Posts by Phil Lyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Phil was making a claim
At the risk of being boring, I responded yesterday: my original comment that was a brief aside which Graeme chose to interpret it in a way I had not intended. I replied saying my meaning was that science had been informing the debate over many years. The voting on last year's Bill builds on that body of knowledge.
My contention is that most MPs don't even know the effect of the laws they are passing
I am more hopeful. The contention would make a fascinating project for a Masters/PhD student (VUW PolSci dept, are you listening?) I agree that the political process is complex.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Ross Mason,
Very good then. Will Keep Calm And Carry On.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Ross Mason,
Ross "Ponzi" Mason?
-
"Better Help for Smokers to Quit" is one of the Government's Health Targets.
Performance by DHBs is reported quarterly, including by taking ads in the daily papers. I believe Governments of all stripes over recent years are genuinely committed to reducing smoking rates. If Treasury ever has raised issues around loss of excise duty, or tried to at a future date, I have little doubt they'd have their ears boxed.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to merc,
Correct. I've edited, and said I've edited, on the earlier post.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to merc,
if they make smoking illegal
Except that prohibition is not on anybody's agenda.
The Smokefree Coalition has a goal of New Zealand being smokefree by 2025, and the current Government committed to that goal when responding last year to the Maori Affairs select committee inquiry.
All actors are using a range of tools, but making smoking illegal is not part of the plan. (oops, editted to insert 'not' which was meant to be there.)
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Without having done so, can I put some money on emotion, not scientific argument, coming to the fore?
I'd argue that science is the winner. Expanding on yesterday's brief aside:
No, it doesn't happen in the simplistic way Graeme suggested yesterday. MPs wouldn't have looked at the 2011 bill de novo or in isolation. But science has been informing the debate and the political/policy process on tobacco for 25 years, probably much longer. And progressing at a speed frustratingly slow for the public health people. But still informing both officials and Parliament.
In the 1980s it was common for offices to reek as people smoked at their desk. Then the workplace ban legislation came and while contentious, it was accepted. Further slow progress was made.
In the last Parliament there was the inquiry by the Maori Affairs Select Committee which reported in Nov 2010. They received 260 submissions and heard 96 of the submissions orally. Science was included and was tested. Then in Dec 2010 the recent bill was introduced. Again submissions were made and the science tested.
In 2012, we have reached the point where the harmfulness of tobacco is generally accepted, just as it is accepted that the earth is round. In the third reading debate last year, John Boscawen of all people quoted Helen Clark saying around 1989 that the reason for the workplace ban was because tobacco kills.
Sure, a number of MPs do the hard yards at the select committee coalface and then take issues back to their caucus. And caucuses will debate a matter. But every MP has the chance to research and question issues on any bill - and almost every MP does that one way or another. New MPs find all sorts of briefings to bring themselves up to speed on an issue, and learn they have lots of new friends wanting to an ear.
And I'd wager that every MP knows more or less what the bill does and can defend their vote if challenged at the RSA or the bowling club.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Keith Ng,
Noted! Will see what I can do.
Even if it is as simple as sending bank a/c details to anyone who contacts you through that hard-to-find page on hte PAS site.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
a dairy owner who doesn't want to dispense a poisonous drug
They exist, for instance in this TV3 story from 2007. And IIRC (Keith, got some of that evidence thingymajig for Graeme?) word is that business does not suffer for these dairies.
-
Graeme, you should have been a logician. The sort who says, Yes, there appears to be at least one cow which appears on the side we can see to be black in these lighting conditions.
I surrender.
But then I did read the Hansard of the debate.