|
Post by Cantab on Jun 9, 2024 10:43:59 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Jun 9, 2024 13:31:49 GMT 12
you need to replace the "x" in "x.com" with "twitter", then post that URL
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Jun 9, 2024 19:36:40 GMT 12
WTF.
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Aug 27, 2024 18:52:17 GMT 12
Not a great look from Casey Costello no matter you political leanings.
I wonder if Seymour takes a leaf out of the book of the great Dame Jacinda on how to discipline people, I'll leave a blank space below for the explanation of that...
Is Casey Costello fit to be a minister?
Bryce Edwards
Aug 27
Cabinet Minister Casey Costello's behaviour in the Smoking portfolio is highly questionable, and her links to tobacco lobbying require further explanation. So far, anyone following her handling of tobacco issues might be inclined to metaphorically file the story under the category of “Weird” (which has become the common term after being used so much in the US presidential election campaign).
More critical observers will likely file Costello’s ministerial career under the label of “Incompetent” or even “Corrupt”. One way or another, it doesn’t look like Casey Costello is fit to be a Minister of the Crown. And her continuation in the role will likely tarnish Christopher Luxon’s administration over the next two years.
New material pointing to the influence of lobbyists on the Government
One of the Coalition Government’s most controversial reforms since coming into office has been its tobacco and smokefree rollbacks. Under the authority of Associate Health Minister Casey Costello the Government has abolished the previous Labour Government’s recent Smokefree reforms, and then reduced taxes on heated tobacco products by half. The radicalism of these rollbacks was largely unsignalled before the parties came to power, and it’s all been carried out without the usual transparency.
Observers, journalists, and anti-smoking campaigners have therefore sought to uncover the relevant decision-making process to see what influenced these big changes. One secret document in particular, appears to have swayed the reform programme, essentially becoming Government policy.
Although only released this week under the Official Information Act, the document appears to have been written and provided to the Minister by tobacco lobbyists. On receiving the document, Costello has treated it as official advice while also attempting to keep it out of the public’s eye.
The document makes the arguments for deregulating tobacco products. It makes the case against the existing rules because it claims “nicotine is as harmful as caffeine” and describes Labour's smokefree legislation as “nanny state nonsense” and “ideological nonsense that no other country had been stupid enough to implement.” It also advocates the policy reforms that Costello then implemented.
That the influential tobacco document might have been written by a tobacco lobbyist and passed on to Costello is hardly surprising. The Minister and her NZ First party have many links to such lobbyists. For example, tobacco giant Philip Morris’ top lobbyist, David Broome, was the party's chief of staff between 2014 and 2017. Apirana Dawson, who worked in Parliament and managed New Zealand First’s election campaigns in 2014 and 2017, also now lobbies for Philip Morris. Dawson is still close to Shane Jones, who says he uses him for advice on developing policies.
The Story of the mysterious lobbying briefing on tobacco
Casey Costello says the influential lobbying document came into her office on 6 December last year. She recently stated that she doesn’t know how it got into her office or who had written it. She later explained to the Ombudsman’s Office: “a hard copy of the document had been placed on my desk and… I did not receive the document through any other correspondence”.
Costello, a former detective, says she later investigated what her office staff knew about the document's origins. As a result of this investigation, she “confirmed with all members of my office that none of them placed the notes on my desk”. Likewise, she says she “enquired with staff in my office about whether they knew who had authored the document and they advised that they did not”.
Despite not knowing who wrote the document or how it had come to be in her office, the Minister then forwarded copies of it to Ministry of Health officials, to help steer their guidance in the policy process. From this point the document became an official part of the decision-making process.
Public information on the advice document
Also in December, RNZ’s investigative journalist Guyon Espiner made a request to Costello under the Official Information Act (OIA), asking for “all documents relating to tobacco and vaping policy”. Espiner had already been leaked the lobbying document, and it seems he was seeking to get an official version to report on.
However, Costello refused his request and provided no information at all. This was also followed in February by Costello answering a question in Parliament about the document, to which she replied: “There was no specific document written. A range of information was provided to officials, including material like Hansard reports, the Coalition Agreement and previous NZ First policy positions.”
The Chief Ombudsman then investigated, finding that Costello had no reason to withhold the document, saying her actions were “unreasonable and contrary to law”. Not only did he force her to release the documents, the Ombudsman took the rare step of making her apologise to RNZ. He also complained that Costello had failed to supply his office with the necessary information that he had requested to carry out the investigation.
Document released to RNZ but redacted
Yesterday, Guyon Espiner published the news that Costello had finally released the contentious lobbying document to RNZ. Amazingly, her office had also redacted significant elements of it.
However, because Espiner had a copy of the leaked version, he could point to what Costello had chosen to redact. He says Costello's office redacted “all the material pushing for tobacco tax cuts and the claims that nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine and that the last government's policy was ‘nanny state nonsense’.”
As to why these elements were censored, Costello cited that the OIA allows her to protect the “confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown and officials”. But she wouldn’t answer Espiner’s questions about “how she could use this clause if she did not know who wrote the document” and “why she would give a document to officials without knowing its origin”.
Presumably, Espiner will appeal to the Ombudsman about the redactions. And, likely, Costello will once again be reprimanded.
Further evidence of tobacco lobbyists’ influence on the Government
Espiner has also uncovered a further secret lobbying document that illuminates tobacco companies' attempts to influence public policy. A paper titled “Designing a Smoke-free Future in New Zealand” has been leaked to him, mapping out how Philip Morris wanted to influence government policy on the sale of heated tobacco products.
The 2017 document discusses its strategy for targeting political parties, politicians, and think tanks to further the company’s business agenda. According to the document, one of the main targets for the lobbyists was NZ First.
The focus of the strategy was to get politicians to include heated tobacco products as part of the promotion of smoke-free alternatives such as vapes. Philip Morris leads the market with its IQOS, which, unlike vaping, heats a tobacco stick, producing a nicotine vapour.
According to Espiner, the document states that its number one objective was to “maintain political pressure to ensure a favourable regulatory framework” for the company’s tobacco products in this area. In particular, it wanted to encourage politicians to cut the tax on these products.
The document is useful for understanding how lobbyists strategize, especially because it discusses which particular politicians and groups to lobby. For example, the document suggests that its advocates should “Leverage on positions already advocated by the NZ Taxpayers' Union, NZ Initiative and select public health stakeholders.”
This is particularly relevant because Casey Costello has been the chair of the Taxpayers Union before she came into Parliament. The lobbying document identifies the Taxpayers Union as a partner in their tobacco strategy.
Not surprisingly, since Costello has been in Parliament since 2020, her party has generally voted against smoke-free policies. According to a study released this month by the Public Health Communication Centre, NZ First voted for “progressive legislation” only two out of seven times in 2023 and 2024. Similarly, the Act Party voted this way only two out of nine times.
In contrast, according to the study, National has supported progressive smokefree legislation on 7 out of 10 occasions. And apparently, “The Labour Party, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori voted consistently in support of progressive smokefree legislation.”
Dissent on giving heated tobacco products tax breaks
Earlier in the year, Costello quietly cut excise taxes on heated tobacco products by 50%. It has now been revealed that Treasury opposed this. Rachel Thomas of The Post reported on this over the weekend, saying that newly released documents show that Treasury opposed the tax cuts.
Treasury told the Government that there was “no clear independent evidence that heated tobacco products are significantly less harmful than cigarettes”, and they pointed to the Health Ministry’s literature review to support this. Treasury had also argued that the tax cut – which the Government had budgeted $216m for – should be reversed, with the money allocated to pay for cancer drugs.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis wouldn’t be interviewed on the matter or reply to written questions but instead stated to the journalist that the tobacco tax cut was “consistent with our Coalition Agreement with New Zealand First”. Responding to this, Labour’s health spokesperson, Ayesha Verrall, was reported saying that the issue “revealed how much lobbyists were influencing the Government”.
Espiner has also uncovered more about the Government’s decision to cut taxes on heated tobacco products via the Cabinet paper related to the change, which noted that the process was not in line with usual policy-making: “The move to cut excise tax did not meet standard Cabinet requirements for such proposals because no regulatory impact statement was provided, the paper also noted. Instead, the Ministry for Regulation and the Health Ministry would do a ‘post implementation review’ on the excise tax cut after a year.”
Costello’s credibility as a Minister is in doubt
Opponents of Casey Costello say that she is “in thrall to tobacco lobbyists,” and it’s hard to disagree that this is exactly what it looks like. Although it’s possibly just a coincidence that the reforms that the new Minister has now implemented are the same as the various lobbying documents advocate, there’s plenty of room to reasonably speculate about the linkages.
Costello still maintains that she has no relationship with the tobacco industry, but it doesn’t help her case that she refuses to do interviews on the topic. Given that she has been caught breaking the law in her handling of documents in the decision-making processes, public confidence in Costello must be starting to wane.
Many of Costello’s statements on her tobacco and smoking decision-making process aren’t very credible—especially in terms of the lobbying document at the centre of her reforms. Opponents will now watch her carefully, ready to expose further credibility deficits and slipups.
Ultimately, this won’t reflect well on the Coalition Government. However, the bigger problem is that her tobacco and smoking rollbacks have become a clear case study of how lobbying and democracy in New Zealand now work.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Aug 27, 2024 20:05:01 GMT 12
Not a great look from Casey Costello no matter you political leanings. I wonder if Seymour takes a leaf out of the book of the great Dame Jacinda on how to discipline people, I'll leave a blank space below for the explanation of that... Why is it Seymour's problem? All his MP's are in line. In fact, why is this even in a thread about voting ACT?
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Aug 27, 2024 20:36:07 GMT 12
Not a great look from Casey Costello no matter you political leanings. I wonder if Seymour takes a leaf out of the book of the great Dame Jacinda on how to discipline people, I'll leave a blank space below for the explanation of that... Why is it Seymour's problem? All his MP's are in line. In fact, why is this even in a thread about voting ACT? duh, thought she was ACT rather than winston first. Hence it went in the act thread...
|
|
|
Post by fish on Aug 27, 2024 20:43:40 GMT 12
Why is it Seymour's problem? All his MP's are in line. In fact, why is this even in a thread about voting ACT? duh, thought she was ACT rather than winston first. Hence it went in the act thread... It is a funny thing isn't it? having three parties all trying to differentiate themselves, but all part of the same govt. Esp the two minor parties. The socialist media are for ever trying to get Luxon to loose his rag about something one of the other parties said or did. They seem to think it is Luxon's problem, as if all the MP's and Ministers are part of the National Party. If people disagree with something enough, they get to vote them out next time. You can only assume Luxon is keeping his mouth shut in the hopes that the minor players make themselves look bad enough for that to happen. If we had an FFP voting system, that would be the case, but the govt isn't one homogeneous entity, it is three different entities. I think a lot of people don't understand that and the basics of MMP governments.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 11, 2024 19:01:14 GMT 12
ACT MP Mark Cameron made an impassioned plea to Parliament, urging more assistance for rural communities, following the death of his 22-year-old son. Cameron’s son, Brody, died in May, in a suspected suicide confirmed by his father. During a general debate at Parliament on Wednesday, Cameron delivered an emotional speech which shed light on his motivation for remaining an MP and the toll his son’s death had taken. “Yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day. Hard for some, bloody hard for me. I buried my boy, and he is gone,” Cameron said. The ACT Party caucus joined him in the House. The acting Speaker and other MPs acknowledged his loss, after the heart-aching speech. He said his son’s death, while traumatic, reminded him why he became an MP. “I stand here to address this House, to address all of you, a shadow of the man that boy would have become. A shadow. But I am here, because I must. I am a father to a lost son, a parent to a lost child. But I turn up every day in this House because I believe in rural New Zealand,” he said. “My boy was a contractor, a farmer, an every day good Kiwi bloke. He is no more.” Cameron said he hoped that by advocating for rural communities, he may be able to help others. “I might save someone else, I might be able to help rural people preserve their way of life,” he said. “Listen to these people. Politicians need to stop and actually listen to rural folk.” He said “red tape”, “sermons” and other obstacles added further stress to farmers. “My boy is gone. His suicide was one thing. It could have been many things. But I will say this, to this House, in this God awful mess that is my life, I am in this House every day because I absolutely believe in rural people,” he said. He said the Parliament, together, needed to focus on people - to combat suicide. Cameron is a List MP, who entered Parliament with the ACT Party in 2020. www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350411969/acts-mark-cameron-gives-emotional-speech-about-his-sons-death
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Sept 13, 2024 14:16:13 GMT 12
That must have been hard for Mark.
I know he's coped some nasty crap for being a MP. I hope, at an extreme level, politics didn't have any input to his sons decision.
Mark is an interesting chap who you'd never pick as a polly, the first time I saw him and his missus I seriously considered ringing the plods about cattle rustlers. He has a passion you don't see with the career pollies.
|
|
|
Post by jim on Sept 24, 2024 11:02:49 GMT 12
this impresses me - i hope it goes through ok ... Three cheers for Simon Court The most important thing this Government does in three years may be what’s happening quietly in the background of resource management reform. Last week Court announced, beside Chris Bishop, that the Government is replacing the RMA with two laws based on property rights.
If you’re a long-term Free Press reader, all of this will sound very familiar. The difference is that this time it is happening. It is now official Government policy with a series of dates by when legislation will be drafted, introduced to Parliament, and passed into law.
At the heart of New Zealand’s problem is that it’s a beautiful, isolated piece of land. It has a mild climate that beats Canada’s skin-freezing cold or Australia’s blood-boiling heat any day. It’s filled with resources that make it one of the richest per-capita in the world. Climate change will probably actually make New Zealand even better off compared with the rest of the world.
When a group of people have such a wonderful inheritance, they have two choices. Either make the most of it, or pull up the drawbridge.
Making the most of it would mean making it easy for each generation to build a home. That would mean making it easy to build the infrastructure that connects homes together, forming towns and cities. It should be easy to farm the land, and extract resources that make human life long and happy (just not while they’re left in the ground).
This seems like an obvious choice, but enter human nature. For the last few decades, the net result has been pulling up the drawbridge. You can’t do bloody anything, home building has only once reached the levels of the 1970s, when there were only three million people. There are probably more Kiwis working in Australian mines than New Zealand ones.
The result is a generation who feel hopeless. Born into the best place on the planet where it’s needlessly hard to get a place of your own. Why not vote for a politician who promises to tax the rich? Better still, cut out the middle man, join a gang, and do it yourself. Then there’s those who leave.
That is the result of the RMA. The simple diagnosis is that it’s a bureaucratic nightmare, but it’s more than that. It is the legislative expression of a people’s desire to enjoy what they have and bugger anyone else.
The central concept in the RMA is sustainable development, to provide for current generations without taking from future ones. Because nobody knows what future generations want, or what technology they’ll have to achieve it, the best way to achieve this is to do as little as possible, which is pretty much what’s happened.
Too many people have too many grounds to object to too many activities meaning nothing gets done. It’s not unusual for it to take longer to get permission to do something than to actually do it. The range of criteria Councils must consider under the RMA is everything from climate change (but you already pay under the ETS for whatever you do) to the ‘intrinsic values of ecosystems’ (how can you know them if they’re intrinsic)?
David Parker’s RMA reforms, replacing it with three acts, introduced a new central concept ‘te oranga o te taiao.’ Nobody knows what that means in the context of resource management decisions. By the time the Courts figured it out, Indonesia would have overtaken us in GDP per capita.
So that’s gone and the Resource Management Act is being replaced with a law whose central concept is the enjoyment of private property. The starting point is that you have a right to use and develop your own property. The second result is that you have a right to object only if your own property is affected.
The result is a switch back to the pioneering vision of New Zealand. A nation of people who can instead of a nation of people who are not allowed.
The law will also make many processes standard. If you have a water treatment plant that spits out water with less than x parts per million of E. Coli, congratulations. You’ve met the standard and can just build it.
The Government will now listen to an expert advisory group, people with real experience of development, as the law itself is developed for introduction to Parliament. It will be passed before the next election, and New Zealand will have taken a massive step forward to achieving its potential.
Much of this is owed to Simon Court, one of only two engineers in Parliament (David Seymour is the other one). Court has been working away since he entered Parliament, releasing ACT’s detailed RMA policy in 2022, and making it real in Government. A very good example of how ACT keeps the Government in place, and makes it better.
|
|