Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Brownstone Institute

Too little too late – Former Australian Premier apologizes for implementing COVID vaccine mandates

Published

11 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

By Ramesh Thakur

Dominic Perrottet was the premier (head of state government) of New South Wales from 5 October 2021 to 28 March 2023. Having lost the election last year, he has now resigned from parliament to take up a position with the Australian mining company BHP as the head of its corporate and external affairs in Washington, DC. In his valedictory speech in the NSW parliament on 6 August, he criticised the vaccine mandates. Alexandra Marshall, editor of the online Flat White component of Spectator Australia, wrote this excoriating piece on 7 August about his cowardice as premier.

Ramesh Thakur

Perrottet’s Covid Apology Is Not Good Enough

Former New South Wales Premier, Dominic Perrottet, came out yesterday and declared that Covid vaccine mandates enforced by his government were ‘wrong.’

It’s all well and good for Mr Perrottet to come clean now, during a valedictory speech, as he retires from politics.

There are no consequences for his admission, no risk to his political future, and therefore no bravery or credit which I am prepared to offer him.

At the time the mandates were discussed, Mr Perrottet was the one man in NSW with the power to protect people from dangerous, insufficiently tested, and unsatisfactorily trialled vaccines. He, alone, was the person with the elected power to protect the rights of every New South Welshman and allow them to choose what to put into their body and what sort of health risk they were prepared to take. He could have kept people employed and put an end to idiotic and patently false health messaging. As Premier, that was his job.

I have always said that the government should not be allowed to mandate a citizen drink a glass of water, let alone inject a product from pharmaceutical companies that are protected – by law – from damages. We are people, not common lab rats.

As far as I am concerned, it is not good enough for Mr Perrottet to insist the government was acting with ‘the right intentions,’ especially when the government was told – in the pages of this magazine – that what they were doing was wrong.

The vaccine handbook, which has been with us for a long time, made it clear that Mr Perrottet’s decision, and that of Gladys Berejiklian before him, was wrong and that the advice from the Health Minister was in violation of the basic liberties we expect to enjoy as a civilised people. A Health Minister, I might add, who ignored mountains of evidence that contradicted their assertions.

None of this is news to Mr Perrottet, who seemed as uncomfortable with what he was saying at the time.

What he lacked was not a conscience, but a spine – a spine tough enough to stand up to the peer pressure of power-hungry Labor Premiers and the Liberal Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who looked down the barrel of the camera and declared that there was no such thing as a vaccine mandate while tens of thousands were marched out of their jobs. Most of them never got their jobs back. Many of them sit idle today, broken by what they have lost.

Mr Perrottet’s valedictory speech is weaker than the headline trending on social media.

‘If the impact of vaccines on transmission was limited at best, as is now mostly accepted, the law should have left more room for respect of freedom. Vaccines saved lives, but ultimately, mandates were wrong. People’s personal choices shouldn’t have cost them their jobs.’

Mr Perrottet, these Covid vaccines killed people and left many more seriously injured.

A state mandate – a mandate put out by the Liberal government – not only robbed people of their liberty, but of their lives. This is inexcusable.

‘When I became premier, we removed [vaccine mandates] or the ones we actually could, but this should have happened faster. If a pandemic comes again, we need to get a better balance encouraging people to take action whilst at the same time protecting people’s fundamental liberty.’

No, Mr Perrottet.

We need to urgently reverse the expanded emergency powers that premiers – in particular Victoria’s Daniel Andrews – gifted themselves. We need legislation to prohibit politicians from taking advantage of a public health situation and ensure that every single emergency decision has a non-negotiable sunset clause coupled with an extremely high bar of physical data before they can be implemented. None of this, ‘Oh well, if the premier thinks there’s a risk of a pandemic, we can do…’

Pharmaceutical companies need to have their immunity stripped and ensure that the public and the State (on behalf of the public) remain free to seek damages for faulty, dangerous, or non-functioning drugs. We never want to see another situation where hundreds of billions of public money is spent on foreign drug companies for a mandated vaccine only for large quantities of it to be thrown in landfill. Who is responsible for this hideous waste of money? Mr Morrison? He’s toddled off. Mr Albanese? He’s washed his hands of Covid.

Most importantly, we need to have some kind of severe punishment for the behaviour of our premiers, prime ministers, health ministers, and media class (who took marketing money from vaccine companies) for the deliberate crucible of wall-to-wall fear propaganda that was created to manipulate the public perception of Covid and encourage them to take risks with their health they never would have done in a sane environment.

There remains no excuse for daily press conferences with death tolls posted in the corner without context, the constant creation of petty and unscientific health orders, the deployment of police and army personnel onto the street, the invention of digital stalking apps, the assignment of ‘ticks’ and ‘crosses’ to gatekeep the economy based on vaccine status, the setting up of ‘dobbing’ websites to encourage neighbours to spy on each other – I could go on…Those who partook in and set up the framework for this abusive behaviour must face personal punishment or they will do it again.

Australians cannot like a post on Facebook without police knocking on the door, and yet every level of our government engaged in crimes against our humanity – what is their punishment? Cushy jobs and juicy retirement packages.

‘If we established Australia today, no one in their right mind would set up the federation the way it is. We currently have federal and state health systems that don’t even work alongside each other. Rather, they actively work against each other.

If we can’t reform the federal health system after a one in 100-year pandemic, we never will.’

These are nonsense excuses, none of which absolve Mr Perrottet of his part in this sorry story. As Premier, he was elected to protect us – and he didn’t. He threw us to the wolves and bent over at the first strike.

Are you too frightened to go outside? Are you ‘up to date’ with Covid boosters? Why not? There is a 33 percent increase in Covid and serious flu infections. People are filling hospitals and plenty are dying.

Australia is not gripped by fear because the political swamp and the media class aren’t up there on the screen telling everyone to be afraid. There’s no political traction in peddling fear – so they’re not doing it. They’ve moved on to the trillions of dollars waiting to be distributed on their new favourite headline – Climate Change.

I will never stop being angry about what happened to us during the Covid years but the least those in power could do is punish those who abused their position or – through inaction and cowardice – failed to act.

Hell, I’d settle for all of them having their pensions stripped. What do you think?

Republished from The Spectator

Author

  • Ramesh Thakur

    Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

Brownstone Institute

Bizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

  Roger Bate  

A walk through a dozen convenience stores in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, says a lot about how US nicotine policy actually works. Only about one in eight nicotine-pouch products for sale is legal. The rest are unauthorized—but they’re not all the same. Some are brightly branded, with uncertain ingredients, not approved by any Western regulator, and clearly aimed at impulse buyers. Others—like Sweden’s NOAT—are the opposite: muted, well-made, adult-oriented, and already approved for sale in Europe.

Yet in the United States, NOAT has been told to stop selling. In September 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the company a warning letter for offering nicotine pouches without marketing authorization. That might make sense if the products were dangerous, but they appear to be among the safest on the market: mild flavors, low nicotine levels, and recyclable paper packaging. In Europe, regulators consider them acceptable. In America, they’re banned. The decision looks, at best, strange—and possibly arbitrary.

What the Market Shows

My October 2025 audit was straightforward. I visited twelve stores and recorded every distinct pouch product visible for sale at the counter. If the item matched one of the twenty ZYN products that the FDA authorized in January, it was counted as legal. Everything else was counted as illegal.

Two of the stores told me they had recently received FDA letters and had already removed most illegal stock. The other ten stores were still dominated by unauthorized products—more than 93 percent of what was on display. Across all twelve locations, about 12 percent of products were legal ZYN, and about 88 percent were not.

The illegal share wasn’t uniform. Many of the unauthorized products were clearly high-nicotine imports with flashy names like Loop, Velo, and Zimo. These products may be fine, but some are probably high in contaminants, and a few often with very high nicotine levels. Others were subdued, plainly meant for adult users. NOAT was a good example of that second group: simple packaging, oat-based filler, restrained flavoring, and branding that makes no effort to look “cool.” It’s the kind of product any regulator serious about harm reduction would welcome.

Enforcement Works

To the FDA’s credit, enforcement does make a difference. The two stores that received official letters quickly pulled their illegal stock. That mirrors the agency’s broader efforts this year: new import alerts to detain unauthorized tobacco products at the border (see also Import Alert 98-06), and hundreds of warning letters to retailers, importers, and distributors.

But effective enforcement can’t solve a supply problem. The list of legal nicotine-pouch products is still extremely short—only a narrow range of ZYN items. Adults who want more variety, or stores that want to meet that demand, inevitably turn to gray-market suppliers. The more limited the legal catalog, the more the illegal market thrives.

Why the NOAT Decision Appears Bizarre

The FDA’s own actions make the situation hard to explain. In January 2025, it authorized twenty ZYN products after finding that they contained far fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes and could help adult smokers switch. That was progress. But nine months later, the FDA has approved nothing else—while sending a warning letter to NOAT, arguably the least youth-oriented pouch line in the world.

The outcome is bad for legal sellers and public health. ZYN is legal; a handful of clearly risky, high-nicotine imports continue to circulate; and a mild, adult-market brand that meets European safety and labeling rules is banned. Officially, NOAT’s problem is procedural—it lacks a marketing order. But in practical terms, the FDA is punishing the very design choices it claims to value: simplicity, low appeal to minors, and clean ingredients.

This approach also ignores the differences in actual risk. Studies consistently show that nicotine pouches have far fewer toxins than cigarettes and far less variability than many vapes. The biggest pouch concerns are uneven nicotine levels and occasional traces of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, depending on manufacturing quality. The serious contamination issues—heavy metals and inconsistent dosage—belong mostly to disposable vapes, particularly the flood of unregulated imports from China. Treating all “unauthorized” products as equally bad blurs those distinctions and undermines proportional enforcement.

My small Montgomery County survey suggests a simple formula for improvement.

First, keep enforcement targeted and focused on suppliers, not just clerks. Warning letters clearly change behavior at the store level, but the biggest impact will come from auditing distributors and importers, and stopping bad shipments before they reach retail shelves.

Second, make compliance easy. A single-page list of authorized nicotine-pouch products—currently the twenty approved ZYN items—should be posted in every store and attached to distributor invoices. Point-of-sale systems can block barcodes for anything not on the list, and retailers could affirm, once a year, that they stock only approved items.

Third, widen the legal lane. The FDA launched a pilot program in September 2025 to speed review of new pouch applications. That program should spell out exactly what evidence is needed—chemical data, toxicology, nicotine release rates, and behavioral studies—and make timely decisions. If products like NOAT meet those standards, they should be authorized quickly. Legal competition among adult-oriented brands will crowd out the sketchy imports far faster than enforcement alone.

The Bottom Line

Enforcement matters, and the data show it works—where it happens. But the legal market is too narrow to protect consumers or encourage innovation. The current regime leaves a few ZYN products as lonely legal islands in a sea of gray-market pouches that range from sensible to reckless.

The FDA’s treatment of NOAT stands out as a case study in inconsistency: a quiet, adult-focused brand approved in Europe yet effectively banned in the US, while flashier and riskier options continue to slip through. That’s not a public-health victory; it’s a missed opportunity.

If the goal is to help adult smokers move to lower-risk products while keeping youth use low, the path forward is clear: enforce smartly, make compliance easy, and give good products a fair shot. Right now, we’re doing the first part well—but failing at the second and third. It’s time to fix that.

Author

Roger Bate

Roger Bate is a Brownstone Fellow, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics (Jan 2023-present), Board member of Africa Fighting Malaria (September 2000-present), and Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (January 2000-present).

Continue Reading

Addictions

The War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

Roger Bate  Roger Bate 

Cigarettes kill nearly half a million Americans each year. Everyone knows it, including the Food and Drug Administration. Yet while the most lethal nicotine product remains on sale in every gas station, the FDA continues to block or delay far safer alternatives.

Nicotine pouches—small, smokeless packets tucked under the lip—deliver nicotine without burning tobacco. They eliminate the tar, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens that make cigarettes so deadly. The logic of harm reduction couldn’t be clearer: if smokers can get nicotine without smoke, millions of lives could be saved.

Sweden has already proven the point. Through widespread use of snus and nicotine pouches, the country has cut daily smoking to about 5 percent, the lowest rate in Europe. Lung-cancer deaths are less than half the continental average. This “Swedish Experience” shows that when adults are given safer options, they switch voluntarily—no prohibition required.

In the United States, however, the FDA’s tobacco division has turned this logic on its head. Since Congress gave it sweeping authority in 2009, the agency has demanded that every new product undergo a Premarket Tobacco Product Application, or PMTA, proving it is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” That sounds reasonable until you see how the process works.

Manufacturers must spend millions on speculative modeling about how their products might affect every segment of society—smokers, nonsmokers, youth, and future generations—before they can even reach the market. Unsurprisingly, almost all PMTAs have been denied or shelved. Reduced-risk products sit in limbo while Marlboros and Newports remain untouched.

Only this January did the agency relent slightly, authorizing 20 ZYN nicotine-pouch products made by Swedish Match, now owned by Philip Morris. The FDA admitted the obvious: “The data show that these specific products are appropriate for the protection of public health.” The toxic-chemical levels were far lower than in cigarettes, and adult smokers were more likely to switch than teens were to start.

The decision should have been a turning point. Instead, it exposed the double standard. Other pouch makers—especially smaller firms from Sweden and the US, such as NOAT—remain locked out of the legal market even when their products meet the same technical standards.

The FDA’s inaction has created a black market dominated by unregulated imports, many from China. According to my own research, roughly 85 percent of pouches now sold in convenience stores are technically illegal.

The agency claims that this heavy-handed approach protects kids. But youth pouch use in the US remains very low—about 1.5 percent of high-school students according to the latest National Youth Tobacco Survey—while nearly 30 million American adults still smoke. Denying safer products to millions of addicted adults because a tiny fraction of teens might experiment is the opposite of public-health logic.

There’s a better path. The FDA should base its decisions on science, not fear. If a product dramatically reduces exposure to harmful chemicals, meets strict packaging and marketing standards, and enforces Tobacco 21 age verification, it should be allowed on the market. Population-level effects can be monitored afterward through real-world data on switching and youth use. That’s how drug and vaccine regulation already works.

Sweden’s evidence shows the results of a pragmatic approach: a near-smoke-free society achieved through consumer choice, not coercion. The FDA’s own approval of ZYN proves that such products can meet its legal standard for protecting public health. The next step is consistency—apply the same rules to everyone.

Combustion, not nicotine, is the killer. Until the FDA acts on that simple truth, it will keep protecting the cigarette industry it was supposed to regulate.

Author

Roger Bate

Roger Bate is a Brownstone Fellow, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics (Jan 2023-present), Board member of Africa Fighting Malaria (September 2000-present), and Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (January 2000-present).

Continue Reading

Trending

X