Why?
In recent years, Australia and New Zealand have taken markedly different approaches to vaping regulations, leading to contrasting outcomes in smoking rates. A study published in Addiction highlights these differences, revealing that New Zealand’s more lenient stance on vaping has contributed to a more significant decline in smoking rates compared to Australia’s stringent policies.
Australia’s Strict Vaping Regulations and Their Consequences
Australia has implemented rigorous controls on vaping products, classifying nicotine-containing e-cigarettes as prescription-only items. This means individuals must obtain a doctor’s prescription to legally access these products. The intent behind this policy is to prevent non-smokers, especially youth, from picking up vaping habits.
However, between 2016 and 2023, Australia’s daily smoking rate decreased from 12.2% to 8.3%, averaging a 5% annual decline. While this indicates progress, the decline is relatively modest compared to New Zealand’s figures.
Critics argue that Australia’s restrictive approach may inadvertently hinder smokers from accessing safer alternatives like vaping, potentially slowing the decline in smoking rates. Additionally, the high cost of cigarettes, driven by escalating tobacco taxes, has led to a burgeoning black market for tobacco products. This illicit trade not only undermines public health efforts but has also been linked to increased gang violence and organized crime.
New Zealand’s Pragmatic Approach to Vaping
In contrast, New Zealand has adopted a more pragmatic approach, recognizing vaping as a tool for harm reduction. The country has implemented regulations that ensure product safety and restrict sales to minors but remain accessible to adult smokers seeking alternatives.
This strategy has yielded impressive results. From 2016 to 2023, New Zealand’s daily smoking rate plummeted from 14.5% to 6.8%, marking a 10% annual decline—twice the rate observed in Australia.
The most significant reductions were observed among younger adults and the Māori population. For instance, smoking rates among Māori declined nearly three times as fast as among Australia’s Indigenous population (16% vs. 6% per year from 2019 to 2023).
Population-Adjusted Metrics
To provide a clearer comparison, let’s consider the smoking rate declines relative to each country’s population:
- Australia: With a population of approximately 25 million, the daily smoking rate decreased from 12.2% (about 3.05 million people) in 2016 to 8.3% (about 2.075 million people) in 2023. This represents a reduction of approximately 975,000 daily smokers over seven years.
- New Zealand: With a population of around 5 million, the daily smoking rate fell from 14.5% (about 725,000 people) in 2016 to 6.8% (about 340,000 people) in 2023. This equates to a reduction of approximately 385,000 daily smokers in the same period.
When adjusted for population size, New Zealand’s decline translates to a reduction of 7.7% of its total population, while Australia’s reduction is about 3.9%. This comparison underscores the more substantial impact of New Zealand’s policies on reducing smoking prevalence.
The Role of Tobacco Tax Revenue in Policy Decisions
One major factor influencing these contrasting approaches is the role of tobacco tax revenue in each country. Australia imposes some of the highest tobacco taxes globally, generating approximately AUD 12.7 billion in excise and customs duty in 2022–23. However, an estimated AUD 2.7 billion in revenue was lost due to illicit tobacco sales.
New Zealand’s tobacco tax revenue is significantly lower due to its smaller population and different taxation policies. While New Zealand has also implemented high tobacco taxes, it has complemented them with harm reduction strategies, including the promotion of vaping as a less harmful alternative to smoking.
Australia’s reliance on tobacco tax revenue presents a complex challenge. While high taxes are meant to deter smoking, they have also led to a thriving black market. The high cost of legal cigarettes has made illicit tobacco an attractive alternative for many smokers, fueling organized crime and undermining public health initiatives.
New Zealand, on the other hand, has balanced high taxation with pragmatic harm reduction strategies. By endorsing vaping as a safer alternative, the country has achieved greater smoking cessation success without the unintended consequences of black market expansion.
Conclusion
The contrasting outcomes between Australia and New Zealand highlight the potential benefits of adopting flexible, harm-reduction-focused vaping regulations. While Australia’s stringent policies aim to protect public health, they may inadvertently impede smokers’ access to safer alternatives and contribute to unintended consequences like black market proliferation.
New Zealand’s approach demonstrates that pragmatic regulations, which balance safety with accessibility, can lead to more substantial declines in smoking rates. As countries worldwide grapple with tobacco control, these findings suggest that embracing harm reduction strategies, including regulated vaping, could be a more effective path toward reducing smoking-related harm.