Government by google

In this year's Budget, cancer Minister Casey Costello gave Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut for their heated tobacco products, on the basis of "independent advice" which contradicted that produced by the Ministry of health. When she finally produced this "independent advice", it did not support her case at all, and looked like a collection of random shit she had found on google while "doing her own research". Now someone using FYI, the free OIA request tool, has finally force Costello to admit where her advice came from. And the answer is exactly what you thought it would be:

Which is I guess the flip side of National's public service cuts: Ministers who think they can just google shit up instead (and a Prime Minister and Cabinet who accept this).

Whether this meets the standards of competence and professionalism we expect from Ministers and which supposedly justify their enormous salaries is left as an exercise for the reader.

Taking the piss again

Remember Casey Costello? The government's most ignorant Minister? First she was referred to the Chief Archivist after claiming that key advice on her cancer promotion policy had simply magically appeared on her desk one day, and that she had no idea where it came from. Then, when the Ministry of Health said her plan to give Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut for its heated cancer products was a bad idea, she told Cabinet she had received "independent advice" to the contrary; when the media quite rightly asked to see that advice, she released a collection of random papers which did not support the case, and appeared to have been googled up at three a.m. by an emotional junior staffer in response to media queries. And now, she's claiming to have no idea where they came from either. In response to an OIA request for the origins of the material, she claimed:

I note that the advice consists of academic articles and health research that forms part of a wider body of scientific literature that focuses on harm reduction, rather than a moralistic, abstinence-only perspective on tobacco and nicotine products. This research is available online and my office has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing a wide range of evidence and information. As such, it is not possible to provide a definitive response to the date and time the articles and health research were first accessed by my office. Therefore, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the Act, as the information is not held.

Yeah right. And if you believe that, I have a Minister to sell you.

Obviously, this is going to the Ombudsman. They have already made clear in their previous ruling that Ministers are required to take reasonable steps to find if information is held. Obvious steps in this case could include searching emails, checking document management systems, examining file metadata, or just asking staff. Its not clear whether the Minister did any of those things - but in the wake of the previous ruling and referral to the Chief Archivist, it smacks of a further attempt to mislead the public and cover up the truth. Hopefully the Ombudsman will get to the bottom of it.

Taking the piss

When cancer minister Casey Costello convinced Cabinet to give her mates at Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut, she did so in the face of departmental advice that there would be no benefits and that Philip Morris' "heated tobacco products" were more cancerous and toxic than cigarettes. But she told her fellow Cabinet Ministers that it was fine because she had received "independent advice" that they were effective as an anti-smoking tool. Yesterday, she finally produced that "advice". And it was simply laughable:

The Associate Health Minister Casey Costello's "independent advice" on heated tobacco products is five articles that are either about different products, outdated, or only offer weak support for her view.

The five documents are not decisive on the benefits of the products.

They're also published in dodgy scam-journals and potentially funded by the tobacco industry. As Ayesha Verrall points out, it looks like she just did a quick google and grabbed whatever came up. It is certainly not the level of evidence you would expect to support a $200 million government policy, and not the level of care we should expect from a government minister.

At this stage it is clear that Costello is simply taking the piss. We deserve a better standard of government than this. Its long past time Luxon sacked her. And if he can't or won't, maybe we should start recognising that it is Winston who is really Prime Minister and deciding who is in cabinet...?

Worse and worse

Cancer Minister Casey Costello is in trouble again over her secret, magically appearing tobacco policy document. The Ombudsman has already found that she acted contrary to law in refusing requests for it; now she has been referred to the Chief Archivist over a possible breach of the Public Records Act over her claim that it magically appeared on her desk and that she has no idea who wrote it:

Casey Costello has again been reprimanded by the Chief Ombudsman for her handling of a mystery document containing tobacco-industry friendly ideas, which she passed to health officials to develop policy.

[...]

Now Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier has released a new investigation into Costello's handling of the document.

He says he is "concerned the associate minister was unable to produce any records about the provenance of the notes" and has "taken the rare step of notifying the chief archivist about the record keeping issues in this case".

The chief archivist has a range of powers to examine matters relating to record keeping, under the Public Records Act.

The Ombudsman refers a handful of complaints to the Chief Archivist each year, though referring a Minister is unusual. The penalties for contravening the Act are derisory, but reminding Costello and her staff of their legal obligations might be helpful.

...assuming its allowed to get that far. Because thanks to National's restructuring last time they were in power, the Chief Archivist is now part of the Department of Internal Affairs, and works for a Minister. While they have statutory independence in some areas, this does not seem to cover their investigative functions. Which seems deeply unsatisfactory when they're called upon to investigate Ministers. We will need to watch carefully to ensure there is no Ministerial fuckery from National over this.

Simply not credible

RNZ has more information this morning on Phillip Morris Minister Casey Costello's mysterious tobacco policy document, and it just gets worse and worse. Costello has consistently claimed to have no idea who authored the document; now she's saying she has no idea how it even got into her office:

A politically charged document arguing for tobacco tax cuts was sent to health officials by a NZ First minister - even though she says she has no idea who wrote it or how it ended up in her office.

[...]

Costello now acknowledges the document existed but says she does not know who wrote it - only that the author does not work in her office.

"The document you have referred to was not generated or collated by any members of my office and was only received as a hard copy on December 6," she wrote in response to RNZ's OIA request.

She said she still did not know who wrote the document or even who gave it to her.

I have more information about this from an Ombudsman's complaint, where she has told the Ombudsman that:

the document was not generated or collated by any members of my office’, ‘a hard copy of the document had been placed on my desk and…I did not receive the document through any other correspondence’ and that she has ‘confirmed with all members of my office that none of them placed the notes on my desk’

The Minister also advised that she ‘enquired with staff in my office about whether they knew who had authored the document and they advised that they did not’.

The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable effort required to justify refusing a request for authorship, and on face value, it is. The problem is that even if we believe her, her explanation is simply not credible. Essentially she's saying that some unknown person - a ninja, perhaps? - walked into her office, put something on her desk without anyone noticing, and that despite supposedly not knowing where this document came from, it became government policy. Which is... not how government is meant to operate in a democracy, and raises serious doubts about whether she is fit to be a minister. It also raises serious doubts about both the level of security on ministerial offices, and the quality of the ministers that they're such credulous fools to advance any crackpot idea placed on their desk (OTOH, it does suggest a way of altering government policy for the better, if only we had some better ninjas with better documents to feed them...)

The other problem is that we have no reason to believe her. Quite apart from the sheer incredulity of her story, this is a Minister who has acted in a systematically dishonest way over this document, down to lying over its existence (she's also lied over what advice she considered, and withheld evidence from the Ombudsman). We have no reason to treat her statements as honest this time. But I suppose that if she is shown to have lied, that would be a crime, and you'd hope that the Ombudsman would be sick enough of her bullshit to actually refer her to police this time.

A criminal minister

RNZ reports that cancer minister Casey Costello has been reprimanded and forced to apologise by the Ombudsman for acting "contrary to law" in her handling of an OIA request:

Associate Health Minister Casey Costello has been severely reprimanded by the Chief Ombudsman and forced to apologise for trying to keep information about tobacco and vaping policy secret.

Chief Ombudsman Judge Peter Boshier took the rare step of forcing Costello to apologise to RNZ and to Otago University Professor of Public Health Janet Hoek for her handling of Official Information Act (OIA) requests.

In his ruling, Boshier said Costello's actions in withholding the information were "unreasonable and contrary to law".

Contra RNZ, this sadly isn't a "rare" step. Ministers being ordered to apologise for their lawless behaviour is now the default remedy (there being little else you can do when a request is late or an extension has been granted unlawfully). What is unusual is Costello's outright refusal to cooperate with the Ombudsman: refusing to supply requested information and providing no explanation for her decision-making. That's not just a breach of the comity Ministers owe to an officer of Parliament; it is also a crime. OIA investigations are legally treated as investigations under the Ombudsmen Act. While there are some tweaks for the OIA regime, information is gathered using the Ombudsman's evidence-gathering powers - in this case, section 19(1) of the Ombudsmen Act. And failing to comply with a "request" for information from the Ombudsman is a crime.

The penalty for that crime is derisory (the law was made in 1975, and the sum has never been adjusted), but a conviction would be salutary. And when Ministers are routinely obstructing the Ombudsman, that is what needs to happen, pour encourager les autres.

(And of course we need criminal penalties for obstructing OIA requests, with a penalty sufficient to eject any convicted Minister from Parliament. Anybody want to take a Member's Bill?)

More dishonesty from Costello

When Cancer Minister Casey Costello was caught lying to the media and to Parliament about whether or not she had requested advice on cutting tobacco excise tax to benefit the cancer industry, her explanation was to blame "confusion arising from my understanding of the differentiation between seeking specific advice and accepting advice being offered". But now it turns out that she wasn't in fact passively "accepting advice being offered", but insisting on a particular policy and rejecting all advice to the contrary:

Health officials urged the government to retain key aspects of the smokefree law it plans to repeal, confidential briefings to Associate Health Minister Casey Costello reveal.

[...]

Officials provided Costello with multiple compromise options - including introducing a purchase age of 25 - which they said would have saved lives and money.

Costello rejected all of them.

Throughout this, Costello has behaved dishonestly and with contempt for the public and for Parliament (not to mention the officials whose advice she binned). The impression is of a Minister hellbent on inflicting her donor's plans on us, who will tell whatever lies she thinks are necessary to try and get away with it. And again, not so long ago Ministers were sacked for such deceit. But clearly Chris Luxon has lower standards than any of his predecessors. And given his lack of action, I think we're now entitled to draw some conclusions about his character and lack of honesty from this as well.

Then why did she do it?

Earlier in the month, Cancer Minister Casey Costello was caught lying to the media about whether or not she had requested advice on cutting tobacco excise tax to benefit the cancer industry. She repeated her lies in Parliament. But today, she stood up and pretended to apologise for "causing confusion" with those lies:

I'd like to make a personal statement regarding my answers as Associate Minister of Health to oral questions on 30 January 2024. I'm speaking specifically to the questions that asked if I was being truthful when I denied to the media that I had requested advice on freezing tobacco excise tax. On review of my response, I acknowledge that there is confusion arising from my understanding of the differentiation between seeking specific advice and accepting advice being offered. I had no intention of misleading the House, and I apologise for any confusion.

Which might satisfy her coalition colleagues looking for an excuse to fend off a Privileges Committee complaint. But it shouldn't satisfy any of us. Firstly, because its the usual victim-blaming bullshit, which doesn't explain anything. And secondly, because it invites the obvious question: if it wasn't her intention to mislead, then why did she do it?

And again: once upon a time Ministers were sacked for lying to the public like this. But instead of upholding public standards, Luxon appears to be allowing a culture of outright dishonesty among his Ministers from the outset. I think we're entitled to draw some unpleasant conclusions about his character and truthfulness from that as well.

Corrupt, cancerous, and dishonest

One of the first things the new government did was scrap anti-smoking laws. It was a naked revenue grab, done in order to fund tax-cuts for the rich. But now, they've decided to forgo the revenue, with Associate Health Minister Casey Costello - who entirely coincidentally used to work for the cancer-industry-funded "Taxpayer's Union" - wanting to freeze tobacco excise. So, the former cancer lobbyist appears to be implementing a cancer-industry wishlist. That's stinky enough, but to add insult to injury, she decided to lie about it:

"I've had no discussions on that at all. Like, that's - it's not even something I specifically sought advice on," she said. "I haven't looked at a freeze on the excise at all."

But RNZ has seen a Ministry of Health document, sent to Costello, which says the minister is proposing to freeze the excise tax.

"The additional information you provided to us proposed also to freeze the excise on smoked tobacco for three years," the document says.

While Costello told RNZ she had not asked for advice on the issue, the Ministry of Health document appears to contradict that.

The document sent to Costello asks: "whether you would like advice in January 2024 to include implications of a three year freeze on CPI-related excise increases for smoked tobacco." The 'yes' option is circled in the document, which was signed by Costello on 20 December, 2023.

I remember a time when Ministers were sacked for lying to the public like this. But clearly Chris Luxon has lower standards. His government is corrupt, cancerous, and dishonest. And the sooner we are rid of it, the better.