A couple of good articles about the choice the Conservative UK
government made:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk-can-learn

and

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322

Perhaps they did not have a Minister who hid $NZ 42 billion in cost
savings over the future from the changes that were in place . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

A couple of good articles about the choice the Conservative UK
government made:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk-can-learn

and

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322

Perhaps they did not have a Minister who hid $NZ 42 billion in cost
savings over the future from the changes that were in place . . .

Wow, did Ardern do that, or was it Hipkins?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-04-21, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 06:45:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

A couple of good articles about the choice the Conservative UK
government made:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk-can-learn

and

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322

Perhaps they did not have a Minister who hid $NZ 42 billion in cost >>>savings over the future from the changes that were in place . . .

Wow, did Ardern do that, or was it Hipkins?

The amount hidden from cabinet was $46 billion - see: https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/04/12/minister-left-46b-benefit-of-smokefree-reforms-out-of-cabinet-paper/

"Health officials briefed Casey Costello about new research showing significant economic benefits from the smokefree reforms, but that information was never passed on to Cabinet when the minister proposed repealing the reforms.

Newly released Cabinet documents and briefings to Costello, the
associate health minister charged with tobacco control, show the
lengths officials went to to try to preserve at least some of the
changes passed by the previous government.

I trust those officials are now in charge of brooms. Or at least a Please explain situation is now in progress.

While existing anti-smoking measures were important, they alone would
only achieve the smokefree goal of a five percent smoking rate for all population groups in 2061, Costello was told. The deadline set by the National government in 2011 was for a smokefree New Zealand by 2025."

and
"Early estimates had suggested New Zealand might save $5.25b in health
costs and $5.88b in increased productivity over the lifetime of the population alive in 2020, officials told Costello.

More recent independent analysis, published in November 2023, found a
$17b loss to government out to 2050 from reduced excise revenue and
increased superannuation costs from people living longer would be more
than offset by a $46b economic benefit over the same period, the
briefing said. “The new estimates find the smoked tobacco measures are likely to result in large economic benefits for the total population.”

Verrall said it was up to ministers on what they wanted to include in
Cabinet papers. However, she said, Costello appeared to have withheld information from Cabinet that was unfavourable to her position.

“For Cabinet to make good decisions, all the evidence needs to be put
in front of it.”"

The comments in that article are also worth reading

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 06:45:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

A couple of good articles about the choice the Conservative UK
government made:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk-can-learn

and

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322

Perhaps they did not have a Minister who hid $NZ 42 billion in cost
savings over the future from the changes that were in place . . .

Wow, did Ardern do that, or was it Hipkins?

The amount hidden from cabinet was $46 billion - see: https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/04/12/minister-left-46b-benefit-of-smokefree-reforms-out-of-cabinet-paper/

"Health officials briefed Casey Costello about new research showing
significant economic benefits from the smokefree reforms, but that
information was never passed on to Cabinet when the minister proposed
repealing the reforms.

Newly released Cabinet documents and briefings to Costello, the
associate health minister charged with tobacco control, show the
lengths officials went to to try to preserve at least some of the
changes passed by the previous government.

While existing anti-smoking measures were important, they alone would
only achieve the smokefree goal of a five percent smoking rate for all population groups in 2061, Costello was told. The deadline set by the
National government in 2011 was for a smokefree New Zealand by 2025."

and
"Early estimates had suggested New Zealand might save $5.25b in health
costs and $5.88b in increased productivity over the lifetime of the
population alive in 2020, officials told Costello.

More recent independent analysis, published in November 2023, found a
$17b loss to government out to 2050 from reduced excise revenue and
increased superannuation costs from people living longer would be more
than offset by a $46b economic benefit over the same period, the
briefing said. “The new estimates find the smoked tobacco measures are
likely to result in large economic benefits for the total population.”

Verrall said it was up to ministers on what they wanted to include in
Cabinet papers. However, she said, Costello appeared to have withheld information from Cabinet that was unfavourable to her position.

“For Cabinet to make good decisions, all the evidence needs to be put
in front of it.”"

The comments in that article are also worth reading

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21 Apr 2024 08:08:49 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2024-04-21, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 06:45:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

A couple of good articles about the choice the Conservative UK >>>>government made:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk-can-learn

and

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322

Perhaps they did not have a Minister who hid $NZ 42 billion in cost >>>>savings over the future from the changes that were in place . . .

Wow, did Ardern do that, or was it Hipkins?

The amount hidden from cabinet was $46 billion - see:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/04/12/minister-left-46b-benefit-of-smokefree-reforms-out-of-cabinet-paper/

"Health officials briefed Casey Costello about new research showing
significant economic benefits from the smokefree reforms, but that
information was never passed on to Cabinet when the minister proposed
repealing the reforms.

Newly released Cabinet documents and briefings to Costello, the
associate health minister charged with tobacco control, show the
lengths officials went to to try to preserve at least some of the
changes passed by the previous government.

I trust those officials are now in charge of brooms. Or at least a Please >explain situation is now in progress.

You may be one of those people that do not understand what the public
service is there for. They must give full and fair advice to the
government in the interests of the public, not of any particular
political party. In this case, they were telling her of $46 billion in
value to New Zealand. Nicola Willis is probably happy not to have
officially known that as she needs the tobacco taxes to pay for tax
cuts in the short term, but that is a political decision - the public
service will cost government policies and variations to those policies
to be able to advise sensitivities. The lengths they went to is merely describing them doing their duty - being fair and impartial. What
Costello did (or did not do) with that advice is not part of the brief
of the public service.

That the previous policy had value is shown by its adoption in the UK,
despite the conservative government there having tried to make tax
cuts using borrowed money as is currently being pushed here and now
likely to lose the next election, they will get some credit for
reducing the scourge of diseases generated by tobacco products. At a
time we are suffering from inadequate health services, such a
forward-looking policy is very desirable - it puts lives and long term
savings before short term political gain.

While existing anti-smoking measures were important, they alone would
only achieve the smokefree goal of a five percent smoking rate for all
population groups in 2061, Costello was told. The deadline set by the
National government in 2011 was for a smokefree New Zealand by 2025."

Is that the first confirmed target that National is making sure we
miss?

and
"Early estimates had suggested New Zealand might save $5.25b in health
costs and $5.88b in increased productivity over the lifetime of the
population alive in 2020, officials told Costello.

More recent independent analysis, published in November 2023, found a
$17b loss to government out to 2050 from reduced excise revenue and
increased superannuation costs from people living longer would be more
than offset by a $46b economic benefit over the same period, the
briefing said. ?The new estimates find the smoked tobacco measures are
likely to result in large economic benefits for the total population.?

Verrall said it was up to ministers on what they wanted to include in
Cabinet papers. However, she said, Costello appeared to have withheld
information from Cabinet that was unfavourable to her position.

?For Cabinet to make good decisions, all the evidence needs to be put
in front of it.?"

The comments in that article are also worth reading

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 06:45:47 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

A couple of good articles about the choice the Conservative UK
government made:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk-can-learn

and

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322

Perhaps they did not have a Minister who hid $NZ 42 billion in cost >>>savings over the future from the changes that were in place . . .

Wow, did Ardern do that, or was it Hipkins?

The amount hidden from cabinet was $46 billion - see: >https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/04/12/minister-left-46b-benefit-of-smokefree-reforms-out-of-cabinet-paper/

"Health officials briefed Casey Costello about new research showing >significant economic benefits from the smokefree reforms, but that >information was never passed on to Cabinet when the minister proposed >repealing the reforms.

Newly released Cabinet documents and briefings to Costello, the
associate health minister charged with tobacco control, show the
lengths officials went to to try to preserve at least some of the
changes passed by the previous government.

While existing anti-smoking measures were important, they alone would
only achieve the smokefree goal of a five percent smoking rate for all >population groups in 2061, Costello was told. The deadline set by the >National government in 2011 was for a smokefree New Zealand by 2025."

and
"Early estimates had suggested New Zealand might save $5.25b in health
costs and $5.88b in increased productivity over the lifetime of the >population alive in 2020, officials told Costello.

More recent independent analysis, published in November 2023, found a
$17b loss to government out to 2050 from reduced excise revenue and
increased superannuation costs from people living longer would be more
than offset by a $46b economic benefit over the same period, the
briefing said. “The new estimates find the smoked tobacco measures are
likely to result in large economic benefits for the total population.”

Verrall said it was up to ministers on what they wanted to include in
Cabinet papers. However, she said, Costello appeared to have withheld >information from Cabinet that was unfavourable to her position.

“For Cabinet to make good decisions, all the evidence needs to be put
in front of it.”"

The comments in that article are also worth reading

OK so it was Ardern., Thanks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)