The Test Has Been Run. It’s Time to Mark the Results.

The Australian Labor Party will gather for its National Conference from 23–25 July. Delegates will debate policy, celebrate achievements and set priorities for the years ahead. Among the many issues that will be discussed, there is one that deserves far greater attention than it is likely to receive. Not because it is politically divisive, but because enough time has now passed for Australia’s vaping legislation to be judged against the promises that were made when it was introduced.

When the Government announced its pharmacy-only therapeutic model, Australians were told the reforms were necessary to protect public health. Parliament was presented with an extensive Impact Analysis that outlined exactly what the legislation was expected to achieve. These were not vague aspirations or political slogans. They were measurable policy objectives intended to justify one of the most restrictive nicotine regulatory frameworks in the democratic world.

Public policy should always be judged by outcomes rather than intentions. Governments are entitled to introduce ambitious reforms, but they also have a responsibility to determine whether those reforms delivered what they promised. If a policy succeeds, it deserves recognition. If it falls short, it deserves honest reassessment. That is the foundation of evidence-based policymaking. Evidence should not simply be used to justify legislation; it should also determine whether that legislation remains fit for purpose once it has been implemented.

The legislation has now been in place long enough for that assessment to begin. The implementation phase is over. The evaluation phase should already be underway. Yet remarkably little public discussion has focused on whether the Government’s own objectives have actually been achieved. Instead, much of the debate has centred on defending the legislation itself, as though questioning the policy is somehow questioning public health. That approach misunderstands how evidence-based policymaking is supposed to function. Evidence is not meant to shield governments from scrutiny. It is meant to invite it.

The most important questions today are practical rather than ideological. Has youth vaping declined because of these reforms? Have adult smokers embraced the therapeutic pharmacy model? Has access to lower-risk nicotine products become more effective? Has the illicit vaping market been reduced? Has compliance improved? Has the overall public health outcome improved? These are not questions invented by critics. They arise directly from the objectives the Government itself identified when seeking support for the legislation.

Perhaps the clearest indication that the policy has failed lies in the behaviour of adult consumers themselves. The therapeutic model assumed smokers wishing to switch to vaping would willingly enter a medical framework, obtain prescriptions where required, consult healthcare professionals and purchase nicotine vaping products through pharmacies. That assumption has proven deeply flawed. Adult consumers have overwhelmingly rejected the therapeutic model. Rather than creating a functioning legal pathway, the reforms have pushed many consumers towards an illicit market that was already growing before the legislation took effect. Restricting legal supply has not eliminated demand. It has simply redirected it.

This exposes one of the most striking contradictions in Australia’s nicotine policy. Cigarettes, the product responsible for almost all tobacco-related disease and death, remain widely available through thousands of retail outlets across the country. Yet products that many smokers have successfully used to quit cigarettes have been placed behind one of the most restrictive regulatory systems in the world. The result is a policy where the deadliest nicotine product remains the easiest to obtain while significantly lower-risk alternatives have become substantially more difficult to access legally. That contradiction becomes harder to justify with each passing month.

Australia’s approach to tobacco control has been shaped by policies developed for a world in which combustible cigarettes were the only widely available nicotine product. That world no longer exists. The emergence of lower-risk nicotine alternatives has fundamentally changed the policy landscape. Effective public health depends on responding to new evidence, not simply applying yesterday’s solutions to today’s challenges. When governments become more committed to defending existing policy than evaluating its outcomes, they risk allowing ideology to replace evidence and stagnation to replace progress.

The Government itself recognised that these reforms should ultimately be judged by their outcomes. Its Impact Analysis did not simply provide the rationale for introducing the legislation; it identified six measurable objectives that the policy was expected to achieve. Those objectives formed the basis upon which Parliament was asked to support these reforms and provided the benchmark against which success should later be measured. That point has now arrived. The Government’s own timeline anticipated that these objectives would be assessed by now. The question is no longer whether the legislation was well-intentioned. The question is whether it has delivered what it promised. If those objectives have not been achieved, evidence-based policymaking demands an honest reassessment rather than a continued defence of the status quo.

Perhaps the strongest evidence comes from looking across the Tasman Sea. Australia and New Zealand share remarkably similar populations, healthcare systems, smoking histories and tobacco control traditions. Yet they chose fundamentally different approaches to nicotine vaping. Australia increasingly embraced a pharmacy-only therapeutic model designed to minimise access. New Zealand regulates vaping as a consumer product with strict safeguards while maintaining accessibility for adult smokers seeking an alternative to cigarettes.

The outcomes are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. New Zealand has experienced substantial declines in smoking prevalence. Youth smoking has fallen to historically low levels. Youth vaping, after an initial increase, has also declined significantly. At the same time, New Zealand has avoided developing the widespread illicit vaping market that now dominates much of Australia’s nicotine landscape. No country gets every aspect of policy right, but when two otherwise comparable nations pursue different regulatory models, and one consistently performs better across multiple indicators, policymakers have a responsibility to ask why.

Unfortunately, much of Australia’s response has been to double down rather than reflect. Instead of asking whether the assumptions underpinning the legislation were correct, there have been repeated calls for even stronger restrictions. This risks confusing determination with effectiveness. Persisting with a policy despite mounting evidence of unintended consequences is not evidence-based policymaking. It is policy inertia.

The Labor National Conference provides an opportunity to change that. Delegates should not simply ask whether the legislation was well-intentioned. They should revisit the six objectives contained in the Government’s own Impact Analysis and compare them with the evidence now available. Which objectives have been achieved? Which have fallen short? Which have produced unintended consequences? If the policy has succeeded, the evidence should demonstrate that. If it has not, then there should be an honest discussion about why, what assumptions proved incorrect and whether a different regulatory approach would better serve both smokers and public health.

This is not about abandoning tobacco control. It is about restoring accountability to public policy. Governments should not be criticised because they change course in response to evidence. They should be criticised when they refuse to do so. The willingness to acknowledge that a policy has not delivered the intended outcomes is not a sign of failure. It is a sign of integrity. Science advances by testing hypotheses against evidence. Public policy should operate no differently.

The Labor Conference should not be remembered simply as another gathering of party members. It should be remembered as the moment when Australia’s governing party was prepared to examine its own policy with the same rigour it expects from everyone else. The Government created the benchmarks. It established the objectives. It asked Parliament and the Australian public to trust that the legislation would achieve them.

Now the test has been run.

It is time to mark the results.