Tensions over tobacco regulations hit boiling point in parliament yesterday, writes Stewart Sowman-Lund in this extract from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Alleged conflicts on both sides

The battle over tobacco products heated up once again yesterday, with Labour and the unions taking aim at the government for publicly criticising public servants they say are just doing their jobs. It all started last month: Winston Peters, with the protection of parliamentary privilege, revealed that a sister in law of Labour’s health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall was a Ministry of Health official that had worked alongside the associate health minister, Casey Costello. Peters said the official should have disclosed her relationship to Costello, though the Ministry of Health defended its worker saying she had done everything right (but admitted it should have done more to manage the perceived conflict).

Yesterday, speaking for the first time since the claims were first levelled, Verrall denied she had ever received leaked information from her sister in law and called on Peters to “justify his comments”, while Hipkins called Peters’ decision to publicly name a public servant “reprehensible”.

In question time, the book was flipped. Hipkins questioned the government on its own alleged conflict of interest. As Stuff’s Glenn McConnell reported, the Labour leader asked the prime minister how he could be confident “conflicts of interest [were] being appropriately managed”, referencing advice provided to Costello he believed was linked to the tobacco industry. Luxon, in his response, chose to reiterate the claims about Verrall’s sister in law and was asked by the Speaker to apologise.

But wait…

There’s more. The Public Service Association later criticised Costello and the government for comments made about another public service worker. On Monday night, 1News reported that a Ministry of Health official had privately criticised advice used by Costello to justify cutting tax on heated tobacco products. In response, Costello accused the official of “undermining the government’s harm-reduction approach to reducing smoking rates”.

The PSA’s national secretary Kerry Davies, reported RNZ’s Craig McCulloch, said Costello’s remarks were “unacceptable within our democratic system” and could have a chilling effect. “Here we have an inexperienced minister intimidating officials because she is simply unhappy with their advice,” she said. “How is that good for our democracy?”

Part of a bigger picture

These issues are but tiny bites out of a larger debate over conflicts of interest circling the government’s controversial moves to wind back tobacco regulations. We’ve talked about it before, but a lot of it stems from ongoing in-depth reporting by RNZ’s Guyon Espiner, who has raised questions over possible interference by the tobacco industry in the government’s decision-making (strenuously denied by Costello, the PM and other ministers). Luxon, appearing on Morning Report yesterday morning, appeared irked by the continuing questions over tobacco rules and his minister’s decision making. “I think what’s frustrating is that Radio New Zealand frankly just wants to talk about this single issue every single week,” he said.

But the ongoing questions lobbed at each side over tobacco regulations aren’t the only claims of conflicts of interest that have been raised this term. The auditor general is currently probing how conflicts of interest were handled in regards to the government’s controversial fast-track bill, while one of the ministers involved – Shane Jones – faced accusations of undisclosed lobbying over a dinner with a mining boss earlier in the year. Nicole McKee, the minister with oversight for gun rules, has similarly been criticised for ongoing ties to the gun lobby and for previously failing to declare her firearms safety business. Then, as Bryce Edwards noted here, there is the evergreen suggestion that MPs with large housing portfolios are conflicted when making decisions that benefit them. These are, clearly, all distinct issues – and conflicts of interest are nothing new. But conflicts or the appearance of conflicts also invite suspicion over government decision-making, as Simon Wilson argued in the Herald earlier this year (paywalled).

The strange saga of Stephen Rainbow

I must stress that there’s no evidence of a conflict of interest here, but the ongoing peculiarity surrounding the recent hiring of a new chief human rights commissioner is worth highlighting for similar “optics” reasons. The Spinoff’s Madeleine Chapman has been doing excellent reporting in this area, revealing texts from early this year in which Stephen Rainbow acknowledged he “didn’t get the HRC [Human Rights Commission] job”. But as we all know, he was indeed appointed.

Chapman has previously reported that Rainbow wasn’t shortlisted for the role by the independent panel tasked with compiling candidates, and was listed as “not recommended” after he was subsequently handpicked for the shortlist by justice minister Paul Goldsmith. As Chapman summarised: “Somewhere between May 22 and August 16, Rainbow went from being an unsuccessful, ‘not recommended’ candidate, to being the successful candidate. Previous questions put to the justice minister about the qualifications and appointment of Rainbow received a brief response that the panel simply recommends candidates, it doesn’t appoint them.”

Asked to comment during question time yesterday, Goldsmith said he alone did not appoint Rainbow. “Cabinet made the decision and the government made the appointment. The government made the appointment because he is a very well-qualified person who would do a great job.”