Hush and rush of Govt lawmaking undermines trust and quality
'We recommend that any announcements or statements about the proposed amendments must be made after the introduction of the Bill,' officials say in the March briefing documents.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Overseas investment reforms may create more uncertainty, law firms warn
The coalition Government's overhaul of the overseas investment regime could create more uncertainty for investors, law firms have warned. Associate Finance Minister and Act leader David Seymour is overseeing a suite of changes to the Overseas Investment Act, aimed at streamlining the existing system and bringing more foreign investment into the country.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal
Opinion: The Government's decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as 'giving tax breaks to tobacco companies'. It's a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn't help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest. Let's be clear: this isn't a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It's an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.) Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don't produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents. That distinction matters. The multinational tobacco company Philip Morris does hold a monopoly over HTPs in New Zealand. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean the tax policy exists for Philip Morris International. The intention is to make a less harmful product more affordable than cigarettes – a principle long accepted in tobacco harm reduction, and already applied to vaping. Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn't yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal. In addition, the apparent impact of PMI on government policy is tough to ignore, and contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seeks to protect government policy from tobacco industry influence. New Zealand has rightly taxed cigarettes heavily to deter use. But excise taxes are also regressive. The remaining people who smoke – fewer than 7 percent of adults – are disproportionately Māori, Pasifika, low-income, and more likely to experience mental health distress. The associate minister of health, Casey Costello, justified the excise differential by citing relative harm reduction and the growing inequity of uniform excise. Her reasoning deserves more attention than it has been given. Critics argue there's insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn't make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax. The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that's a shift in the right direction. What's really at stake here? Not a tax break for big tobacco – but increasing the options for people who smoke and want to quit, and whether we believe in a response to nicotine products based on their comparative risks to human health as a foundation for public health policy. A more productive debate would ask: • Are they less harmful than cigarettes, and do they help smokers quit? • Are tax savings being passed on to consumers? • Are HTPs being promoted responsibly? • Will there be an independent evaluation of their impact on smoking rates? In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that's increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity. If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It's a good policy – provided it's transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Majority of Government's $231m spend on Advanced Technology Institute funded through planned research funding cuts
Funding is reallocated from: Endeavour Fund – $13.489m (from 2028/29) Health Research Fund – $11.487m (from 2028/29) Marsden Fund – $15.119m (in 2028/29) New to R&D Grant – $18.084m across 2025–2028 Callaghan Innovation Operations – $24.336m across 2027–2029 Contract Management – $3m across 2026–2029 In addition, $37.537m is being reprioritised from the Strategic Science Investment Fund from the 2025/26 financial year to the 2028/29 financial year, from contracts coming to an end over the three years. Funding for the new research agency is also being made up of $21.603m from unallocated funding for the National Science Challenge. In a statement, the Public Service Association union expressed disappointment in the move, adding the Government was 'trying to quietly cut funding from respected and established research funds'. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said scientists rely on these funds for ground-breaking work and they deserve ongoing support. 'The Government says it wants kickstart our economy with investment in science, meanwhile chopping science off at the knees and hoping no one will notice,' Fitzsimons said. 'It's robbing Peter to pay Paul, raiding science funds without providing the increased funding science needs to drive growth. The economy will be worse off and we will keep losing scientists to other countries which value them.' Similar concerns were expressed by physicist Dr Ben Wylie-van Eerd, speaking for the Save Science Coalition. In an interview, he said it would have been nice if the Government was clear this was partially a reprioritisation when it made this announcement. 'It's quite disappointing,' he said. 'I feel massively let down by learning this.' Wylie-van Eerd said he was particularly upset about plans to reduce the total of the Marsden Fund, which he said was an area for 'complete blue-skies research' that did not necessarily have to have any commercial outcomes. Green Party science spokesman Scott Willis said the Health Research Fund supported research into kidney disease, diabetes and epilepsy. He also expressed concern over reduction in funding for the Endeavour Fund, which supports climate research. Willis said it appeared the Government was 'shuffling funding' and the changes seen last year and proposed over the coming years will weaken the science system and its capacity. 'We definitely need investment in science for the public good,' he said, and issues such as health, the climate and the cost of living would not be solved by 'science-for-profit'. In a statement, Reti, the minister in charge of the reforms, said what was taking place was important. 'Reform of our decades-old science system, including the establishment of the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Technology, is a priority for the Government's economic agenda,' he said. 'Previously, New Zealand has been slow to focus on the role of advanced technologies across the economy and investment in the potential of advanced technologies has been under-weighted within the research and innovation system.' Reti said the Government was continuing to support public good science and a strong economy would allow for more choices. When the announcement of the new institute was made, the Government said the importance of a return on investment was a significant focus. Last month, the Government announced it was committing $231m over four years to the new tech institute, aiming to focus on artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and innovation that could lead to economic growth. At the time of the announcement, Reti confirmed about $80m was being leveraged from Callaghan Innovation. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the country needed to embrace new technologies and that it 'will actually make our businesses and our research much more commercial and actually improve productivity'. Budget 2025 allocated $20m across two financial years for the establishment of four new Public Research Organisations (PROs), of which the Advanced Technology Institute is one. Last year, the then Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins said the contestable Endeavour Fund, which is proposed to lose about $13m in the advanced technology institute changes, was being updated to 'grow the economy'. 'Commercialisation is essential to realising the social and economic potential of our science, innovation and technology system. I look forward to learning more about the impactful projects funded through future funding rounds,' Collins said. Azaria Howell is a multimedia reporter working from Parliament's press gallery. She joined NZME in 2022 and became a Newstalk ZB political reporter in late 2024, with a keen interest in public service agency reform and government spending.
