I believed we should pursue an independent foreign policy and military alignments.

GV27:

 

I felt like the tax argument was a dead heron. If we legalised growing it ourselves then was anyone actually going to pay the tax at a dispensary?

 

Plenty of people - you can grow tomatoes at home too but most people buy them from the supermarket regardless. 

Anyway - the point is they argued to reverse the ban on smoking was necessary because gangs. But gangs make millions off weed, and they still voted against it. Thus we can see that the "but gangs" argument for tobacco is bullshit.

@SaltyNZ back yard growers of "herbs" have very little access and resources to lobby the upper echelons of power. The tobacco industry has the access (cough Bishop) and resources to do the lobbying. Lets not forget that the poor little darlings in the boardrooms of tobacco are hurting.

Wow... https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/experts-detail-swathe-of-possible-connections-between-coalition-government-politicians-and-tobacco-industry-david-seymour-responds.html 

Casey Costello, the Minister of Health Responsible for Tobacco, previously chaired the Taxpayers' Union board - which has previously received funding from British American Tobacco - and has links with the Atlas Network, which has also received tobacco industry funding. 

 

Finance Minister Nicola Willis was previously the board director for New Zealand Initiative, a think tank which lists British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands Australasia as members.    

 

Chris Bishop, who is ranked third on the National Party list, was formerly the corporate affairs manager for Philip Morris New Zealand.

It's only a conspiracy theory until facts come out.

The real smoking gun would be a letter or email.

That would bury the government, Watergate style.

Wow. This government may last even less long than I thought it would.

I hope the press stays on this. It is going to be interesting to see how the 'CEO' is going to deal with this. 

Rikkitic:

 

Wow. This government may last even less long than I thought it would.

 

 

 

The Atlas Network have been around for a long time. They will surely have been careful not to leave fingerprints in incriminating places.

MikeB4:

 

I hope the press stays on this. It is going to be interesting to see how the 'CEO' is going to deal with this. 

 

Brave of Costello to contradict the boss right in front of him.

 

When Luxon was asked by Stuff if he can rule out a tobacco excise freeze at any point over the next three years, he replied with a firm, “absolutely”.

 

...

 

Verrall sought to clarify, “is the prime minister correct that the Government will not be pausing increases to tobacco excise tax, or is she still considering advice on that matter the prime minister has ruled out?”

 

Costello: “I am committed to receiving broad advice, and we will make recommendations on the best options to enable people to quit smoking.”

 

michaelmurfy:

 

Wow... https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/experts-detail-swathe-of-possible-connections-between-coalition-government-politicians-and-tobacco-industry-david-seymour-responds.html 

 

Casey Costello, the Minister of Health Responsible for Tobacco, previously chaired the Taxpayers' Union board - which has previously received funding from British American Tobacco - and has links with the Atlas Network, which has also received tobacco industry funding. 

 

Finance Minister Nicola Willis was previously the board director for New Zealand Initiative, a think tank which lists British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands Australasia as members.    

 

Chris Bishop, who is ranked third on the National Party list, was formerly the corporate affairs manager for Philip Morris New Zealand.

 

Doesn't look great but, in fairness, it's all "previously" and "formerly".

When someone leaves a job to work for a competitor they generally aren't suspected of still secretly helping their former employer to the detriment of their new employer (the new employer being the New Zealand taxpayer here).

In general wouldn't it be unfair to exclude a candidate from consideration based on their previous employment?

If dodgy deals or kickbacks are happening that's a different story, but is there any actual evidence of such things?

Paul1977:

 

Doesn't look great but, in fairness, it's all "previously" and "formerly".

 

When someone leaves a job to work for a competitor they generally aren't suspected of still secretly helping their former employer to the detriment of their new employer (the new employer being the New Zealand taxpayer here).

 

In general wouldn't it be unfair to exclude a candidate from consideration based on their previous employment?

 

If dodgy deals or kickbacks are happening that's a different story, but is there any actual evidence of such things?

 

Generally speaking I agree with you. But nobody's accusing them of secretly helping their former employer. They're doing it right out in the open.

I could go and work for Spark, and that would be fine. But it would look a bit different if I went to Spark and then started recommending a bunch of 2degrees services to handle my projects.

Or, even better, if entered parliament and became associate minister for telecommunications before making a bunch of regulations that would clearly favour 2degrees, that would be a bit on the nose, wouldn't it?

SaltyNZ:

 

Generally speaking I agree with you. But nobody's accusing them of secretly helping their former employer. They're doing it right out in the open.

 

I could go and work for Spark, and that would be fine. But it would look a bit different if I went to Spark and then started recommending a bunch of 2degrees services to handle my projects.

 

Or, even better, if entered parliament and became associate minister for telecommunications before making a bunch of regulations that would clearly favour 2degrees, that would be a bit on the nose, wouldn't it?

 

I personally think the justification for back peddling being to prevent gangs controlling the tobacco trade is weak. It certainly benefits tobacco companies, but I haven't seen any evidence that's why they're doing it. In other words, correlation doesn't equal causation.

I'm not saying that nothing shady is going on, just that there's no real proof.

EDIT: To ask, couldn't it very easily be about not wanting to lose the tax revenue? Would still be a bad reason, but they don't have to be in league with Big Tobacco to make terrible policy decisions.

Paul1977:

 

I personally think the justification for back peddling being to prevent gangs controlling the tobacco trade is weak. It certainly benefits tobacco companies, but I haven't seen any evidence that's why they're doing it. In other words, correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

I'm not saying that nothing shady is going on, just that there's no real proof.

 

FWIW I agree, at least until proven otherwise. I just think it was a bit of a bad call to even get yourself into that situation in the first place.

Nothing like a 'Luxon' each way.  :-) 

But Gangs.
We will crush Gangs.  

MikeB4:

 

I hope the press stays on this. It is going to be interesting to see how the 'CEO' is going to deal with this. 

 

https://archive.ph/GF5x8 >> Steve Braunias looks at exactly this in this week's "secret diary". Quite amusing 🙂