Government extends tax break for Philip Morris heated tobacco products
Labour's Ayesha Verrall criticised the extension, citing health system strain and a $300 million cost. Photo / Getty Images
Costello cut the HTP tax rate by 50% last year, with the aim that cheaper prices may encourage people to switch from cigarettes to HTPs.
The cut was made despite health officials telling Costello there was no evidence HTPs worked to stop people smoking or were significantly safer than cigarettes.
Costello told Cabinet she had her own 'independent advice', which, when she released it later, turned out to be five articles that were either about different products, outdated, or offered only weak support for her view.
Treasury said Philip Morris had a monopoly in the HTP market in New Zealand and would be the main beneficiary of the move.
NZ First's Casey Costello is under fire for extending HTP tax cuts for another year, favoring tobacco giant Philip Morris. Photo / Getty Images
Costello's office told RNZ the tax cut trial would be extended because Philip Morris had to pull its IQOS device from sale last year, as it did not comply with requirements for vaping devices to have a removable battery. Last week, Costello ditched the requirement for removable batteries, saying Cabinet was advised this was the best way to resolve legal action from Mason Corporation, which owns the Shosha vape store chain.
A spokesman for the minister said with HTPs off the market for months last year, the original plan for an evaluation after one year did not make sense.
'There wasn't an evaluation because of the withdrawal of HTPs from the market. Any report back would be meaningless as the cheaper HTPs were only available for two months,' the spokesman said.
'Cabinet agreed to extending the HTP review to July 2027 as there will be more market data available.'
The spokesman said the evaluation would then be able to show whether 'a sustained price reduction encouraged uptake by smokers' and if it had helped reduce smoking.
The assessment would also look at whether HTP use 'encouraged smokers away from vapes' and the extent of 'unintended uptake by young people'.
A March 2025 Ministry of Health (MOH) briefing to Costello, focused on how to evaluate the HTP tax cut, said Philip Morris had not initially passed on the excise reduction to consumers.
'There was no price change passed through to customers for the first month, though this is an observation of value in and of itself,' the MOH said.
The briefing, obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act, said Philip Morris had to pull its IQOS device just three months into the tax cut trial.
'All HTP devices were removed from the market in New Zealand due to not meeting new safety regulations. This has meant there have been no HTP devices available for purchase for at least five months of the 12-month trial period.'
Costello has said that HTPs 'have a similar risk profile to vapes', but officials from Treasury and Ministry of Health advised her they were much more harmful than vaping.
In its March briefing, the MOH told Costello it would be difficult to assess whether people using HTPs had decreased their harm or not.
'While we will be able to assess whether the percentage of current or recent smokers who use HTPs increases, we will not be able to track whether those same people were previously using, or likely to use vapes, for example, whether they moved from a safer alternate product to a more harmful one.'
Verrall said the onus should be on Philip Morris to prove its product was safe.
'There is no reason why the government should be running a study for Philip Morris to help get its products used,' she said. 'This product is not a health product. It is a harmful product.'
Verrall said the latest update from the Treasury showed the HTP tax cut was forecast to cost up to $293m if continued until 2029.
'It's deeply worrying when our health system is underfunded that the Government is giving away $300m to the benefit of a single company with links to one of the coalition partners,' Verrall said.
The extension of the tax break for the Philip Morris products comes after RNZ published documents alleging a close relationship between NZ First and the tobacco giant.
The documents, released in litigation against US vaping company JUUL, allege Philip Morris pitched draft legislation to NZ First as part of a lobbying campaign for its HTPs.
The documents claim Philip Morris corporate affairs staff 'reached out to NZ First to try and secure regulation to advantage IQOS'.
A lobbying firm advising Juul claimed that NZ First leader Winston Peters had a relationship with Philip Morris and also that 'any regulation he champions is likely to be very industry-friendly and highly geared towards commercial interests in the sector'.
Peters did not address the allegations that NZ First received material from Philip Morris, but said RNZ's story was a 'tissue of baseless accusations' and that engagement with the tobacco industry was legitimate.
'Multiple government departments have themselves proactively reached out to, and met with, 'big tobacco' for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation,' he said, in a post on X.
Health Coalition Aotearoa and Vape-Free Kids want Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to strip NZ First of the tobacco and vaping portfolio but he says Costello is doing a great job.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Tesla liable for $243m in fatal Key Largo crash, jury blames autopilot
In his closing argument Thursday, Joel Smith, an attorney representing Tesla, lay the blame for the crash solely on McGee. 'He said he was fishing for his phone,' Smith said. 'It's a fact. That happens in any car. That isolates the cause. The cause is, he dropped his cellphone.' On rebuttal, plaintiff's attorney Brett Schreiber told jurors that Tesla promoted the autopilot feature knowing it increased the likelihood of distracting drivers. Schreiber displayed a 2016 statement by Musk saying the emergency braking feature could detect anything, including an alien spaceship or a hunk of metal in the road. Tesla's driver assistance technology was blamed for enabling driver distraction, leading to the fatal crash. Photo / Getty Images 'In the showroom, it's the greatest car ever made,' Schreiber said. 'In the courtroom, they say it's a jalopy. 'Tesla knew for years that its product was defective,' he added. 'Despite that people were using autopilot irresponsibly. This was a case of systematic failure.' The outcome is a massive blow to Musk, who has staked the future of his company on fully autonomous driving. Tesla is facing several similar lawsuits across the country that allege the CEO and his company have overstated the capabilities of the technology. Friday's verdict could now open Tesla up to more liability in the future. The verdict comes at a particularly vulnerable moment for Tesla, which has been struggling since Musk's controversial foray into politics. The company's sales and profits tanked after Musk joined the Trump administration and led its controversial cost-cutting initiative, the US Doge Service. The billionaire left the administration after a fiery public fallout with the President over his spending Bill – but Tesla's finances have yet to recover. Tesla faced two California juries in 2023 for alleged defects and was found not liable in both cases. It has also settled at least four such cases out of court that alleged defects with its technology, including one regarding a separate autopilot-related case just days before the Miami trial was set to begin. In Oakland, California, state regulators are also fighting to remove Tesla's ability to sell vehicles in the state over allegations that it dangerously misled drivers to believe its cars could drive themselves without human oversight. That case is ongoing. In Miami, Tesla faced a highly technical and emotional three-week trial as the Benavides Leon family and Angulo attended nearly every day. The families sat through much of the testimony and attentively listened as attorneys dissected the crucial seconds leading up to the crash. The two sides sparred over whether the company's statements about autopilot were misleading, whether the company was forthcoming about critical evidence in the case – and if the crash could have been prevented at all. The case also tested public sentiment of Musk, a controversial figure known for pushing boundaries and evolving technology out to the public. Last month, Tesla launched its fully autonomous Robotaxi in Austin, despite a lack of federal regulation and clear safety guidelines. Beyond Tesla, Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, came under fire last month after launching into an antisemitic rant. The verdict could increase Tesla's future liability, amidst ongoing lawsuits and regulatory challenges. Photo / Getty Images Several days into the trial, a juror was dismissed for perceived bias against Musk. The defence said it uncovered a 'vitriolic and venomous' tirade against Musk on one of the juror's social media pages, according to a court transcript provided to the Post. In a TikTok post from earlier this year, according to the transcript, the juror states 'A good Nazi is a dead one. Do you agree? F-U Elon Musk.' The plaintiffs' attorney rested much of their defence on Musk's statements about autopilot, which they argue convinced his customers that his technology was more capable than reality. They highlighted statements from the CEO that claim autopilot has 'superhuman' sensors, that autonomous driving is a 'solved' problem and that his technology can see any object on the road including 'an alien spaceship'. They also argued that Tesla acted recklessly by allowing autopilot to function on roads it is not designed for. Tesla's decision not to limit the technology to operate only on roads that meet the criteria in its own user manuals was the subject of a 2023 recall by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Advertisement Still, the defence faced a tough legal battle, as Tesla has extensive warnings in its owner's manual and the law indicates that drivers are responsible for the trajectory of the vehicle despite the type of feature engaged. McGee, told police at the scene that he took his eyes off the road to pick up a dropped cellphone. McGee said on the witness stand that he wasn't sure if he had heard Musk's comments about the technology and didn't believe they influenced his decision to buy the vehicle. He testified that he knew his Tesla 'was not self-driving' and that it was his 'job to always be alert as a driver'. He also told the jury that he believed autopilot would lead him to have an overall 'safer drive' by helping him navigate on his long commute and avoid collisions. 'My concept was that it would assist me should I have a failure … or should I make a mistake,' he said. 'And in that case I feel like it failed me.' Tesla's defence attorneys grilled Angulo and Benavides Leon's sister, Neima, about their previous lawsuit against McGee in which they settled over allegations that he operated his vehicle recklessly. The defence also mentioned the boat and home that Angulo bought since the crash. Neima Benavides and Angulo told the jury that they didn't initially know McGee was using autopilot when they sued him. But as time passed, Neima Benavides said they learned there were 'two components' in the crash. 'We have the driver,' she said. 'And we have the car too.'
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Probe wanted into tobacco firms' policy influence
Associate Health Minister Casey Costello. Photo: RNZ Following fresh revelations the government has extended a 50% tax cut on heated tobacco products (HTPs) for two more years, health experts across the country are ramping up calls for an independent public inquiry into the tobacco industry's influence on policy. The tax break was introduced last year — against the advice of government officials. The extension comes hot on the heels of last week's allegations the New Zealand First party has been colluding with tobacco giant Philip Morris. It also comes after NZ First list MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes and creating a smoke-free generation by banning sales to those born after 2009. Health Coalition Aotearoa is calling for a public inquiry into tobacco industry influence and is also calling for the prime minister to reassign the tobacco and vaping portfolio away from NZ First. A petition has also been launched by Vape-Free Kids NZ, calling on the prime minister to strip the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First. Coalition spokeswoman and University of Otago researcher Dr Jude Ball said the heated tobacco products tax break and the recent extension pointed to interventions by tobacco giant Philip Morris, which has a monopoly on heated tobacco products in New Zealand. "It's a poor use of taxpayer dollars at a time when our health system is already stretched," she said. Labour Party list MP and health spokeswoman Ayesha Verrall has been telling media the tax break would be worth $300million to big tobacco. In Parliament this week, NZ First leader Winston Peters denied there was a tax break for HTPs. In 2023, the tax balance sheet for those alternatives was just $6m, and none of that money went to big tobacco, he said. "What Verrall fails to mention, which she knows to be a fact, is that the figure of $216m — now, apparently, $300m in her quotes — includes the revenue lost from people who have quit smoking cigarettes. "They no longer pay the excessive tax on cigarettes, and therefore the government doesn't have that revenue on the balance sheet. "Any person out there with an ounce of common sense can see that going from $6m to, now, $300m overnight is an outright lie that is being perpetuated continuously and repeated continuously by a certain few in the media." He said New Zealand was now No 2 in the world for the lowest smoking rates. "Our smoke-free policy — which is backed by Prof Bob Beaglehole from ASH — is working, and that's a fact." He said the government was doing everything it could to get the last few remaining "hardcore smokers" off cigarettes and on to alternatives, and those alternatives needed to be more affordable and more accessible. However, Dr Ball said there was no evidence heated tobacco products helped people stop smoking, or that they were significantly less harmful than cigarettes. "Yet the government, despite committing to a one-year trial, have extended the tax cut by two more years. "This decision is favourable to the tobacco industry, but not beneficial to public health. "This latest decision adds to a worrying trend of government policy decisions that align with tobacco company interests." She said the government's approach to evaluating if heated tobacco products helped people quit smoking was unclear. "It is highly unusual for a government to run a trial like this which, by cutting a tax on HTPs, helps the sole seller of heated tobacco products to increase their product sales. "Especially if there is no evidence that product helps people to quit cigarettes. "Tobacco giant Phillip Morris are the sole beneficiaries of this tax cut."
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Trump's lawyer in hush money trial is a senior Justice Department official and interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell
After weeks of furore about whether the Justice Department would release much of its file on Epstein – and amid speculation about whether the file had information about Trump and others – Blanche travelled to Florida to interview Epstein's longtime partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein files on July 23 in New York City. Photo / Getty Images Prosecutors argued at Maxwell's 2021 trial that she was Epstein's recruiter and enabler for a decade beginning in 1994, showing an interest in teenagers and luring them to his homes in Palm Beach, Florida; New York; New Mexico; and elsewhere ostensibly for jobs as personal masseuses. She was also charged with perjury for allegedly lying during a sworn deposition but did not face a trial on those charges after she was convicted of more serious crimes. Trump said this week that his friendship with Epstein ended years ago after, he said, Epstein hired young female spa workers from his club at Mar-a-Lago. Maxwell spent nine hours over two days last week answering every question posed by Blanche, according to Maxwell's lawyer, David Oscar Markus. The details of the interview have not been released, and Democrats said they feared it was the kind of conflict, they had been concerned about when Blanche was nominated. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (Democrat-New York) said last week in a floor speech that 'Trump is sending his personal lawyer, Todd Blanche, to try and execute a corrupt cover-up, potentially offering leniency to a woman who also abused the victims'. Schumer said this and other actions by Justice officials represent a conflict but he did not provide evidence of an alleged cover-up. The relationship between Trump and Blanche has been a financially significant one. Blanche's law firm was paid US$9.2 million ($15.6m) by Save America, a pro-Trump political action committee, between April 2023 and December 2024, for work on cases that included the trial about payment of alleged hush money to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, according to federal election records. Trump was found guilty in the hush money case, which has been appealed and is being handled by other lawyers. Why Donald Trump's lawyer is under scrutiny in Jeffrey Epstein inquiry. Photo / Getty Images Blanche, 50, is an unlikely player in the unfolding drama. A former federal prosecutor in New York, he handled violent crimes and led the office's White Plains division in Westchester County. Blanche was well-liked by colleagues and earned a reputation for diligence, according to lawyers familiar with his work. He then worked at a law firm where his clients included Trump ally Paul Manafort. Blanche won the dismissal of mortgage fraud charges against Manafort in a New York case in 2019 on the grounds that the indictment too closely mirrored a federal case against him and amounted to double jeopardy. The case helped bring Blanche to Trump's attention at a time when he was preparing to run for re-election. Trump later pardoned Manafort in a pair of federal cases that included the federal mortgage fraud charges. The Justice Department did not respond directly to questions from the Washington Post about whether Blanche consulted a government ethics official regarding an interview with Maxwell. Instead, the department sent a written statement from spokesman Gates McGavick that said, in full: 'Any suggestion that Todd Blanche has acted unethically while serving as Deputy Attorney General is baseless and defamatory. This gossip column relies on innuendo and the word of an agenda-driven political hack to push a false narrative. This is not a serious article.' Markus said in a statement that it was appropriate for the Justice Department to send a high-level official such as Blanche to address such an important matter and that Blanche 'has conducted himself with complete professionalism throughout this process'. 'It's truly disheartening how quick people are to assume the worst without any basis in fact,' Markus added. 'More akin to a political player' Some of Blanche's ex-colleagues are surprised by what they see as his transformation from the independent litigator they knew to one they say seems willing to prioritise his loyalty to Trump. Mimi Rocah, who previously co-led the White Plains division in the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York with Blanche, said that it is 'completely inappropriate and wrong' for him to interview Maxwell – both because of his relationship to Trump and because it is a job that should be reserved for prosecutors on the case, not a Justice official at the highest level. Mimi Rocah (centre) criticised Blanche's interview with Maxwell as 'completely inappropriate', citing his Trump ties and the breach of prosecutorial protocol. Photo / Getty Images If a top Washington official had injected himself into a case Blanche handled as a prosecutor, he would have gone 'running to Main Justice', Rocah said, referring to the department's headquarters in Washington that oversees US Attorneys' offices and other units. 'That just shows how completely far gone he is as an actual prosecutor,' Rocah said. 'He's really more akin to a political player at this point.' In a podcast interview last year hosted by Markus, Blanche recounted receiving a phone call from Trump when he was skiing with his family in Colorado on Super Bowl Sunday in February 2023. At this time before Trump had been indicted, the former President talked with Blanche about representing him in what would become the hush money trial and possibly other cases. A few weeks later, Blanche said, he went to dinner with Trump to discuss his potential hiring. 'And we clicked,' Blanche said. 'He's an enigma, he's an interesting guy, everybody in this country, most people in the world, frankly, have an opinion about him. 'And some may be right, some may be wrong, but he's a really interesting man. And not only because of his past as President of the US, but just the life that he's led.' Around that time, he left the New York firm and started Blanche Law, enlisting as a partner Emil Bove, a former Southern District colleague who later joined the Justice Department at the start of Trump's second term and was nominated for a federal appeals judgeship. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and 900 former Justice Department lawyers have questioned Bove's fitness to serve. That's based on his handling of a corruption indictment against New York Mayor Eric Adams, allegations that he instructed underlings to ignore judicial orders, and his role in firing or reassigning career Justice Department employees in perceived politically driven punishments. In February, Blanche – not yet confirmed by the Senate – was in attendance as Bove stood in court to defend his decision to dismiss the Adams case, arguing that the mayor needed to be unburdened so he could help the Trump Administration carry out its immigration enforcement and public safety agenda. Blanche was also there when Bove, who was also a defence lawyer for Trump, faced tough questions at his confirmation hearing last month. Bove was confirmed by the Senate 50-49 on Wednesday. Blanche, who had been a registered Democrat as recently as 2022, switched his registration to Republican in January 2024 and said his voting record residence was Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, a community near Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, according to voter records. He spent much of 2024 as a key legal adviser to Trump – spending long hours in Palm Beach with Trump and attending court appearances and meetings up and down the East Coast. The lawyer was the face of Trump's legal team during a six-week trial in New York Supreme Court, where a jury heard evidence that the former President concealed the nature of a US$130,000 payment to Daniels in the final stretch of the 2016 election to keep her quiet about an alleged affair. Blanche recalled in the podcast interview with Markus how Trump 'heard 'guilty' 34 times' in the hush money trial and then spoke to the press. 'For somebody who had just gone through what he went through, I was like, I mean, it sounds maybe a little bit obnoxious to say, but I was like, really, really proud of him on that day.' Throughout the trial, Trump turned the hallway into a campaign stop for news cameras. A stone-faced Blanche stood at his side as the then-candidate launched into meandering tirades about what he called a Democratic conspiracy to use the justice system to keep him from retaking the White House. Todd Blanche's Epstein case role has sparked conflict of interest concerns. Photo / Getty Images Aggressive delay efforts by Blanche and other lawyers helped stall proceedings in a pair of serious federal cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith over Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and refusing to return them, and for allegedly interfering in the 2020 election. Both matters were unresolved as the 2024 election neared. The classified records case in Florida was dismissed by Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon on grounds that experts widely believed were flawed and reversible. Smith's team was appealing that decision, but after Trump's victory, they moved to withdraw those cases before Trump took office. Blanche and the defence team also secured so many sentencing delays in the hush money case that the proceeding did not take place until 10 days before Trump's inauguration. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan acknowledged having very limited options. Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge, which amounted to no punishment. 'I will follow the law' Trump, known for frequently firing lawyers when they fall out of favour with him, has showered Blanche with praise for his work on the cases. The closeness between Trump and Blanche continued during the election and culminated in Trump's announcement that he would nominate his lawyer to serve as deputy attorney-general. In his hearing, Blanche sounded fully in sync with Trump's messaging as he said that the President had been a victim of 'partisan prosecutors' but that his 'faith in this country returned in full force on November 5 when the American people rejected this gross abuse of our justice system'. There is a long history of former Trump associates who have been ousted by the President over questions of loyalty. Attorney-General Jeff Sessions recused himself from being involved in the investigation of whether there was Russian interference in the 2016 election, sparking Trump's ire. At another point, Trump said it was 'disgraceful' that Sessions had asked an inspector general to investigate a campaign-related matter, saying, 'Why not use Justice Department lawyers?' Sessions resigned in 2018 at Trump's request. So when Trump nominated Blanche to the No 2 job at Justice, Democrats repeatedly asked during the nomination hearing whether he would push back against Trump and show the independence that is required of Justice officials. Senator Blumenthal voiced concern Blanche might face illegal or immoral requests from Trump and must be ready to say no. Photo / Getty Images Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) said during the hearing that he was 'convinced' that Blanche was committed to impartial enforcement. Nonetheless, Blumenthal expressed concern that, 'if history is any guide, that the President will ask you to do things that are illegal or immoral. I need to be sure that you're willing to say no' to Trump. 'Senator, I respectfully very much reject that premise,' Blanche responded. 'I don't think that President Trump is going to ask me to do anything illegal or immoral and so I don't -' 'But if he does, you would say no?' Blumenthal asked. 'I will follow the law Senator, period - period … And by the way, I've spent thousands, certainly hundreds, probably thousands of hours with President Trump over the past couple of years. So I don't just say that flippantly; I say that with experience and firsthand knowledge.' Experts say that ethics law can be a grey area subject to interpretation in each unique case. In the normal course of events, Blanche would have been advised about the standard of conduct for federal employees, which includes this provision: 'Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.' Several months after Blanche joined the Justice Department, as the controversy over the Epstein files exploded, Blanche said on X that he was going to interview Maxwell. 'Justice demands courage. For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know?' Blanche wrote. At the direction of Attorney-General Pam Bondi, he said, he had contacted Maxwell's counsel, adding that 'No one is above the law - and no lead is off-limits'. As it happened, the lawyer representing Maxwell was Markus, the same person to whom Blanche had given the podcast interview in June 2024 about his relationship with Trump. Blanche and Markus came to an agreement, leading to the interviews with Maxwell – and to the questions from Democrats about whether Blanche had a conflict in conducting the private sessions. Blumenthal, who opposed Blanche's nomination, said he nonetheless expected the lawyer to follow ethical norms. He said he has been shocked by Blanche's decision to insert himself into the Maxwell interview, which the senator said was 'a breach'. 'I really expected him to be a serious lawyer,' Blumenthal said in an interview with the Washington Post. 'He had a reputation for being with a big firm and representing the client in difficult circumstances. I respect people who represent unpopular causes or individuals, that's what a lawyer does.' But Blumenthal said 'there's this stench' about Blanche interviewing Maxwell 'that is so powerful it is absolutely mind-boggling, and I frankly would never have expected it of him'. Norm Eisen said he'd never have approved Blanche's role due to impartiality concerns. Photo / Getty Images Norm Eisen, who was the White House special counsel for ethics in the Obama Administration, said in an interview that he would never have authorised that Blanche interview Maxwell because of rules that seek to prevent conflict of interest. 'This is the very definition of the situation where a reasonable person would question the impartiality of Blanche,' Eisen said. 'There is a certain amount of play in these rules, but that is why the public should be concerned … I don't know any government ethicist who worked for any administration of either party who would have authorised Blanche to participate in this.' Unless interview transcripts are released, it may be impossible to know whether and how much Blanche pursued questions about Trump's possible mention in the Epstein files. For his part, Blanche has insisted his loyalty is to the Justice Department. 'This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead,' Blanche said in a July 22 statement on X.
