Victoria Liberals Push Longer Shop Closures and Seizures

Victoria’s Liberal opposition wants authorities to close shops for up to 150 days and allow landlords to terminate tenants’ leases without compensation, using an election pledge to expand the state’s enforcement powers over illicit tobacco sales.

In October 2026, Rohan Pike, a former federal police officer who established the Australian Border Force’s illegal tobacco unit and founded the Tobacco Strike Team, said: “Our government simply hasn’t cared about this problem for many years, and it’s just allowed it to fester and get completely out of control.” He was criticising Labor’s response. Under the Liberals’ proposed measures, authorised officers, police and landlords would gain more power, while shop operators and tenants could face closures, seizures and the loss of their leases.

The proposed powers

Liberal leader Jess Wilson said the party would extend short-term closure orders from 90 days to 150 days if it wins the upcoming election, matching stronger provisions in South Australia. The plan would also allow landlords to end a tenant’s lease without compensation after authorities issue a short-term closure order. A state order could therefore do more than shut a business: the tenant could lose the lease without compensation.

The Liberals also want to ban ATMs at retailers found selling illicit tobacco or operating without a licence. Authorised officers could seize all tobacco and e-cigarette products when they identify breaches. The party wants illicit tobacco sales made a specific offence under proposed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws, which it says draw on U.S. laws targeting organised crime bosses.

Wilson said Labor’s current measures had failed. “Victorians are sick of seeing illegal tobacco shops closed for a few weeks, then back open for business as if nothing happened,” she said. She claimed the number of outlets selling illicit tobacco had soared under Labor’s watch and said criminals behind them were firebombing businesses and extorting owners. The Liberals say their government would give authorities the power to shut these operations and keep them closed.

Labor’s enforcement record

In September 2026, new laws gave inspectors and police the power to close businesses found selling illegal tobacco products. The government said Tobacco Licensing Victoria was finding smaller quantities of illicit tobacco on premises and that some shops were choosing to close themselves. A government spokesperson said inspectors were “already out in force”: they had closed more than 130 shops and seized more than $14 million in illicit tobacco.

The spokesperson also said the Magistrates’ Court could already issue longer-term closure orders and that landlords could terminate leases because of those orders. In the government’s account, then, part of the Liberals’ proposed crackdown would extend powers that already exist, rather than introduce an entirely new tool.

The Liberal opposition tied illicit tobacco and vape sales to arson attacks at 300 businesses and homes across the state. That is the party’s stated connection; the article gives no further details about the attacks or accounts from affected residents and shop owners. It also describes no community-led action or mutual aid. The proposed response relies on institutional enforcement: closures, seizures, lease termination and a new criminal offence.

The parties trade warnings

The government spokesperson attacked the opposition’s wider program, saying: “The biggest threat to this crackdown is the Liberal-One Nation Coalition’s $40 billion cuts plan, which would undermine the inspectors and police doing this vital work and let illicit operators off the hook.” That claim comes from Labor in the same political fight over which authorities should receive power and resources.

Wilson’s promise depends on the Liberals winning the upcoming election. The government points to closures and seizures already made, while the opposition says those measures haven’t stopped illicit sales and proposes longer closures and broader powers. Both parties present government agencies, courts and control over commercial premises as the answer. People facing the orders are left to absorb the consequences.