you want to turn a public behaviour into a permanent cash-cow that props up the Budget – you tax it carefully.
Somehow, uniparty greed has found a way to implement a ‘worst of both worlds’ policy surrounding tobacco and nicotine products which has turned smoking into a criminal underworld gold mine.
Between 2010 and 2026, tobacco excise has increased in the order of 490% and returned half the revenue in real terms. People didn’t quit. If anything, there is evidence of Australia’s 30-year trend of decreasing smoking being reversed.
After reaching its lowest level with Millennials, smoking has become ‘cool’ again for Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Excessive taxation has destroyed all the good public health work done in this field.
Economically, this is not only a concern for the estimated $11 billion lost excise tax for tobacco.
It also involves the loss of general revenue associated with the full cost of tobacco which previously paid wages, kept stores open, and was re-invested in local communities.
Tens of billions is now being given to the black market where it funds violent crime. This tears apart Australian suburbs and has a follow-on health and economic impact that lowers the quality of life for everyone, not only those directly involved in illegal tobacco. Everything from personal safety to house prices are being affected.
Police have warned that this money, often funneled into crypto, has also been used to expand drug trafficking, firearms offences, worker exploitations, and property damage through activities such as coordinated firebombing.
Worse, if that is possible, the quality and safety of illegal tobacco and vapes is a matter of acute concern. Australians are now exposed to a considerably more dangerous product that was once strictly regulated for safety. And it’s dirt cheap. We are hearing reports of those who gave up smoking previously falling back into the habit because it’s only $10… As for kids, how likely is it that illegal traders are checking them for ID?
Every single feature of the system has been undermined.
It’s clear to me that public health, citizen choice, and the Treasury are in conflict.
And yet they should share the goal of a profitable, legal, regulated industry.
Our current incoherent approach to nicotine products is often referred to as ‘thoroughly broken’ by those trying to petition the government to act.
As Professor Ron Borland said, ‘We are worse off in every conceivable way.’
Tobacco isn’t quite Australia’s re-run of American Prohibition. However, it does share similarities. As with Prohibition, the first question we have to answer is: Should smoking tobacco (and other nicotine products) be legal?
Like alcohol, if the answer is ‘yes’, then any civil penalty or pseudo ban (vaping doctor certificates), should be discontinued.
The second question is: Do we consider smoking tobacco a health risk that costs the state money and which the state actively seeks to discontinue in the long-term?
If ‘yes’ – and this is what we were told for decades through school programs and public advertising campaigns – then the government cannot expect to use taxation on tobacco as a permanent feature in their Budget spreadsheet.
As Clive Bates said, ‘If you push it too hard – the taxes are too regressive, too brutal – then people will defect from the system and they will move to illicit trade and illicit suppliers will come in because there are enormous economic gains to be made.’
The Treasurer must have a replacement plan for tobacco revenue that does not entail continuously raising excise to the point criminals take over distribution.
Experts have suggested alternatives, such as using public information campaigns and alternate products, to wean society off tobacco long-term rather than smacking Australians with tax hikes on an addiction exasperated by economic stress.
To that point, there may never come a time when tobacco and nicotine products exit public use.
As with alcohol, they require a legally and economically stable environment that protects as many people as possible, dissuades new users, and yet does not create opportunities for crime. The most effective measure so far involved banning smoking from bars, clubs, restaurants, and residential balconies which turned it into a social inconvenience rather than a cost burden.
And here sits the heart of the problem.
Tobacco was a huge part of society until earlier suspicions of health risks were confirmed in the 1960s. Community anger and government complicity in a public health catastrophe created a lot of guilt and revenge.
Those days are almost gone. People who choose to smoke today do so knowing the risks and great lengths have been taken to contain those risks to the individual smoker. And so the conversation becomes one about public health costs similar to obesity. How is it fair, it’s said, that the public pay for the self-inflicted health problems of smokers? The numbers strongly suggest that this was never the case. Revenue on tobacco is widely held to cover the health bill. Until now.
The situation today reveals a growing smoking population with a more dangerous product and decreased revenue that doesn’t cover the cost of health, let alone the huge cost of policing the illicit trade. Economic arguments for the current excise level do not hold up to reality.
Scroll through the crime releases…
Permanent surveillance and enforcement on hundreds of tobacco shops. Thousands of online ad takedown orders. Monitoring nation-wide criminal distribution networks. Raiding shipping deliveries. Prosecuting and incarcerating those responsible. Storing and destroying the product. It’s an open-ended revenue drain. And then you have to include illegal vapes, of which the market is in the billions.
If you’re wondering how much policing this costs, the answer is, ‘we don’t know’. No full-cost figure is published. It’s estimated in the hundreds of millions just for policing itself at a state and federal level, while the government admits to investing approximately $350 million specifically for the ‘fight against illicit tobacco and vapes’.
Whatever the number is, it came out of your pocket.
The Australian Federal Police reported that 2.66 billion illegal cigarettes, 510 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco, and 7.5 million vapes have been seized since 2016. Operation PRINTWALL saw the Australian Border Force intercept 998.5 tonnes of tobacco.
Just this year 20 million illegal vapes worth $1 billion were seized by the Australian Border Force since 2024. The Therapeutic Goods Administration removed another 2.2 million valued at $110.5 million in the same period. They also reported a 300-fold increase in requests to remove online ads for illegal vaping products.
These are not victories so much as temperature readings offering a glimpse at a thriving market.
We must sit down and soberly confront the truth.
Government informs the public that tobacco costs the taxpayer money through the healthcare system, and yet it desperately wants Australians to keep buying tobacco and funding the Treasury. When vapes entered the market, and people began to organically switch products due to health, convenience, and cost – government all-but banned the product. A cynic may say this had little to do with health and a lot to do with an absence of lucrative excise tax. The Treasury saw tobacco revenue evaporating and instead of taking the public health victory – they panicked. This raises serious questions about the government’s motives and ability to solve the current problem.
Listening at length to experts in the industry, it seems clear that we require a carefully timed approach.
The legal market must be restored before law enforcement can come down on the black market.
To do this in the wrong order risks wasting money and encouraging citizens to protect a criminal underworld to facilitate their smoking habit. This would entrench the behaviour we’re trying to resolve. As one expert said, in some communities, illegal tobacco sellers have reached a ‘Robin Hood’ status actively supported by locals. A path back to legal markets must be seamless as it would in any competitive business environment.
The suggestions that I have heard from a variety of people from within the industry include:
Setting the tobacco excise at a level that keeps cigarettes competitive against black market alternatives.
Removing the ban on vapes and adding the same location restrictions as smoking.
Considering an excise on vapes to recoup some lost revenue.
Ensuring that the tobacco and vape products on offer include a wide variety to ensure maximum customer return from the black market to legal channel.
And then…
Severe and serious penalties for black market traders and the criminal gangs involved.
Mandatory sentencing to simplify the process of cleaning up crime.
Reporting channels to allow people to alert police to continued criminal activity.
And as I have said publicly in front of the Panel of Harm Reduction Experts at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the solution will not be simple.
The cost of living is very high and will naturally lead otherwise law-abiding citizens toward illicit markets – in general. They don’t want to break the law. Any solution must deal with lifestyle measures right across our economy.
People are suffering and nicotine products are part of their lives.
All measures must be enacted with a least-harm approach to Australians who were pushed toward the black market due to government-enforced economic pressures.
And we absolutely must support the legal businesses who wish to help rebuild the market – this will include protecting these shops and owners from crime gangs. For example, insurers say it has become almost impossible to find cover for tobacconists after arson attacks…
Once the legal and government approach is fixed – the criminal infrastructure will have to be dismantled – rapidly – or it will adopt a new product such as alcohol – which is experiencing an almost identical problem.
Make no mistake, excessive alcohol excise has already started to push people toward extremely dangerous black market product. This is even more concerning than illegal tobacco.
No one can solve a public health problem for a product owned and distributed by the criminal underworld.
Why are courts reducing sentences for child sex offenders based on cultural background? This deeply troubling question was one I raised during Estimates.
I cited a case where a convicted child sex offender had his sentence reduced because the judge believed his cultural upbringing made him think the crime wasn’t seriously wrong. Australians are rightly horrified. I asked whether such reasoning could ever apply to Commonwealth offences. Ms Sharp assured me that while courts consider personal circumstances, the gravity of the offence remains. Still, the fact this even happens is alarming.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GupVMa2vhzs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 11:46:112026-01-21 11:46:14Culture is No Excuse for Crime
The Albanese Government has appointed an Illicit Tobacco and e-Cigarette Commissioner to tackle the illegal cigarette market. I asked what impact the $188 million already spent has had, and where the additional $156 million allocated for the next two years will go. I have serious concerns about waste, and the response I received did not provide clarity. These issues will need to be revisited in future Estimates as accounts and outcomes are released.
What’s clear is that there is no baseline for the Commissioner’s operations. I would have thought that the first step should’ve been to determine the size of the market, identify the crimes being committed, and calculate how much revenue the government is losing in duty. Those fundamental questions have not been asked. The Commissioner suggested that seizures was the benchmark of success. I strongly disagree. If the illegal market is booming, then naturally, seizures will increase—this metric does not reflect real progress.
I will continue to push for hard data showing a reduction in the illicit tobacco market as a result of this role. At present, it feels like a mechanism to shift blame without holding anyone accountable. If that proves true, One Nation would abolish this position.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are about the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner. Is she in?
Ms Foster: Yes. We’ll just get the right officers up to the table for you. It will be a combination of the ITEC Commissioner and the ABF Commissioner.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll try to be brief. The budget allocated $156.7 million over two years from 2025-26, to expand programs to tackle the illicit tobacco trade. What programs are they, please?
Ms Shuhyta: I think I might defer that to the ABF Commissioner. That money was referred to—sorry. There are two amounts of money. Could you just repeat the budget year that you were referring to?
Senator ROBERTS: ‘$156.7 million over two years from 2025-26 to expand programs to tackle’—
Ms Shuhyta: Yes. I can go through the number of agencies that have that. Sorry, I was thinking about the previous budget year, which went to ABF. Just let me get that list for you. So $49.4 million went to the Australian Federal Police to expand the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce; $7 million went to support the Australian Border Force to utilise emerging technology to screen and detect more illicit tobacco at our borders; $19.9 million went to fund my office, the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s office; $1.4 million went to establish a new international collaboration for regional assessment of criminal network behaviours—that’s where we’ve engaged the UN office of drug control to conduct an Asia-Pacific/Pacific regional threat assessment; $40 million went to support states and territories to establish local-level capability; $31.6 million went to strengthen compliance and enforcement functions under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 and the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; $4 million went to extend the national tobacco and e-cigarette public health campaign, to target motivations and behaviours of the people who use illicit tobacco; and $3.3 million went to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute contraventions under the public health act and the Therapeutic Goods Act.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s quite a wide net. You were allocated $19.9 million, as you said, of this money, to administer your office. What is that being spent on?
Ms Shuhyta: That’s being spent on the functions that my office was set up to deliver under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act. That includes activities that support intergovernmental governance functions, support national strategy development and implementation, support reporting on the size and consequence of the illicit market and support advice on new laws. It is staffing to undertake those functions.
Senator ROBERTS: How many staff do you have—full-time equivalents?
Ms Shuhyta: We are budgeted for 24 full-time equivalents at the moment. We have 12 APS staff and we are undertaking a recruitment process to fill the vacancies, and we have a number of contractors on board to assist with those functions.
Senator ROBERTS: How do the taxpayers know this cost is justified by the outcomes it generates? Have you got KPIs?
Ms Shuhyta: I have reporting obligations under the legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: What are your KPIs under the legislation?
Ms Shuhyta: I have to report on all enforcement actions and consequences undertaken in the last financial year and the size and nature of the illicit markets so we can monitor that year on, year out. It’s also on excise and customs equivalent duties evaded.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can track your effectiveness?
Ms Shuhyta: That should be able to assist us and monitor the intergovernmental activities that are responding to this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you know whether or not you are being effective?
Ms Shuhyta: It’s a good question. My role is to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and coordination to bring the efforts together across states and territories, across portfolios and across multiple points of the supply and demand chain. The value-add that the office brings is to support that force multiplication effect instead of all of the separate agencies working separately.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d make the comment that with the AFP there I would have thought they would be better equipped, knowing their expertise in criminology or countering criminology, to do that. Do you have a starting point for your own measure of success? How many illegal cigarettes entered Australia in the last 12 months?
Ms Shuhyta: I think the ABF might have that data, in terms of cigarettes that they’ve seized coming into the border.
Mr Reynolds: To give an indication of how much we interdicted on the border, we interdicted 2.5 billion sticks of cigarette during the financial year 2024-25. We also interdicted over 439 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco, and we interdicted six million vape devices and accessories during that financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Those are pretty impressive figures. Do you have any idea from that, extrapolating, how many came into the country?
Mr Reynolds: That is an assessment that will be in a report provided by the ITEC Commissioner to the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible to get that number on notice?
Mr Reynolds: That is a matter for the government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, would it be possible to get that number on notice?
Senator Watt: Which number was that?
Senator ROBERTS: The AFP man can tell you. It’s the number of cigarettes that would have come into the country illegally extrapolated from the number of captured or known cigarettes.
Senator Watt: I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll do our best to answer that question.
Ms Foster: If I could just revert to your last question to Ms Shuhyta, I think there are two points to make. The AFP has an incredibly important role in this mission, but it’s quite a specific role, consistent with their mandate. Ms Shuhyta’s role is to try and make the whole work as effectively as possible together. She’s got an example of the work she’s doing with police forces across the jurisdictions which will illustrate the kind of value that the office can add.
Mr Reynolds: May I also add that the Australian Federal Police is a member of the national disruption group, and their expertise is being used as a part of that group to break the illicit tobacco business model.
CHAIR: Final question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: In January 2024, Minister Butler announced:
TheAlbanese Government cracks down on illegal tobacco imports The Albanese Government has committed $188.5 million to crackdown on the importation of illegal tobacco.
It’s been almost two years now. There must be some tangible benefit for the money. Commissioner, what reduction in the importation of illegal tobacco has resulted from this initiative so far? I know of police in Queensland—I know of good citizens in Queensland—who are now going to the illicit tobacco trade because they see that the excise is so damn high.
Mr Reynolds: I mentioned the metrics before. That’s a 38 per cent increase compared to the previous financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’ve interdicted?
Mr Reynolds: That’s correct. I’ll just provide a very quick vignette from Queensland where, just recently, the Australian Border Force and the Queensland Police Service executed a series of warrants that resulted in one of the largest illicit tobacco and vape seizures in Queensland’s history. The total duty evaded for the combined seizures, of over 30.5 million cigarettes and 5.1 tonnes of tobacco, is estimated to be over $53.8 million with the estimated street value of over 4,000 vapes to be $20.05 million. It was an extremely successful joint operation between the Australian Border Force and the Queensland Police Service.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, we can only assess whether it’s successful or not by comparing it to the total quantity of cigarettes coming in—tobacco and vapes coming in illegally—and finding their way to the market. Apparently that is still huge, and it’s causing crime around Australia with tobacconists getting firebombed.
Mr Reynolds: The fact that we’re able to conduct that successful operation—that breaks that particular criminal syndicate. It’s only through breaking the criminal syndicates that we can reduce the scourge of illicit tobacco in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Some people would argue that it’s only cutting the excise back to sensible levels that would break that, because people now find it’s worth going to the criminals to get their tobacco.
I raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Raelene Sharpe, the facts of a recent State case in which the sentencing judge stated that a convicted paedophile received a reduced sentence because the offender came from a culture where sexual offences against children were more tolerated.
I asked what the prosecution’s stance would be if such an offence were to come before a Commonwealth court and was informed that a Commonwealth judge would also take cultural factors into account during sentencing.
I found this deeply concerning, as I believe sexual offences against children are among the most serious crimes. In my view, an offender’s cultural background should not diminish the gravity of such offences.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZrAxvPbJ6jo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-27 18:21:592025-10-27 18:22:07No Excuse for Abuse: Protecting Children Must Come First
