Wednesday, 13 November 2024

Tobacco Amendment (Tobacco Retailer and Wholesaler Licensing Scheme) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Melissa Horne:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:13): Acting Speaker O’Keeffe, I am delighted to see you in the chair. It is always a pleasure to see a happy, smiling face up there, which we quite often do. Let us start on the Tobacco Amendment (Tobacco Retailer and Wholesaler Licensing Scheme) Bill 2024. Victoria has experienced over 110 tobacco-related firebombings in the last two years, with many related to organised crime and crime gangs fighting for control of the lucrative illicit tobacco trade in a turf war. I want to state from the outset that we will not be opposing this bill, and I will go on to say that every other state in Australia has introduced some form of licensing scheme – all except Victoria. We have lagged behind for many, many years, and it is time. It is beyond time. As I say, we are the only state to not have a licensing scheme, and the irony of this is that the Victorian government through Better Regulation Victoria back in 2021 commissioned a report that I think was handed down in 2022 that suggested a licensing scheme would be the first thing that needs to happen. This report was hidden; it was never released. It is quite disappointing that it has taken us this long, from when that report was handed down in 2022, to be where we are here today. Obviously in 2024 we are saying that is two years it has taken, and in that time 110 or more tobacco-related fires have occurred. We are just shooting the starting gun today, really – just kickstarting the process. And when I say ‘kickstarting’ it is because by the looks of the bill we have got some concerns around the timing of the bill, and I will go into that a bit later.

If it is going to be 2026 before it comes into operation in its fullness, that is quite a concern because, as I say, if 110 tobacco or related shops have burnt in the last 18 months to two years, can we expect to see that happening again over the next 18 months until everything is in place? I certainly hope not, and I am sure the government hopes it does not either, but that is all the more reason why we need to act quickly to get this legislation up and going and boots on the ground, so to speak.

Ever since Victoria’s illicit tobacco turf war flared up, certainly there has been that increase in firebombings – two a week on average; we had two this week and we had two last week. With sustained pressure from certainly the industry stakeholders, this tired government needed the spark to get off their hands and start to address this problem. We introduced a private members bill last sitting week, and that did not get up, as we all know. But certainly I would like to think that the pressure from the coalition and all Victorians has assisted to make sure the Premier honoured her commitment, which she made on ABC radio back in March, that Labor would introduce legislation for the licensing scheme by the end of this year. Hallelujah, we are here. That is what every Victorian has wanted to see for the last two to three years.

The Allan Labor government has certainly managed to address some of the issues that we put in our bill and that we wanted to see in this bill, and I am pleased to see some of those things. I will go into it a bit more in a moment. But certainly the Better Regulation Victoria report was the start back a couple of years ago, and even the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) held an inquiry into illicit tobacco on the back of a Liberals and Nationals motion to make sure that, again, we could get legs to get this bill up.

I am pleased to see the bill finally hit the chamber. There is not a lot of time involved in terms of giving us an understanding or the due two weeks that normally happens, and that is mainly to consult with stakeholders. Stakeholders have been very prominent and outspoken privately and in the media about their concerns about the tobacco wars and that a licensing scheme would fix this. I do not want to pre-empt what those on the other side will say, but I certainly hope that they do not stand up and say, ‘We won’t be wasting a moment. We’ll be getting on and fixing the illicit tobacco wars,’ because we have wasted two years already, or two and a half years, and it could be another 18 months before it is all in place. So we are talking the best part of four years or more before this is all up and going. Let us hope that nobody on the other side thinks that they can say, ‘We won’t be wasting a moment,’ because there has already been too much time wasted and 110 shops have burnt during that time.

The bill is 138 pages that we have managed to get through and try to come to terms with and understand everything that is in it. As I say, it talks about:

If a provision of this Act does not come into operation before 1 July 2026, it comes into operation on that day.

History would suggest that this government will use all the time it has to make sure it works its way through. There are obviously authorised officers that need to come into play; they will need to be employed and organised. But there is no reason why this cannot come in much sooner than that. Victoria Police could start to enforce and certainly we could start to reduce the firebombings as early as the middle of next year rather than waiting the full 18 months to make sure this comes in. As I say, it will take them time to line up their ducks, but certainly by the time this calendar year is finished that process will be up and going, and I cannot see why we need to be waiting until 2026, because in that time more shops will burn and more livelihoods will be at stake.

The Liberals and Nationals have pursued a strong media line on this issue, and obviously as I mentioned, we hope the Tobacco Amendment (Stamping Out Fire Bombings) Bill 2024 that we introduced put a focus on this aspect. The matter has been in the media now for a couple of weeks through our introduction and now the introduction of this bill, but it really is important that we get to the pointy end, because the government would surely have to be starting to get embarrassed now by the number of tobacco shops that are burning and nothing has been done, even though there have been commitments that it would get done. But now we are finally getting there.

At this moment I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government conducts further consultation with affected stakeholders on when the licensing scheme should come into effect.’

That is what I am talking about: this delay between now – what are we in, November 2024 – and the possibility that it will not be fully enacted until July 2026. Those on the other side can rightfully say it could happen before that. I understand that, but history suggests that will not be the case or if it is it will only be weeks or months before that, rather than getting it fully up and operational. 110 shops – as I say, that is 110 livelihoods. There are probably 220 neighbours of those shops – one on each side ‍– whether you are a hairdresser or a cafe or something on the other side of each of those tobacconists. There are a lot of livelihoods at stake, and that has been the focus for the Liberals and Nationals – trying to make sure that we stop these turf wars – because as we know, it is only Victoria that is seeing two shops burn a week. I will go into a bit more of that detail as we move forward.

We know that Victorians have certainly lost confidence in this government, and they do not trust that they have the ability to act in a timely manner because they have shown time in and time out that it takes forever to get this stuff on the ground. Here is proof – 2½ years after they said it was needed, we are finally getting it started. When you get all excited and think we are off and running, you actually find –

Belinda Wilson interjected.

Tim McCURDY: It takes you a lot more time than everybody else, it seems. Other states have been doing this for many years, and it is funny that in other states they are not burning their tobacconist shops to the ground. There will be lots of reasons from the other side, I am sure, as to why it takes so long.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Tim McCURDY: Well, there is COVID. Of course there is COVID. And we had floods too. We had floods – that would also slow down the transport.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Tim McCURDY: And bushfires – thank you, yes, bushfires. And then there was Jeff Kennett too. That would have slowed the process down as well. But anyway, here we are. We cannot look a gift horse in the mouth. Let us make sure that we get this bill right and stop what we are trying to stop. Obviously we want to stop all forms of illicit tobacco, on both sides of the chamber. I get all that. Certainly my electorate knows all too well about illicit tobacco – the town of Myrtleford and the chop-chop that was going on many years ago. It was rife in the region. I think it is fair to say that some of those growers up there are responsible for where we are today in terms of the tobacco industry. But having said that, it is important that we move forward with this, because it is now organised crime that is the problem more than old mate who is selling a couple of packs of smokes out the back of the shop for a couple of bucks and not giving the excise to the government. I will talk about the excise a little bit later.

In terms of detail in the bill, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Tobacco Act 1987 to establish a licensing scheme for tobacco wholesalers and retailers, to repeal provisions relating to e-cigarettes and specialist tobacconists, to provide for forfeiture of prohibited products and to make other related amendments to the Confiscation Act 1997, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and the Spent Convictions Act 2021. As I said earlier, Victoria is the only state in Australia without a form of tobacco licensing for wholesalers and retailers. Further to this, the current regulation places the burden of enforcement of the Tobacco Act 1987 on local government and Department of Health bodies, which are simply not qualified to deal with it and certainly do not have the resources or the understanding to be able to manage this current illicit tobacco crisis.

Acting Speaker O’Keefe, you will understand as a regional MP yourself and you would probably have had tobacco fires in Shepparton or the region like I have in Wangaratta. What happened recently – when I say recently, it was a couple of years ago – the Rural City of Wangaratta decided to clamp down on illicit tobacco. They did the surveillance and they did all the work to make sure that they were going to stamp out illicit tobacco in Wangaratta. They spent $25,000 and took this to court. The people who were selling the illicit tobacco got a slap on the wrist and were back selling the next day. So the Rural City of Wangaratta said, ‘Well, you can stick that up your jumper. We’re not interested in doing that again. We’ve spent a lot of money and a lot of time to try and resolve this problem, and they get a slap on the wrist and they’re back out trading again the next day.’ You can see with stories like that, and we have heard many other stories, that local governments have just put their hands in the air and said, ‘Well, it might be our responsibility but we’re going to stay hands-off on this because it’s just not working.’ That is why we need this bill: to start to clarify a bit more about where it lies and who the authorities are.

The Victorian Liberals and Nationals have been at the forefront, as I say. Over the past 12 months we have seen various motions in Parliament as well a successful referral of illicit tobacco to the PAEC inquiry, which I spoke about; the release of the Better Regulation Victoria report into tobacco regulation, or the Cronin report; and the introduction of the Tobacco Amendment (Stamping Out Fire Bombings) Bill 2024. So we have been active, and it is important that both sides of this chamber want to make sure that we get the end result that we want, and obviously that is stamping out illicit tobacco. But at the end of the day we need to stop these firebombings because this is getting out of control. Certainly the Minister for Police at the table at the moment knows only too well the resources that are required to attend to those firebombings. They are resources we do not have, and if we could stop that it would free up police resources which would be used elsewhere.

The provisions of the bill will be implemented no doubt at a snail’s place if it goes through by 2026, but I would like to think it can happen a bit quicker. Stage 1 will be implemented before the end of this calendar year, which is only a month away. So that is the primary clauses 1 to 3, which deal with the usual housekeeping of legislation, including the purpose, various commencement principles and the principal act – the Tobacco Act 1987. In the bill’s current form, which says 1 July 2026, the provisions of the bill will commence in 2026 if not proclaimed otherwise, although the government has indicated a two-stage process with some sections coming into operation before 2025 and others between 2025 and 2026. I do think it is outrageous that we have waited so long to get to where we are today and that we need to wait, if this is the case, to get through to 2026. It needs to be resolved and we need to start the process now. We need action happening as early as the start of next year. I understand it takes time, but at the end of the day we must make that start to try and stamp out these firebombings.

Part 2 deals with the establishment of the licensing scheme. Clause 5 inserts new definitions into the act with the key definitions being ‘illicit tobacco’, ‘protected information’ and ‘regulator’. These outline the regulator as being the secretary of the department, which is a normal process, administering part 3AA through the Department of Justice and Community Safety. Illicit tobacco is defined clearly and protected information enables Victoria Police a greater ability to contribute to the approval process without compromising officers, witnesses or operational integrity.

Clause 6 inserts new section 3G – which is not 3G the way we think about it with Telstra – which defines associates and other close relations that may act upon a person’s ability to meet the fit and proper person test. Again, that is something that we have been calling upon. The fit and proper person test is integral to making sure that this bill will actually succeed in achieving what we are trying to achieve with these gangs and organised crime. That is what we need to do – make sure we have got the fit and proper person test – so I am certainly pleased to see that part in there.

Clause 8 inserts part 3AA into the principal act, outlining the licensing of wholesale and retail tobacco outlets. This includes outlining who is eligible to apply for a tobacco licence and the content of that licence. The regulator will be authorised to compel additional documents and require criminal background checks of any applicants in order to assess their suitability to hold a licence. Again, that is a great step forward.

Division 2 deals with applications for a variation of a licence and includes who may apply for a variation, including the Chief Commissioner of Police and the proposed transferee of the licence, and the various requirements and documentation required. What that basically means is that when there are any changes to the running of a tobacco shop or the licensee of a tobacco shop – whether they are changing the name from ‘Mrs Brown’ to ‘Mr Brown’ or they are changing from ‘this address’ to ‘another address’ – it all still has to go through the same process again to make sure it does not slip through the cracks. We find that a tobacco shop can start in one place and be all above board, and before long that licence can change hands and all of a sudden we are back to where we are now.

Division 4 is really important. It relates to the cancellation and suspension of a licence. The regulator or the Chief Commissioner of Police or the owner of a tobacco premises or a mortgagee of a tobacco premises may all apply for a licence to be suspended or cancelled. I think that puts a lot of teeth into this bill, that there are various people or opportunities to apply for a suspension or a cancellation. Again, I say they are the regulator, the Chief Commissioner of Police, the owner of a tobacco premises or the mortgagee of a tobacco premises. That cuts across a lot of sectors to make sure that if there are things that are going a little bit wayward there are opportunities to stamp them out.

It also outlines the process for objecting to requests to cancel or suspend a licence in the case of an illicit tobacco offence. The regulator may suspend a licence with immediate effect for a period not exceeding 90 days but certainly must give notice to a licensee in writing. Again, there are opportunities there. If things are not going the way things have been planned, either the Chief Commissioner of Police or the regulator can certainly come in and make sure they can clean this up once and for all. Between what happens in legislation and then what actually happens in real time on the ground sometimes there is a variation, and we might not necessarily have to alter the rules, but the rules are in place for the Chief Commissioner of Police or the regulator to make some decisions to make sure that we can achieve that end goal, which is what we are trying to do. They include considering any conviction from the last five years or any non-spent conviction exceeding this period. They apply to associates of a person applying for a licence as well.

Division 7 deals with the requirement for a statement of reasons for the granting or not of an application and the processes and the involvement of various parties. Division 8 enables a decision made by the regulator to be reviewed internally, and such a request must be made within 28 days of the decision being made by the regulator. All those steps are in place. For applications that request a review of a decision based on the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Police, VCAT is required to appoint a special counsel to represent the applicant in the context of protected information. In this case the barrister or special counsel may only represent the applicant to the extent that the interests relate to the protected information.

There are a couple more divisions that I think are important. Division 9 deals with the handling of protected information at VCAT. Division 10 relates to licence renewals. Division 11 deals with the disqualification of an applicant for a period of up to five years, and the regulator must inform, in writing, the person being disqualified and the chief commissioner of their decision to do so. Finally, on these divisions, division 12 deals with general administrative matters, including the requirements for the regulator to keep a register of licensed tobacco suppliers and details required under the legislation and regulation, and also outlines the requirement for a licensee to notify the regulator of any other changes within 14 days of that.

I want to touch on offences and enforcement, the regulator and the licensing inspectors. New part 3AAB deals with enforcement of licensing and the related offences. Division 1 introduces the regulator and outlines their functions and powers. It also outlines the information that must be collected and kept by the regulator. Division 2 deals with the licensing inspectors and outlines that they must be appointed by the regulator and must be sufficiently happy that they are skilled and qualified in that area. Naturally this includes any training that needs to be undertaken to perform their duties. Further, new section 35F outlines the functions and powers of inspectors, including bringing proceedings for offences and other powers in order to fulfil their functions.

If I now touch on some of those fines and penalties, for a person who carries on a tobacco supply business and is in possession of illicit tobacco, it is 120 penalty units, which is a $23,000 fine. That is significant. If old mate has got a tobacco shop and he is in possession of illicit tobacco, that is a $23,000 slap. Obviously if it is a body corporate that goes up to $118,000, and I think that is fair and reasonable. If they are in possession of a commercial quantity, for an individual that goes up to $165,000 and $827,000 for a body corporate, so things just got serious, you know, if you have got a commercial quantity – although I do want to add that ‘commercial quantity’ is still in dispute at the moment, because the bill does not say and in the briefing the government was unclear about what a commercial quantity is. My understanding is in New South Wales a commercial quantity is 100 grams of tobacco and in the Commonwealth a commercial quantity is 5 kilograms. So until we work out what that commercial quantity is – and I am sure that will come through as time goes on – it is a bit unclear.

There are other fines. We have talked about being in possession, and now we are saying if a person tries to sell or supply illicit tobacco, well, again, it starts at $23,000 and goes up to $118,000. But if a person intentionally or recklessly sells or otherwise supplies a commercial amount of illicit tobacco, this is where it gets real. We are talking about where a lot of these firebombings are happening now. This is a commercial amount, and they are selling it; that is the target audience we are really trying to hit in this case. It is 1800 penalty units, which is a $354,000 fine, or imprisonment for up to 15 years. That is for an individual. For a body corporate it is a $1.7 million fine – serious fines, and so they should be. They should be serious fines. It is a serious issue, and it is causing a lot of distress in our communities and in plenty of livelihoods. So the tools are there to actually not just give them a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. These are serious fines, and I am pleased to see they are serious. Selling tobacco without a licence starts at $165,000 for individuals and goes up to $827,000. I think it is fair to say that if you are in the industry of selling tobacco you would want to think seriously about getting a licence, because the profits are going to dwindle very quickly if you start getting fines of $165,000 and up to $800,000.

As I say, on this bill we are two years late, let us be honest. We are behind the other states: Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and others. We are two years behind. We need to make up that ground, and we will not make up the ground if we take another 18 months to implement and enforce all this. We need to get boots on the ground, and that is why the reasoned amendment is about making sure this happens before 1 July 2025 rather than waiting until 1 July 2026. I think with the process we are at today there is no genuine reason why we cannot have that process up and going. As I say, if there is a delay in getting the authorised agents in place and trained, well, so be it, but at the end of the day we can still have the rules in place and VicPol will be in a position to then go from there, and that is what I think we need to see. When we look at the countless hours that VicPol are spending now, let alone the threats and the disturbance to communities and neighbours and the stress that occurs, VicPol are spending a lot of time on these tobacco wars at the moment.

We are going to see a bill introduced on a Tuesday and go to the guillotine on a Thursday – so three days to take carriage through this house rather than the normal 14 days so all the stakeholders get an opportunity to understand what is involved. If we are going to rush it through in three days, let us keep that rush going. Let us not stop. Let us keep the rush going and make sure it is fully enacted by 1 July next year, rather than saying now that we have pushed it through Parliament we are going to sit on our hands, let a few more tobacco shops burn over the next 18 months, and then we will have something going. ‘We’ve told the community we will do it, so that’s enough’ – well, that is not enough. We have actually got to get it through and get it going, because the three days is quite disrespectful of Parliament ‍– to say we are going to introduce it on a Tuesday and have it all wrapped up on a Thursday ‍– and certainly disrespectful to Victorians, who should, and rightly so, have the opportunity to make comment over that period so we all get to see what is in the bill. Certainly the stakeholders deserve better, I think. The stakeholders deserve to have sufficient time to have input in this bill over the two weeks. But anyway, that is not the case. As I say, if we are going to rush it through in three days time, let us keep that rush going to make sure that we all end up where we need to be sooner rather than later.

Search and seizure laws, as I say, are a positive step. The fact that VicPol is involved is a significant step. However, I will say that even as recently as last week the Minister for Police, who is at the table, suggested that VicPol would not be assisting here. I do not know whether there are discussions going on there or not, but the bill clearly says that VicPol will be involved. Maybe there is a bit of a dispute going on at the moment, member for Gippsland South. Maybe that dispute is playing out a little bit. Anyway, the minister was adamant that the police will not be taking carriage of this, but it suggests in the legislation that that is not quite the way it is going to be.

The fines are appropriate. I see that the fines and the jail time are appropriate. I think the numbers are a good start, making sure that we are taking this seriously, really throwing the book at those who are doing this firebombing, because the illicit tobacco turf war has got to stop. But we cannot wait 18 to 19 months for this to happen. That would be four years from go to whoa, and that is just way too long. If you ask those that have got a tobacco shop in their community, they would be saying that is just way too long.

Obviously with a fit and proper person test and the new licence I am certainly hopeful this will solve the problems. The Liberals and Nationals have been calling for this for some time – we are not talking weeks and months; we are talking years – and so has the community. It is not just us. The community is saying this has to stop and it has to stop now, and that is why we implore the government to move with our amendment to make sure that we have it all fully operational by 1 July 2025.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (15:43): Acting Speaker O’Keeffe, it is lovely to see you in the chair. It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Tobacco Amendment (Tobacco Retailer and Wholesaler Licensing Scheme) Bill 2024. This is an incredibly important bill which will address the growing scourge of illegal tobacco and the criminality surrounding this nefarious industry, for want of a better term.

The community has rightly been very, very concerned regarding illicit tobacco and the prevalence of tobacco businesses suspected of involvement in its distribution. We have seen reports of businesses being firebombed, leaving devastating impacts not just on those businesses but on neighbouring traders, on nearby residents and on the wider community. I am very fortunate to say the district of Monbulk to date has not experienced any of these attacks, but I know the neighbouring town of Seville experienced one in February earlier this year. People have been really concerned by these heinous acts, and understandably so.

Parents are concerned. They are seeing children become addicted to vapes. Teachers are concerned because they are seeing it as well. This bill is critical in helping to stamp out truly reprehensible behaviour. The Premier announced back in March that we would tackle this issue, and I am really pleased that we are doing so now. The clear commitment that was made earlier this year has made this move quickly and brought this bill into this chamber this year, and I think that is a wonderful thing. I thank the minister as well for all the work going on there in her office to get us to this point.

This bill has been informed by the recommendations of the Public Accounts and Estimates inquiry into vaping and tobacco controls, which was completed in August. I would like to thank PAEC, in particular their marvellous chair, for their comprehensive work in this area, which has led to what I can only describe as a fairly hefty and very comprehensive bill. It not only addresses the systemic reform needed to introduce a licensing scheme but also contains the harshest penalties in the country for breaching these.

I would like to come back to PAEC a little bit later, but first I just want to talk about some of the technicalities in this bill – what it will actually do. It is going to amend the Tobacco Act 1987 to, firstly, establish a retailer and wholesaler tobacco licensing scheme. Secondly, it is going to strengthen offence, enforcement and compliance provisions for tobacco products. Thirdly, it will make consequential amendments to reflect the Commonwealth’s ban on the retail sale of non-therapeutic vaping goods. It is also going to amend the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 to remove regulatory barriers to enforcement and allow for inspectors and licensing inspectors to possess nicotine in the performance of their functions or exercising relevant powers. It is going to make consequential amendments to the Spent Convictions Act 2021 to permit information about a person’s criminal record to be provided to the regulator of the licensing scheme, and it will make amendments to the Confiscation Act 1997 to ensure that illicit tobacco convictions and vaping goods convictions are subject to the confiscation regime set out in that act.

This bill is not some kind of afterthought. This is a comprehensive bill. It is going to address this issue, and the work is absolutely well and truly underway. I am very pleased to have heard the member for Ovens Valley, who I have a lot of time for. I was pleased to hear that the opposition will not be opposing this bill, and that is wonderful. However, there is a reasoned amendment, which will have the perverse outcome of delaying this even further, and yet we are hearing that urgency is required. So I do say it is wonderful the bill is not being opposed, but it is a little bit baffling that the reasoned amendment states:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government conducts further consultation with affected stakeholders on when the licensing scheme should come into effect.’

We want this in by the end of the year. We have another sitting week to go, and we are working hard to ensure that the first stage commences by the end of this year. We are in November now, so this reasoned amendment is not a great idea, may I say, because over there on that side they are talking about timing. This would actually delay it further, so we will put that one aside.

The first stage, which comes into effect by the end of this year, will establish the licensing scheme. It will allow the regulator to appoint and train licensing inspectors, because without these elements in place it cannot work. We cannot put the cart before the horse. We have got to set up the framework in order for the next part to come through. So this first stage is going to allow licence applications to be made and determined in advance of the requirement for businesses to hold a licence. We cannot turn around and simply say to businesses ‘You need to have a licence in the next few months’ without actually having the scheme set up first. We have to build the house before we can move people into it.

In the first stage we are also going to amend the existing offences and powers in the Tobacco Act and repeal the e-cigarette and specialist tobacconist provisions. These penalties are going to come into effect. This is incredibly important. The second stage will be in early 2026. That will introduce the licensing offences and the enforcement powers of licensing inspectors, enabling penalties to be applied to tobacco suppliers operating without a licence. Once again, we have got to set the system up before we can start penalising people for not being part of a system. There has to be time involved, and most of those licensees will be small businesses. We cannot put that impost on them to just quickly turn this around in a matter of a few months, so it does take time to set it up and we have to give a reasonable time to businesses to be able to apply for and receive their licence. So I think it is really important to just look at that time frame. One of the reasons why we have said by early 2026 is so it will be fully operational and in effect. I have actually had a licence myself – not to sell tobacco, obviously, but to sell alcohol – and there is work involved in running a licensing scheme. I had two liquor licences – one was for sale and the other for supply – in my two different businesses, and there is a lot of work involved, so fingers cannot be clicked and licensing schemes put into effect overnight.

I did want to speak about another issue, though. Probably one of the real concerns that we all have is the criminality that has emerged that we have seen across the state. Many, many people are concerned. There are people who have been witness to or involved somehow, directly or indirectly, with firebombings of tobacco stores. We have seen it on the news and some people have seen it in their communities, and it has been horrendous to watch. There is another element too, and that is parents and teachers who are watching children take up vaping at increasingly younger ages – children who are addicted to nicotine in primary school, let alone in secondary school. This is a real cause for concern.

My daughter two years ago, when we were sat in the car, said ‘Mum, I’ve got a friend who is addicted to vapes.’ I said, ‘Really? She’s addicted to vapes?’ She was 13. I said, ‘That’s really awful. How is she getting them?’ My daughter said, ‘She orders them online, Mum. A box of about 48 turns up at her house.’ I said, ‘What? Are you sure?’ I was thinking maybe there was a little bit of extra mayo being put on the bread there. So my daughter said, ‘When we get home, I’ll show you.’ We went home and she showed me her phone and said, ‘This is the website that she buys her vapes from.’ I said, ‘Show me this.’ And she went, ‘This is how you do it. You click on there.’ The first thing that comes up says, ‘Are you 18 or older?’, and if you click ‘No’ it says ‘Come back later.’ So then she said, ‘So you just go back in, Mum, and you click “Yes”, and when you click “Yes” there are all these multicoloured vapes you can buy.’ It looks like the colours of the rainbow, all fruity flavours, and that just arrives at your house on your doorstep three days later. That is how frightening it has been, so the regulations of this bill are so important to me as a parent and to parents I know.

In that regard this is critical as well, because these people who are supplying children with nicotine products one way or another need to be hauled over the coals, they need to be held accountable and they need to be fined. That is why, as the member for Ovens Valley pointed out, the fines we are going to be dishing out through this bill are wonderful to see because they are absolutely going to deter the criminality that we are seeing, which is impacting the health of Victorians and, more concerningly even, the health of our youngest Victorians. It is an abomination to see what has been happening.

So I am incredibly delighted to be the first from our side here today speaking on this bill. I thank the members of PAEC. I did say I wanted to speak a little bit more, and I will make this comment about PAEC, because I believe the member for Ovens Valley – and he has left the chamber, so I am afraid he cannot confirm or not – said that part of the work the coalition had done was referring it to PAEC. Well, how about turning up to PAEC to actually be there for the hearings when it came to this? Because I believe it was only Mrs McArthur who turned up a couple of times, and others were absent. So when there was excellent testimony being given by police, by teachers and by young people themselves, those opposite were not there. That is really unfortunate because the work that PAEC did was thorough and comprehensive, and we have them and the minister to thank for this exceptional bill, which I commend to the house.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:53): Acting Speaker O’Keeffe, lovely to see you in the chair to hear me speak on the Tobacco Amendment (Tobacco Retailer and Wholesaler Licensing Scheme) Bill 2024 and to immediately refute anyone who has not sat on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee for 10 years on what goes on at PAEC.

Anthony Carbines interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am due for long service leave. I might have to talk to my union about that, Minister. The member suggested that those opposite her did not turn up to the PAEC hearings. I was there listening to police, I was there listening to VicHealth and various others. I did not manage to get to Shepparton, sadly – because it is a beautiful city, isn’t it, Acting Speaker O’Keeffe – because that and one of the other hearings were in fact scheduled at the same time as cabinet and shadow cabinet meetings. So there are reasons that we cannot always get to all the things that we want to, but as the Minister for Police at the table knows very well, when it comes to PAEC I am like the cockroach that will not go away and continues to turn up, as I will be doing again for five days next week. I will be doing it again for five days next week, and the minister will be happy that it is not him at the table this time, but I will be terrorising his department and his chief commissioner and various others, and no doubt on this issue as well, because whilst we are certainly not opposing this legislation, having moved our own legislation last week waiting for the delay, this legislation has been a long, long time coming.

I remember dealing with a constituent who was concerned about the issue of illegal cigarettes and the like and writing to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure now, who I think was the Minister for Consumer Affairs at the time, Minister Pearson, and asking what had happened to the Better Regulation Victoria report, which was done two and a bit years ago now. The government had that report, did not respond to it and did not release it publicly, and it recommended of course at the time that the government introduce a regulation scheme.

It is a bit rich for the government this week to say, ‘This is really urgent; we’ve got to introduce it tomorrow.’ Yes, we agree it is really urgent, but the government has had more than two years to know about this. The firebombings started in March 2023. The Premier announced in March this year that they would do something, yet here we are with two weeks to go at the end of the year and finally the government is doing something and saying to the Parliament, ‘We’re not going to give you time to read the 138 pages in this bill; we want to rush it through this week.’ I think the opposition, far from being the blockers that the government likes to claim we are, are being extremely reasonable in making sure that this legislation goes through this week to ensure that the Victorian community is protected, because the government has not been doing its job. It has taken so long to respond to this issue, and for it now to come forward and say, ‘Don’t worry about it, trust us, here are 138 pages and some of the detail we’ll work out later,’ is symptomatic of this chaotic government, to be honest.

Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction, and from what opportunity we have had to read the bill and also from the bill briefing it does broadly touch on the issues that we think need to be touched on and need to be introduced. The licensing scheme is obviously the key thing, because it then gives the authorities, in particular the proposed new agency or regulator within the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the police, the ability to actually regulate and therefore to shut down those who are doing this illegally. The addendum to that, and this is where the minister at the table and his crew come in, is that when there is in fact actual criminal activity – illegal cigarettes importation, organised crime involvement, and we know that obviously there is organised crime involvement in this – then that is where the police will come in as well.

But we need to get this happening, and that is why I support the member for Ovens Valley’s reasoned amendment, because it is a reasonable amendment. It is a reasonable amendment to say, ‘You can’t rush this in in two weeks and then say you’re actually not going to have it fully operational until 1 July 2026.’ One does wonder what it is within the bureaucracy or within the cabinet or within the government, whatever the issue is, that it is going to take that long to get this whole thing up and going. And to answer the member for Monbulk’s question, our reasoned amendment does not delay this in any way, shape or form if the government sticks to 1 July 2026, because we would have the government work it out over the next week, if it chose to, in a quick consultation with the community and the stakeholders, and would actually be able to ensure that they can bring a date forward that is workable. If not, at the very worst we would bring it back in the first week of the sitting next year in February. It is not going to change when this is going to be introduced on the current arrangements. The member for Ovens Valley raised that issue very well.

One of the other two issues that I was concerned about is that we do not yet know what the cost of registration will be. We need to ensure that the legitimate businesses – whether they are mum-and-dad corner stores, whether they are smaller businesses, whether they are the big supermarket chains or whether they are pubs and clubs that are selling cigarettes – are not adversely affected by this as well. This needs to be particularly focused on the criminal element, and likewise that is why we need to know what the cost of registration is going to be. Is it 500 bucks? Is it 5000 bucks? I am concerned about that. I am also concerned, as the member for Ovens Valley highlighted, that we do not yet even know things like what the definition is of a commercial quantity of illicit tobacco for the very big fines that are being introduced in this. I think it again highlights the chaotic nature of what this government is doing in not knowing the answer to all these questions, and there are questions with that. We look at the moment at cost recovery. We would expect that that is going to be the case here, but we are seeing way over cost recovery with the government on probate fees. But I am looking at the clock. I am very happy to support this legislation. I will support the member for Ovens Valley’s reasoned amendment, and I hope that it will be successful.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.