Aotearoa New Zealand's 'endgame' legislation: a critical analysis of the parliamentary repeal debate using an adapted policy dystopia model approach.

INTRODUCTION

In February 2024, Aotearoa New Zealand's newly elected coalition Government repealed policies to reduce the addictiveness, availability and accessibility of smoked tobacco. The repeal lacked a robust rationale, was contrary to public opinion, and passed under urgency, a process that bypasses external review. To inform international endgame policy development and implementation, we critically reviewed arguments presented during the repeal debate.

METHODS

We analysed the verbatim parliamentary debate (Hansard) using an approach modelled on the Policy Dystopia Model, a framework developed to critique tobacco companies' discursive strategies. We identified and reviewed counter-arguments alleging anti-democratic processes would increase health, economic and social inequities, and then classified these claims in relation to equity and democratic rights.

RESULTS

Coalition arguments described structural policies as unnecessary and proposed returning to individually focused measures, such as smoking cessation support. Coalition party members claimed the repealed measures would have promoted illicit trade and retail crime, and reduced public safety and freedom, arguments favoured by tobacco companies. Opposition members' arguments alleged antidemocratic processes breached constitutional obligations to Aotearoa's Indigenous Peoples, and predicted socially and economically regressive outcomes would follow the repeal.

CONCLUSIONS

Coalition arguments presented dystopic outcomes while Opposition arguments highlighted process flaws that threatened democracy and equity. Researchers and advocates should continue to document the weak and contradictory empirical support for tobacco companies' arguments. However, future activities should expose tobacco companies' connections with politicians, demand stronger compliance with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and promote strong lobbying regulations.