The Conversation Australia Needed to Have

There are moments in public policy when the conversation itself becomes more important than the conclusions. They are the moments when ideas that have been dismissed for years suddenly enter the mainstream and questions that were once considered unacceptable are finally asked in one of the nation’s most influential forums. The National Press Club discussion on Australia’s illicit tobacco crisis felt like one of those moments.

For years, Australia’s illicit tobacco market has grown in the background while public debate remained focused almost exclusively on reducing smoking prevalence. Success was measured largely by declining smoking statistics, stronger legislation and larger enforcement operations. Meanwhile, organised crime quietly built one of the country’s most profitable illegal industries. Today, that contradiction was finally placed under the spotlight.

The discussion, led by Rohan Pike, Dr Nick Coatsworth and Mary Aldred, acknowledged something many Australians have observed for years: the illicit tobacco crisis is no longer simply a policing issue, nor is it merely a taxation problem. It has become a test of whether public policy is capable of recognising and responding to its own unintended consequences.

What made the discussion particularly refreshing was that it moved beyond political slogans. There was very little attempt to portray the situation as simple. Instead, the audience was presented with a reality that is inherently complex. Australia has spent decades building one of the world’s strongest tobacco control systems, and smoking has undoubtedly declined substantially over that period. Those achievements deserve recognition. But another reality now exists alongside that success. Australia has also created one of the world’s largest illicit nicotine markets. Recognising one reality does not require denying the other. In many ways, that willingness to hold two competing truths at once was the defining feature of the afternoon.

Rohan Pike spoke from decades of operational experience in border protection and illicit tobacco enforcement. His presentation was notable because it challenged the assumption that today’s illicit market emerged simply because criminals became more determined or law enforcement became less effective. His argument was more uncomfortable than that. He suggested the market developed because public policy created the economic conditions in which organised crime could thrive. As excise increased year after year, the profits available to criminal organisations became increasingly irresistible. Once demand met extraordinary profit margins, a sophisticated illegal market was almost inevitable.

That observation fundamentally changes the nature of the debate. If policy helped create the incentives, then enforcement alone cannot remove them. Pike repeatedly returned to this central point. Every record-breaking seizure is presented as evidence that authorities are winning. Every raid generates another headline. Every shipment intercepted demonstrates impressive operational work by police, Border Force and state agencies. Yet those same record seizures can also be interpreted another way. They may simply indicate the extraordinary scale of the market itself. As Pike noted, the volume intercepted still represents only a fraction of what ultimately reaches Australian consumers, while the illicit market continues operating because demand remains enormous and profits remain exceptional.

This is an important distinction because seizure statistics measure activity, not necessarily success. Success should ultimately be measured by whether the illicit market is shrinking. That question deserves far greater public attention. Pike also argued that Australia still lacks a coherent national strategy with clearly defined objectives and measurable outcomes. Governments regularly announce new enforcement initiatives, new taskforces and additional funding, yet Australians rarely hear how success will actually be judged beyond counting seizures and shop closures. Public policy deserves better than activity metrics. It deserves outcome metrics.

Dr Nick Coatsworth approached the same problem from an entirely different direction. Rather than beginning with organised crime, he began with science. His discussion of the recent National Drug Strategy Household Survey was one of the most intellectually honest moments of the afternoon because he neither rejected the survey nor accepted it uncritically. Instead, he reminded the audience how science is supposed to work. Surveys provide estimates rather than absolute truth. Different methodologies produce different results and, when multiple sources point in different directions, scientists should become more curious rather than less. Wastewater analysis, state surveys and national surveys each contribute different pieces of evidence. Rather than immediately declaring victory, they should prompt further investigation into why those differences exist.

That may sound obvious, yet it represents something increasingly rare in highly politicised policy debates: scientific humility. Good science is not afraid of uncertainty. Good science asks questions before reaching conclusions.

Perhaps Coatsworth’s most powerful observation was not statistical at all but philosophical. He argued that Australia has gradually conflated nicotine with smoking, so the two concepts are no longer treated as distinct. Instead, nicotine itself has increasingly become the target of policy, even though the overwhelming burden of disease comes from inhaling smoke produced by combustion rather than nicotine itself.

That distinction changes everything. If combustion is the primary cause of smoking-related disease, then moving smokers away from combustion becomes an obvious public health objective. That does not mean vaping is harmless, nor does it require ignoring youth nicotine use. It simply means recognising relative risk and allowing evidence to guide policy.

Coatsworth drew attention to international evidence supporting this broader perspective. He referenced findings from the Royal College of Physicians and highlighted New Zealand’s experience, where smoking has fallen rapidly while vaping became more accessible. These examples were presented not as perfect models but as evidence that harm reduction deserves serious consideration rather than automatic dismissal.

Perhaps the most memorable sentence of the afternoon was his observation that Australia has achieved something remarkable, although not in a good way. We have made cigarettes easy to buy illegally while making regulated, lower-risk alternatives difficult to obtain legally. Few sentences better capture Australia’s current policy paradox.

Mary Aldred complemented these perspectives by reinforcing that the illicit tobacco market has become an economic, regulatory and governance challenge as much as a health issue. Her contribution highlighted the broader consequences for legitimate businesses, taxpayers and public confidence in government institutions.

Taken together, the three presentations formed something unusually coherent. One speaker examined policing, another examined medicine, and another examined public policy. Each approached the issue from a different professional background, yet all arrived at remarkably similar conclusions. Australia’s current strategy has produced unintended consequences that can no longer be dismissed as temporary or incidental.

Perhaps the greatest value of the discussion was not that everyone agreed. Healthy democracies should expect disagreement. Its value lay in expanding the boundaries of acceptable discussion. For many years, questioning Australia’s tobacco control strategy has often been portrayed as questioning tobacco control itself. The National Press Club demonstrated that this is a false choice. It is entirely possible to support reducing smoking while also questioning whether current policies remain the most effective way to achieve that goal. It is entirely possible to support strong tobacco regulation while asking whether prohibition has strengthened organised crime. It is entirely possible to oppose youth nicotine use while recognising that adult smokers deserve access to substantially lower-risk alternatives.

These are not contradictions. They are precisely the kinds of difficult questions mature public policy should be willing to confront.

Perhaps that is why the National Press Club discussion felt so important. Not because it solved Australia’s illicit tobacco crisis. Not because it produced instant consensus. But because it did something that has been missing for far too long. It reopened the conversation.

If Australia is serious about achieving a smoke-free future, then that conversation cannot end with enforcement alone. It must also include regulation, economics, consumer behaviour, organised crime, scientific transparency and, above all, tobacco harm reduction. Only by considering all of those pieces together can Australia hope to build a policy that reduces smoking, weakens organised crime and restores confidence that public health decisions are being guided by evidence rather than ideology.

That, more than anything else, is why today’s discussion mattered.