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advice', which, when she released it later, turned out to be five articles that were either about different products, outdated, or offered only weak support for her view.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
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Why are we more likely to buy when our options are limited?
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Why are we more likely to buy when our options are limited? Good business sense using consumer psychology. Photo / Getty Images Every city has its signatures. In Ho Chi Minh City it was someone pointing at my sneakers and offering to clean them. In Da Nang it was, 'Taxi, sir?' and in Hội An it's been, 'Want a boat ride?' We have resolutely fought off all efforts to part us from our money. Well, most efforts. It was our first afternoon in Hội An, a historical port city in central Vietnam, home to a Unesco world-heritage ancient town. We'd gone in search of a particular tailor, recommended to us by our hotel and breathless English tourists on TikTok. At the first street corner, I got out my phone to check directions, and 15 minutes later we were at a completely different tailor, having been expertly waylaid by one of their 'scouts', who'd seen us and asked if she could offer directions … The next day we did a lantern-making class at our hotel, led by the ever-patient tutor, Moon. Moon asked us what we had planned and made a few recommendations, including one for dinner at the Citadel restaurant at which a friend of hers worked. That evening, we followed her advice and had a frankly delightful evening marked by fantastic food, an absolutely lovely waitress, Anna, and regular check-ins from Gray, the manager (who also happens to be a Kiwi). As with every restaurant we visited, we had to force ourselves to sit back and enjoy the experience; at no point did we ever feel like we had to rush to finish, pay, and give up our table to the next customer. Not like, ahem, at home in Wellington. What do these latter examples have in common? Bloody good business sense based on friendliness and strategic use of consumer psychology. Having recently hosted friends visiting Wellington from overseas, my heart was warmed by hearing them say how friendly New Zealanders are, but it's a step change to Vietnamese hospitality. For example, first and last impressions count or, in technical terms, primacy and recency. We make impressions incredibly quickly and largely unconsciously, and research shows that, while we care deeply about how good the chef is, we have to be drawn in first to find out. That can hang entirely on the rapport we sense from our first encounter. When we left the restaurant, Anna farewelled us by our names (which she remembered several days later when we happened to pass by). That's a personal touch that leaves a positive impression. Ever started to feel tense because wait staff check in on you a little too frequently? Or neglected because they don't check in at all? That's another tricky balance, and one that requires a bit of intuition about the best time to stop by. Another thing Citadel did well, but almost every other restaurant we ate at didn't, was a sensibly curated set of options. Ever eaten at the American restaurant chain The Cheesecake Factory? The menu runs to more than 200 items and around 20 pages. It is frankly exhausting. You get to a point where you no longer care what you order, you just want to make it stop. Psychology researchers Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper are probably best associated with the notion of this 'paradox of choice'. In a particularly well-known experiment they showed that people may be more likely to head over to a counter offering 24 types of jam than a counter with only six, but people were 10 times more likely to buy jam when the number of types available was reduced from 24 to six. Why? Because what if you make the wrong choice? The more choices, the harder the decision, and the greater the likelihood of buyer's remorse. So in keeping with this research, we broke our holiday rule and went back to the Citadel and its more limited number of choices a second time.
NZ Herald
a day 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
a day 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."
