Tobacco Transparency Bill ‘will benefit all'
When the government repealed smokefree legislation last year, questions were raised in the health and research sectors about why it was done, and if parties in the coalition government benefited from it.
Opposition health spokeswoman Dr Ayesha Verrall's new Tobacco Transparency Bill, launched yesterday, aims to increase transparency, improve policy making, and stop the government from supporting, endorsing or advocating for the tobacco industry's interests.
University of Otago researcher and Aspire Aotearoa co-director Prof Janet Hoek said the Bill was long overdue.
"What the Bill is trying to do is to bring to light the evidence that would enable us to find out whether the [coalition] parties were benefiting from it.
"At the moment, we don't know."
The Bill was partly inspired by the actions of Associate Health Minister Casey Costello, who led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022.
It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers from 6000 to 600, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes and creating a smokefree generation by banning sales to those born after 2009.
Prof Hoek and Radio New Zealand sought information under the Official Information Act (OIA) to see what justification the ministry used to repeal the Act.
Initially, Ms Costello refused to release any documents, citing a clause in the OIA legislation protecting confidential advice tendered by ministers and officials.
So Prof Hoek and RNZ referred their OIA requests to chief ombudsman Peter Boshier, who ordered Ms Costello to release the information.
Prof Hoek said they eventually received "a flood" of emails and documents, which had been heavily redacted by the ministry.
"It's very difficult when a lot of the material is being heavily redacted because obviously you don't know what you don't know and it makes it difficult to undertake any kind of rigorous analysis.
"All we do know is that we've seen a move towards decisions that align with the tobacco industry's interests.
"And that's not just the repeal of the smokefree measures.
"There were tax reductions on heated tobacco products, and there have been proposals to introduce oral nicotine products, which the tobacco industry has been pushing."
Prof Hoek said it left many in the health and research sectors asking questions.
"Does this new direction align with the research evidence? The answer to that is no.
"Does it follow the expert advice from the Ministry of Health or from people like me working in the area? The answer to that is no.
"Is there really resounding public support for this new direction of travel? Again, the answer to that is quite clearly no.
"You end up thinking, who is going to benefit from these decisions and I think that's where you inevitably have to start considering the tobacco industry and what influence they've had."
Under the Tobacco Transparency Bill, the prime minister would have to issue policies requiring ministers to declare any interests they have in tobacco companies; the minister of health would provide guidance for public officials explaining the potential for tobacco industry influence; and the public service commissioner would set standards for officials involved in developing tobacco control policies.
Prof Hoek said the Bill would stop the government from supporting, endorsing or advocating for the tobacco industry's interests, and promote stronger compliance with Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which calls on parties to protect "policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry".
The Bill would also prevent people with interests in the tobacco industry from working on tobacco policy, and limit officials' ability to move directly from government roles to positions in tobacco companies.
"If politicians have got nothing to hide, that would be really obvious, and I think the net effect would be that some of the trust that's been lost in the government could potentially be regained.
"The repeal of measures that would have seen New Zealand realise the Smokefree 2025 goal appalled the public health community.
"This Bill will protect policies that promote wellbeing and equity, and that will benefit all New Zealanders," she said.
john.lewis@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
4 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."
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
NZ First Bill Legislates 'New Zealand' As Official Name Of Country In Law
Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First New Zealand First has today introduced a Member's Bill that seeks to state in law that 'New Zealand' is the official geographic name of our country. 'Over the past few years, we have had a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, officials, government departments, and politicians trying to change our country's name by stealth - with no permission or consent from the people' says Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First. The 'New Zealand (Name of State) Bill' confirms that 'New Zealand' is our country's official name, and it is only parliament and the people, not bureaucrats, government departments, or officials, that have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country. 'The vast majority of New Zealanders are shocked at this insidious creep of misguided and misinformed cultural history of the name 'Aotearoa'.' 'Any true historian or cultural expert would know that it was never the original Māori name for New Zealand – and we should not allow it to be misused for cultural virtue signalling.' 'Colonialist William Pember Reeves incorrectly used 'Aotearoa' in the late nineteenth century, now the cultural hand-wringers have embraced his mindset.' 'Don't force the South Island's iwi Ngāi Tahu to use 'Aotearoa'. In 2021, Ngāi Tahu said the history of the name 'Aotearoa' originally referred solely to the North Island.' Putting the name 'New Zealand' in law will also provide constitutional clarity and legal certainty. 'The name 'New Zealand' is recognised around the world as the name of our country, and any uncertainty about that risks our global economic markets and political identity that we have built, and spent billions of dollars promoting, over many decades' says Mr Peters. 'Our country's name is New Zealand and should not change unless the people of our country decide to change it.'
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
What would New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood mean?
What exactly is recognising Palestine statehood? Here are the details. "The world needs to focus" on aid for Gaza, Christopher Luxon has said. Photo / RNZ What is New Zealand's stance on Palestine statehood? After Britain's announcement this week that it would recognise Palestine by September unless Israel met certain conditions, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand wouldn't be following its lead 'at this stage'. 'Not at this point,' Luxon told reporters on Wednesday. 'Obviously, I will be talking with [British PM] Sir Keir Starmer around his position, which is a conditional statehood.' In response to questions from RNZ, Luxon said New Zealand had long supported the eventual recognition of Palestinian statehood, but that the immediate focus should be on getting aid into Gaza rather than 'fragmenting and talking about all sorts of other things that are distractions'. 'We need to put the pressure on Israel to get humanitarian assistance unfettered, at scale, at volume, into Gaza,' he said. 'You can talk about a whole bunch of other things, but for right now, the world needs to focus.' In Parliament on Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said he stood by a statement that 'it is a matter of when, not if, New Zealand will recognise Palestine statehood'. 'Yes, we steadfastly support the establishment of a Palestinian State and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We have done so for decades.' However, when asked if now was the time to recognise Palestine, Peters said, 'We do need to see progress on some of the fundamental issues relating to a Palestinian state's legitimacy and viability, including representative governance, commitments to non-violence, regional support and security guarantees for Israel. 'If we recognise the state of Palestine, New Zealand wants to know that what we are recognising is a legitimate, representative, viable political entity.' University of Otago professor of politics and international relations Robert Patman said that while the Luxon-led Government did support the two-state solution, 'it seems reluctant to show leadership'. The Government has said New Zealand has limited influence over a conflict on the other side of the world. 'This claim does not sit comfortably with New Zealand Government's purported support for an international rules-based order,' Patman said. 'Distance from a conflict clearly should not determine whether flagrant violations of international law such as in Gaza are tolerated or condemned.' Former Prime Minister Helen Clark also told RNZ's Midday Report on Thursday that New Zealand was 'lagging behind' by not recognising statehood. 'If New Zealand can't act in these circumstances, when can it act?' Dozens of protests over the war in Gaza and Palestine's future have been held in New Zealand. Photo / RNZ Who else is recognising Palestine? There's been a groundswell of recent announcements from Britain, France and Canada this week announcing proposals to recognise Palestine timed around the UN General Assembly next month. In 2024, a group of UN experts called on all United Nations member states to recognise the state of Palestine, in order to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza war. Australia is believed to be about to join that group, with the ABC writing that 'Australia will recognise a Palestinian state, it is only a matter of when and how'. 'My entire political life, I've said I support two states, the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and the right of Palestinians to have their legitimate aspirations for their own state realised,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. 'That's my objective.' Dozens of other countries already recognise Palestine. Some of these recent announcements come with caveats, such as ensuring free and open elections and the disarmament of Hamas. Britain's Starmer said it would recognise Palestine in September 'unless the Israeli Government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza' and other conditions. The UN also held an international conference on the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution in New York from July 28 to 29. Why isn't Palestine recognised as a nation? Palestine exists in a peculiar quasi-state limbo. There are no internationally agreed-upon borders, no globally recognised capital or army. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people dates back centuries. British troops took control of the country from the Ottoman Empire after World War I and ruled it until 1948. The UN proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, but the plan was rejected. Jewish leaders in Palestine declared an independent state known as Israel when British rule ended. That declaration sparked war with Arab nation neighbours and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refugees. After the 1967 'Six-Day War', Israel captured much of the Palestinian territories from other Middle Eastern nations. Israel continues to occupy those territories. In 1988, the state of Palestine was officially declared by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, claiming the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The state of Palestine has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations since 2012. The two-state solution that has been proposed for years would see an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, existing alongside Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Government rejects the two-state solution. What does recognising really mean? It's more of a symbolic step than anything, but it acknowledges Palestinian self-determination and allows the establishment of full diplomatic relations. 'The big difference with recognising a Palestinian state (as opposed to expressing a willingness to do so sometime in the future) is that it would significantly reduce the scope for diplomatic ambiguity or sitting on the fence,' Patman said. Juliette McIntyre, senior lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, told the ABC recently that a state has certain defining features under international law. These features include a permanent population, a determinate territory, an 'effective' Government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. 'In some ways, the most important thing is recognition by other states – this enables entering into diplomatic relations, and membership of international organisations,' McIntyre said. The recent announcements by Britain, Canada and others come as coverage of death and famine in Gaza has escalated dramatically. 'Recognising a Palestinian state also conveys an urgent acknowledgment that the current situations in Gaza and the West Bank have been characterised by acts that constitute war crimes and represent an unacceptable failure by the occupying power, Israel, to live up to its legal responsibilities toward the Palestinian population it has under its control,' Patman said. So would it officially become a country? Well, under United Nations rules, it could be. To become a member of the United Nations, Palestine would submit an application to the Secretary-General and accept member obligations. The UN Security Council would vote on the admission, but none of the five permanent members – China, France, Britain, Russia and the United States – can vote against it. If the Security Council recommends admission, it then goes on to the full General Assembly, where a two-thirds majority vote is necessary. South Sudan is the most recent country to join as a member, in 2011. The United States has previously vetoed attempts to grant Palestine membership. What is the US view on Palestine statehood? The US has had long-standing support for a two-state solution, but hasn't gone so far as to support Palestinian statehood. It does recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the representative entity of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian National Authority as the Government of the territories. US President Donald Trump has frequently supported Israel and expressed reservations about recognising Palestine, telling reporters that Starmer's plan would 'reward Hamas'. 'You're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded.' Trump also threatened a trade deal with Canada over its overtures on Palestine. In a statement this week, the US Department of State called the UN's recent two-state conference a 'publicity stunt' and 'a slap in the face to the victims of October 7', and said France's announcement was 'welcomed by Hamas'. The US could again veto a motion on Palestinian statehood if it comes before the Security Council. Patman said that in his view, 'the National-led Government may be nervous about offending the Trump administration and by taking incremental steps toward recognition may be seeking to minimise that possibility, especially if it believes Trump may be reconsidering his hitherto staunch support for Netanyahu's stance toward Gaza (and West Bank)'. What else has New Zealand done? New Zealand has just signed a joint statement with 14 other countries expressing a willingness to recognise the state of Palestine as a necessary step towards a two-state solution. New Zealand also recently joined 24 countries in calling for an end to the war in Gaza, and criticising what they called the inhumane killing of Palestinians. New Zealand had announced $37.5 million in humanitarian aid for the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said. It also recently banned some Israeli politicians from travelling to New Zealand. Will these declarations actually make a difference? Realistically, Palestine's statehood and recognition by the UN won't happen overnight. But the declarations are also being seen as an attempt to revive peace talks and end the violence. 'The window for peace through the two-state solution appeared to be locked shut after the collapse of the peace process that started with real hope in the 1990s,' noted the BBC's international editor, Jeremy Bowen. 'Britain's decision to recognise Palestine is a diplomatic crowbar to try to reopen it.' New Zealand is a small player on the global scene, but this week's escalation of major global powers chiming in could make Israel more isolated on the issue. 'After making such declarations, it will be more difficult for the likes of Britain, Germany and Australia to continue to provide military and intelligence assistance to a Netanyahu Government that is using such military force to deny the possibility of a Palestinian state and the outcome of a two-state solution,' Patman said.
