Intended for healthcare professionals

Editorials

New Zealand reverses landmark tobacco controls

BMJ 2023; 383 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078799 (Published 08 December 2023) Cite this as: BMJ 2023;383:e078799

Linked Opinion

Sunak’s smoke-free generation: spare a thought for the tobacco industry

  1. Martin McKee, professor of European public health,
  2. Nicholas S Hopkinson, professor of respiratory medicine2
  1. 1London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  2. 2Imperial College, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to: M McKee martin.mckee{at}lshtm.ac.uk

An “unconscionable blow to the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders”

Plans by the new government of New Zealand (Aotearoa) to abandon pioneering tobacco control measures have been condemned by the Māori health organisation Hāpai Te Hauora as an “unconscionable blow to the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.”1 The abandoned measures include progressively raising the legal age of sale for tobacco products to create a smoke-free generation, reducing retail outlets, and removing nicotine from tobacco products.23 Smoking is both uniquely lethal and a key driver of health inequality worldwide.4 In particular, tobacco related deaths have a substantial role in the persisting life expectancy gap between Māori and other New Zealand people.5 Much of the momentum for decisive action to eliminate tobacco smoking came from Māori leaders, who called for a return to the country’s original tupeka kore (tobacco-free) status.1 Tobacco was introduced by European colonists, so smoking and the tobacco industry are seen as manifestations of colonisation.

Narrowing the health gap

In response to the smoke-free 2025 goal adopted by the National Party in 2011,6 a Labour led government, headed by Jacinda Ardern, enacted comprehensive tobacco control legislation. This came into force at the beginning of 2023, following extensive community engagement, and included the establishment of a Māori governance group. A modelling study estimated that the three measures included in the legislation would save NZ$1.3bn (£630m; €740m; $800m) in healthcare costs, prevent over 8000 deaths over 20 years, and narrow the Māori health gap substantially in both men and women.7

Most of the opposition to the legislation came from the tobacco industry, its front groups, and allies. When in opposition the National Party had supported the specific measures in the legislation, particularly removing nicotine from tobacco products. They disagreed only on the order in which they should be implemented.

It therefore seemed inconceivable that any future government would choose to reject these popular and evidence based measures and face the local and international condemnation that would inevitably result from supporting an industry whose products are so damaging to people’s health. Yet this is exactly what has happened.

After the general election in October 2023, the National Party, which won most seats, negotiated to form a coalition with two smaller parties, the libertarian ACT party and the populist New Zealand First party. During negotiations the National Party capitulated to the demands of the two minor parties and announced that the coalition would repeal the smoke-free laws.

The new finance minister has asserted that abandoning the smoke-free legislation would result in increased smoking and revenue from tobacco taxation to help plug a fiscal gap left by tax cuts. Yet this supposed “fiscal win” ignores direct costs of smoking to societies through increased spending on healthcare and social care, as well as reduced productivity, which substantially exceed tax takes.8910 Moreover, spending on tobacco products sucks money out of the poorest communities and creates a drag on the economy. The policy U-turn is bad economics as well as a failure to protect the health of citizens. It is also morally questionable to repeal laws that would improve both the health and the finances of people on low incomes who currently smoke, to deliver tax cuts for more wealthy people.

The libertarian ideology behind this decision also derives from a meagre view of freedom—one that ignores loss of the positive freedom for individuals to live a long life free from preventable disability caused by lung disease, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, and thus their freedom to breathe, walk, work, socialise, and care for grandchildren. It also ignores the loss of freedom that comes from being subject to an addiction that typically starts in childhood.

Powerful signal

By making this choice, the National Party government has sent a powerful signal to Māori people that it is willing to prioritise short term fiscal and political expediency over their long term health. It is understandable that there have been calls for the health minister, Shane Reti, who for many years worked as a general practitioner, to resign rather than continue to be associated with a measure that will cost so many lives.

There is another reason why this decision is surprising. The National Party, when it was last in government, was embroiled in a scandal that involved lobbying by the tobacco and alcohol industry and which led to the resignation of the party’s then justice minister.11 In these circumstances, the current leadership might be expected to wish to avoid anything that could cause people to question its motives.

Inevitably, people outside New Zealand will ask whether this shocking policy reversal has implications for their countries. We believe this is unlikely. In particular, the UK prime minister’s plan to introduce legislation increasing the age of sale of tobacco products in England has widespread public and cross-party support. We sincerely hope that Rishi Sunak adheres to his commitment and that New Zealand’s prime minister, Christopher Luxon, will admit his mistake and reinstate the country as a world leader in tobacco control.

Acknowledgments

We thank Richard Edwards and Michael Baker for their helpful comments.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: NSH is chair of Action on Smoking and Health ASH(UK), and medical director of Asthma+Lung UK. MM is past president of the BMA, which has a long history of supporting measures to reduce tobacco related harm.

  • Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

References