Sent to RNZ and Stuff:

Some will say 'follow the money' as 15% of each vape transaction goes into government coffers, the pressure from a powerful vape lobby, a reluctance to alienate vape shop owners, dairies et al ..

The answer may also lie in a bit of 'Yes Minister', and 'The Emperor (here Empress) has no clothes' or a mentality considered to have contributed to Fukushima causes, specifically a culture of lack of criticism or open discussion even when serious risks and other problems are identified.

An extraordinary paper (1) professing to review and question the government response to vaping problems in NZ was published by the Public Health Communications Centre Aotearoa (PHCC), University of Otago.  Unfortunately PHCC straddles the University/Government divide, so is not 'independent'. Several of the authors are in the Department of Public Health, which advises the Ministry of Health on health matters.

Hence there are several glaring conflicts of interest. The Dept presumably would have advised the Ministry on vaping risks to health and associated matters so, to some degree at least, it is reviewing itself, and it is close in various other regards to the Ministry. The autonomy and independence one expects from 'university research ' is compromised.

The review, like a previous one written several months ago by several of the same authors, again acknowledges serious vape issues in NZ and that the government is not doing enough but states it is trying to, and again just weakly suggests more could be done with reviews, future action such as better monitoring of breaches by shops of the R18 requirement, making vape products less visible from the outside of specialty vape retail shops (SVR) etc. They do not recommend a robust urgent response to the issue.

Bizarrely, given the authors backgrounds, the 'summary' at the end, like that at the beginning , is not a summary. The first is a description of background, not findings or conclusions, and that at the end is just congratulating Labour for being the first party to develop policy for reducing vaping and 'deserves credit for recognising  its past policy has been inadequate', then a sentence stating National's broad support of the (ie Labour's) proposed policies offers hope.
It reads like a defence for the government.

This may explain some of the 
complacency of Dr Verrall and the Ministry, maybe not however the denial of toxicity of vape components at concentrations used, the opposite of that of major respected clinical bodies in respiratory medicine.

The Ministry is 'permitted' by such a review to promise investigations and controls et al at some time in the future, and even maintain that the marketing, online sales, and the increase in SVRs near schools, are just to get tobacco smokers off their habit. 

The Ministry is not given direction and support to act, should it wish to, robustly against the powerful vape lobbyists and their corporations.

It looks a bit 'Yes Minister' where problems are acknowledged and reviews etc are promised but nothing is ever done, or, as in the emperor with no clothes and Fukushima culture, a  reluctance to criticise those in power. This might not matter if it were a less serious issue.

Some of this may also explain the deafening media silence from this Dept, at the University of Otago, on a problem devastating families, disrupting schools, and putting young lives at risk, especially compared with that regarding Covid when Dr Michael Baker, of this Dept, who was almost daily providing robust scientific information to the public with an evident duty of care.

Could such apparent in-house timidity preclude proper review and management of other areas in health and other areas of government. 

(Note:  Dr Baker is not the primary person addressing vaping issues, but is the Director of PHCC.)

( The letter then mentioned this petition and the letter sent to heads of political parties.) 

 1. 
https://www.phcc.org.nz/briefing/new-proposals-limit-youth-vaping-labour-do-they-go-far-enough