Posts by Keith Ng
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Yes yes, Graeme, I’m getting to you! Just give me a sec.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Joshua Drummond,
True. I think they need to stop doing that too. But that's the "association" part, not the "freedom" part.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Brendon Steen,
I don't have a problem with consistent ideology either (I didn't use the word once!). But their ideological argument (freedom of association) is deeply flawed.
-
Ha. I'm pretty sure the NZ flag doesn't work.
-
In related news, I UNDERSTAND PERRY NOW.
-
ACT supports a law to entrench wealth with those who have it. Big Tobacco could/would benefit from such a law. More happen-stance, than sock-puppetry.
Clearly, your threshold for sock-puppetry is higher than mine.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to izogi,
Don't tobacco companies often run shell companies and organisations to make submissions on their behalf for exactly this reason? At least that's what I've been led to believe.
This was an odd one. It wasn't a select committee process, it was the Treasury taking submissions, basically on Rodney's behalf. It wasn't as transparent as SCs, but was subject to the OIA.
Still, with something that was so obviously drafted up by lawyers, they couldn't really put "Murray Gibson of Murray's Tobacconist in Timaru" on it anyway.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Carrick Graham,
So Keith you may have the "shit scared out of you" by a submission and your view of corporates, but the flip side is that democracy is poorer for excluding people/companies from shaping policy in New Zealand. That is what you should really be scared about.
The industry isn't excluded. It has as much right to be included as any group, bar the government itself. Should the MoH have more say on health policy than Big Tobacco? Well yes, Carrick, yes it should.
All sarcasm aside, we can agree that the industry's agenda is pretty straightforward, right? They're not submitting to improve the quality of legislation for the public good. They want to make more money. That's not necessarily evil, but let's not try to pretend they give a shit about the quality of democracy except where it lets them sell more cigarettes. Are you actually trying to dispute this?
The thing that came through in that submission is that BATNZ saw every evidentiary threshold as an opportunity; not an opportunity to present evidence and challenge facts, but an opportunity to send in the lawyers and frustrate the legislative process. The higher and more legalistic the threshold, the more the industry can stall it.
That's what scares me.
Also, the black market line really is kind of genius. I can see why they use it everywhere. It's talks about crime, taxes, blah blah blah. I nearly forgot about the "hey, did you know cigarettes kill people" part.
-
izogi: Wasn't an interview. We were just throwing questions at Hager at his press conference.
-
Also, Sean, I want to come back to your comment on Kiwiblog:
Ok, so I just went and read Keith Ng’s analysis and its freakin’ terrible – a 4th Form economics student could’ve picked it full of holes.
What a douche bag…..
Now that I've answered your question seriously and directly, if you still stand by your comments, I'd prefer it if you'd say it to me directly.