Closing the Doors on Illegal Tobacco and Questioning Confiscation Powers

The balance of enforcement

In the House, we have been debating the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 2026. This legislation aims to address the growing concern of illegal tobacco and vaping products in our community. As a doctor, I have seen the damage that these products can cause, and I support measures that curb the influence of organised crime in our shops and streets. However, as your representative in the Legislative Council, I must ensure that the laws we pass are not just tough, but also fair and proportionate.

The debate this week has focused heavily on the use of closure orders. These tools are designed to shut down businesses that profit from illicit sales. I am pleased that common sense amendments were prioritised. We are all striving for a cleaner, safer retail environment for our families.

Are you getting as much out of my parliamentary updates as possible? I share behind-the-scenes insights into the legislation I am working on, and I would love for you to follow along with the progress. Please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel to stay informed on the issues that really matter to our state.

A dangerous precedent

My primary concern during this session was not the tobacco control itself, but the broader mechanism of confiscation. I proposed an amendment to ensure that this bill could not be used to trigger the draconian provisions of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. In my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape, and I certainly have not seen a society improved by legislation that remains fundamentally flawed.

The Criminal Property Confiscation Act has sat in our statutes for years, with a major report from 2019 highlighting its deep issues. Yet, it remains an active weapon for the State. If we do not explicitly exclude new laws from its scope, we risk a situation where the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions might use these broad powers in ways that were never intended. This is not just bureaucratic policy. It is a risk to the assets and livelihoods of citizens if our legal framework becomes too blunt. We need precision, not broad, sweeping powers that can be applied to unexpected situations.

The fight for clarity

While the government and other parties did not support my move to explicitly carve out these confiscation risks, the conversation remains vital. The law must always be clear. When we leave doors open for potential legal overreach, we create an environment of uncertainty. The evidence I have seen suggests that we are still far from where we need to be in terms of protecting the rule of law while tackling organised crime.

I will continue to push for transparency and for a reform of our confiscation laws that matches the standard of justice Western Australians expect. You can review the full Hansard record of our proceedings for a detailed account of these discussions. If you believe, as I do, that our laws must be guided by evidence and compassion rather than just blunt force, I invite you to join Legalise Cannabis WA and help us build a more reasoned, forward-thinking future.