National: Youth Wages Are Just the Beginning

National have announced on the back of their Youth Wage policy a new financial incentive to hiring more employees that harks back to the days of old. Key explained that it had come about from discussing the job creation potential that would ensue from paying young people only 80% of the minimum wage. “We realised that if employers could now afford to hire 1.2 people that there was room for real economic stimulation to occur if only we had the drive and the vision to push this even further”.

The second rollout from the Youth Wage will be entitled the No Wage. Employers will instead be incentivised to take on more workers by not having to pay any wages at all. “Obviously employers will be legally required to cover board and food,” Key said, noting that workers would no longer be able to pay for such things from their weekly wage of nothing at all. “Planet Key isn’t the kind of place where we would just leave people to starve on the street, because then there is the additional expense of retraining another set of workers which is financially inefficient.”

Key suggested that the ratings success of such programmes as Downton Abbey meant that the public had a hunger to embrace the ways of the past and this new policy would prove popular. “With No Wages, employers will now be able to build large stately manors that will also entice more tourists to travel here to take photos of these and the serfs happily toiling in the fields below.” 

Key further noted that with Government expecting lower tax revenue the privatisation of public assets would be accelerated. Offers had already been received from Hollywood for using the Beehive as a backdrop and this was scheduled to be blown up for James Cameron’s new blockbuster being filmed next May.

Jetstar: We're Sorry You're Easily Offended

         PRESS RELEASE 

Jetstar Spokesperson Mr Albert Cummings

Jetstar have been in the press on more than one occasion lately, and it’s not been for reasons that the company would like. Clocks not being adjusted for daylight savings meant some flights had to be cancelled, and two pregnant women were asked to disembark from flights despite Jetstar having been happy to fly them to their destinations. Adding to Jetstar’s public relation woes a woman was recently asked to produce a medical certificate before boarding, despite the fact that she was not pregnant.

A spokesperson for the airline said that crew were asked to request a medical certificate “if they have reasonable belief” that a passenger was pregnant. Mr Albert Cummings from Customer Care has since issued an apology in relation to this recent incident. “Obviously the passenger was most likely fat and we sincerely apologise if any offense was taken by pointing that out in front of other passengers that her grossly rotund belly looked like another human being was gestating inside of it when it wasn’t”. Mr Cummings was also quick to note that fat people were more sensitive to taking offence even when none had been meant. “Customers should also take responsibility by having a medical certificate if they are fat or wearing unflattering clothing just so all bases are covered.”

Management at Jestar have met with staff and a new policy will be implemented requiring all people at the gate to state whether they were fat or pregnant before boarding the plane, while baggage handlers would rate their clothing out of marks of ten. Passenger could then expect to sit on the tarmac for four hours because the pilot forgot to set their alarm clock. There had also been discussions around halting the practice of spitting on customers, but a final decision would be postponed until the AGM in early November.

Air New Zealand were reported to be busy spinning around in their chairs and flinging their arms up in delighted glee.

English: Oh No, I Forgot to Blame This On Something!

From here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10836388 like the parasitic blogger that I am. Cheers Herald!

In August Deputy Prime Minister Bill English signs a Ministerial Certificate giving the all clear to GCSB to intercept the communications of Kim Dotcom and his acquaintances. He believes, in his heart of hearts, that it's legal, and why would his heart lie?

Meanwhile: Prime Minister John Key eats hotdogs, watching his son play baseball in the US, where sadly they do not have cellphone or internet access. A stack of papers remains unread as he gazes off into the distance, a blank look of peace on his face.

The Police are questioned in Court on whether the raids undertaken in January were illegal.They are further questioned about a meeting that was held prior to the raids and the role of the GCSB is uncovered.

Key gets picked up by English at the International Airport. They embrace and English helps Key with his luggage after receiving his duty free Toblerone. They talk about baseball, talk smack about Banks, and though English wants to tell Key about what's been happening in his absence, which he needs to do since there was no way of contacting Key, what with the US poor communication infrastructure, Key's holiday anecdotes are so interesting that English gets caught up in the magic and forgets to say anything.

It is discovered (when?) a bit of an oppsie doopsie has been made and spying on a New Zealand citizen or resident is completely illegal. English's heart has lied. He stares out of a rainy window and weeps. But how were they to know that Dotcom was a resident even though the fact of his residency was splashed about the National media back in March? That was MONTHS ago, and who knew that a Government spy agency could use Government access bases to find such information out. If only there was a manual.

Meanwhile: A man in Auckland gazes lovingly into a bucket of water where an Eel name Gladys glides sinuously about. "Soon, my lovely," he croons. "Soon."

Five days go past. The GCSB are nervous that they'll get yelled at and try to come up with something, like, they were really busy, or their cellphone coverage is terrible, you guys!  They then shuffle off to the PM's Office and scuff their feet on the floor and explain their illegal oppsie doopsie to the PM. They'd put it in writing, but you know how that goes.

Who asked the GCSB to spy on Dotcom and others? Key refuses to say. Was the FBI involved? Key refuses to say. What happened to all the information gathered? OMG, leave him alone you guys! This is just about the Government overstepping it's mark, acting above the Rule of Law, and abusing it's powers to invade the privacy of it's own residents. Or as English would say "an administrative procedure related to the court''.

An inquiry is initiated by the Prime Minister. Who is on the inquiry? Who knows. But sources suggest that it may be John Key, Bill English, John Banks and the remaining squares of the Toblerone bar. 

Mr English said couldn't recall the details of the document. "Everyone in the current Government is suffering from a severe case of dementia. I'm surprised we're capable of dressing ourselves in the morning."

Mr English said he preferred not to comment on whether he should have told Mr Key about the certificate earlier or other aspects of the matter. "As Deputy Prime Minister I don't believe it is my job to inform the Prime Minister of the goings on of the nation while he is attending sporting events overseas."

"It's all being dealt with by inquiry, it's a matter before the courts. LEAVE ME ALONE. I WISH I'D NEVER SIGNED THE STUPID DOCUMENT AND I HOPE KEY ENJOYED HIS STUPID BASEBALL GAME!''

Rodney Hide: Bugger off Poor Kids

Rodney Hide: Poverty claims show welfare system failure

By Multi-Millionaire Rodney Hide

Giving families more money isn't going to make parents care as much as I will if my taxes go towards them; hands off my money, poor people! Photo / APN

"Child poverty's terrible! Kids hungry! It's getting worse!

"270,000 poor kids. And government? Doing nothing!"

But hang on. All kids are poor. Children typically don't own much beyond a few toys. That's true in poor families. And it's true of rich families. Has anyone thought of the destitute children living inside the mansions of the rich? No, but I have. This is why redistributive tax systems are evil and must be halted already so that the futures of our destitute rich kids can be secured.

  

And yet we have a report boldly titled Child Poverty. That tugs at the heartstrings and makes great newspaper copy but it's wrong. The report should properly be titled family or household poverty which doesn't tug on the heartstrings because rightly nobody cares about poor adults. In fact the report should have been titled Unemployed Chimney Sweeps.

But even that's misleading. The 270,000 "child poverty" figure refers to relative poverty. Your children suffer in "poverty" if your household's net income is less than 60 per cent of your equivalent household's median income. The cut-off income for a couple with four children is just over $1000 a week. Net.

It's no wonder that one child in four lives in "poverty" - $1000 a week in the hand is well above any lack of comfort let alone starvation. But for the experts, that's "poverty". Of course it is in fact $990 a week, but over $1000 makes my arguement sound better. In fact lets say it's a million dollars a week. A MILLION DOLLARS?! And the "experts" say that's "poverty". I just threw up over my imported tailor made Italian suit. I could have also picked a smaller household, but a six person household gives me the biggest number and it's harder to automatically gauge what that means in spending terms, instead you just see a big number. A 27,000,000 person household would probably also get just over $10,000 million a week. Net. How are these mulch-millionaire households poor? Exactly.

A windfall that doubled all incomes wouldn't budge the child "poverty" figure. There would still be 270,000 poverty-stricken children. That's because experts define "poverty" in reference to the middle income. So say everyone started making a million dollars a week, but "poor" people were making 600k a week, that's not poverty. Poor people are too rich in this country and we need to start giving them Government bailouts. Wait, sorry, I'm thinking about Corporations, which are also legally people, but the right kind of people, because they're businesses. Experts might say I was "drunk" when I was writing that, but relative to a person who has drunk 60 vats of pure ethanol I would be considered sober.

Making people richer doesn't fix relative poverty so lets not redistribute incomes so that poor people are no longer poor because they're relatively rich. The only fix is to narrow the spread of income, even if that makes everyone poorer. That's right, poor people will steal all of your money so that they can be rich.  That's why experts recommend taking even more income from families above the median income to give to those below it. Not the 1% rich who hold the bulk of wealth in this country, but the median income holders, the Mums and Dads, the people most likely to vote. That's right, fear the poor for they are after your money.The fix follows directly from defining "child poverty" as household inequality.

News reports now link the poverty report to children turning up to school hungry. But even the gloomiest estimates don't have 270,000 hungry kids and if they don't hit that target then you have to question whether there are hungry kids at all.

Labour leader David Shearer quoted a 2002 Ministry of Health survey to say 83,000 children aged 5 to 14 "sometimes or often went to school without breakfast". That's well short of the 270,000 "living in poverty" and is 87,000 thousand hungry children anything to worry about? Not compared to 270,000 it isn't.

But even the 83,000 figure is exaggerated. The survey found the equivalent of 83,000 kids in the previous week "not" or "sometimes not" eating or drinking at home before school but 76,000 "usually" or "sometimes" eating or drinking on the way to school. Presumably, they are many of the kids who didn't eat at home and you have to wonder whether that isn't a choice. Who knows with kids today. 12,000, there's another number. We've now gone from 270,000 to 12,000 without anybody actually doing anything. Zero. There, solved.

The survey found that the older the child the more likely they were not to eat at home and the more likely they were to eat on the way to school. Also, girls were more than twice as likely as boys not to eat at home. The sex and age differences suggest forces other than poverty at work. It's not poverty. It's girls on their fad diets. All those thousands of children not eating, it's just females wanting to look good and this should be encouraged, but not with my tax money.

Further, although children from poorer households were more likely not to eat at home before school, they were also more likely to drink Coke and eat chips and be fatter. This is why we need more children not eating, because when they do eat they get fat and nobody likes a fattie.

Poverty can't be the cause no matter what the "experts" say. A bowl of porridge costs 10 cents and though  I never eat porridge, because that's poor person food, I'm sure that you can buy single serve helpings at 10c a pop. And if you're running out the door to your third job I'm sure the Nanny can help serve the children as I found mine most helpful growing up. The most nutritious food on the planet is liver. It costs 70c a serve and is available from stray animals that roam the housing estates. The second most nutritious is an egg: 50c. The third most nutritious is human excrement: free.

I have nourishing bone broth for lunch. The marrow bones for a good brew cost $10 or at least that's what I threw at the mother as I stole her toddler out of the pram. That's 50c a meal. Good nutritious food doesn't cost much. It certainly doesn't cost much compared to a Coke, a bag of chips or a burger. I think we should be judgemental about these so-called "poor" people who are time poor, or uneducated, or are suffering from depression bought on by living lives on a million dollars a week.

The lack of breakfast is not caused by a lack of money. It's caused by a lack of care. That lack of care can't be fixed by giving parents more money and even if it did I don't care enough to give them said money because I don't care about them. Handing parents more money doesn't make them care more. I have lots of money and don't care about anybody other than myself which is case in point.

The welfare state is more than 100 years old. It's been constantly expanded and enhanced. Some might say to changing conditions, some might say because society cared enough not to see it's members suffering, but that's why gated communities were developed.

The original framers would be astonished and appalled by its depth and width and I know this because I just read it after I wrote it. And yet, thousands of children arrive at school hungry because their parents care about them as much as I do, which is not at all.

The fix is invariably seen by experts as more welfare. The Government should supply breakfast and perhaps lunch and then, no doubt, dinner. Also morning tea, and after fives, and tea and cakes and maybe a god damn mint on their pillow when they go to bed, the greedy fat poor bastards. Stop taking my money because you want to eat.

But hungry kids prove that welfarism has failed, or that it hasn't been applied rigorously enough, but that doesn't work with my narrative. Welfare has made the Government increasingly responsible for children and parents less and less so. Governments are now burping babies while parents run off to have fun on their millions of dollars.

Poverty has become an excuse for parents who send their children to school hungry and the Government's job now is not only to provide those parents with an income and a house but to cook their kids' breakfast as well. As a  responsible citizen I say fuck the hungry kids and get your greedy little hands out of my Italian calfskin wallet. If it means that Government has to do it lets leave the little urchins to starve to death in the streets like the good old days. That will teach the poor not to be poor.

The question of the proper fix comes down to what we call the experts' report. Is it "Child Poverty"? Or "Child Neglect" but either way I want to make it clear that I don't give a damn, and hopefully so that we might have a brighter future, you wont care either.

John Armstrong: Doesn't Like Dirty Lefties

Bloggers don't let the facts get in the way

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10834120

Here is a blunt message for a couple of old-school Aro Valley-style socialists:

Aro Valley is a place in Wellington where a lot of Green Party supporters live. Socialists are of course evil personified and the worst possible insult. 

Get off our backs. Stop behaving like a pair of tut-tutting old dowagers gossiping in the salons. In short, stop making blinkered, cheap-shot accusations of the kind you made this week - that the media who went with John Key to Vladivostok and Tokyo concentrated on trivia, interviewed their laptops and parroted Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet press releases.

Older women – also the worse kind of insult. Being a left-wing older woman? You are dead to John. Dead!

Press gallery journalists generally treat the bile and invective directed at them by portions of the blog-a-tariat as an unwelcome and unfortunate byproduct of an otherwise exciting and intellectually challenging job.

Press gallery journalists are the saints that nobly take on the word slings and sentence arrows of those that dare critique their work. And the people doing so? Blog-a-tariats! Not only ‘bloggers’ *spit* but commie sounding bloggers *double spit*. Left-wing commie loving, green party shagging, Aro Valley living, bloggers *spits, dehydrates, dies*.

You just have to put up with it. To bother to reply is to invite another shower of criticism - plus the old chestnut that if you cannot stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.

This is John putting up with it and not replying, all while in the kitchen making muffins for the press gallery journalists that are holy and walk among us.

Polemic and argument over ideas is one thing; ignorance is something else, however.

John will now combat this ignorance by offering the truth. The truth of the evilness of the left-wing agenda by bloggers that can only be routed out by a right-wing editorial of the only national newspaper in NZ. My god, the insidious power these bloggers hold.

Do the likes of former Listener columnist and Greens propagandist Gordon Campbell and former Alliance staffer and now Otago University politics lecturer Bryce Edwards have the faintest idea of the difficulties, obstacles and logistics of reporting an overseas trip by a prime minister, especially one which incorporates a major international forum like Apec?

Did you hear that? Greens, Alliance! COMMIES! And they dare speak! And speak against the hardship, the difficulties, of being paid to attend junkets! The jetlag, the tiny packets of crackers and cheese, not knowing whether to pack a sweater! There should be a moments silence every time a journalist gets on a plane, not bloggers critiquing when such sacrifices are made. The chicken OR the fish?! My god, it never ends.

Does it occur to them to actually pick up the phone and try to talk to those journalists about what is happening and why things are being reported in a certain way?

The journalists want nothing more than bloggers ringing them up while they’re overseas reporting to ask them how they’re doing, was the chicken the right choice, do they need another sweater mailed over. Why don’t you ring them more and ask them about their feelings? Because you're shitty people.

Of course not. That would risk the facts getting in the way of, well ... interviewing their laptops and having yet another ritual poke at the parliamentary press gallery.

By interviewing their laptops, he of course means lying and making things up (Commies!) and by ritually poking the press gallery he means…well, I hope it was consensual.

To read their drivel while stuck in a Tokyo traffic jam with your deadline approaching faster than a Japanese bullet-train makes your heart sink.

You hurt his feelings. You bastards. You. Hurt. His feelings. Your words make his heart sink and this while he's already sitting in traffic? Is their no end?!

For starters - and to be pedantic about it - the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet does not issue press statements with a political hue.

That is the job of the Prime Minister's office - a quite separate institution.

It’s true. It’s all completely and utterly objective which is why reasoned criticism is always included, completely making the press redundant.

But never mind. The rules that apply to journalists in terms of accuracy do not apply to Campbell and his echo chamber Dr Edwards - who is not be confused with Dr Brian Edwards, another blogger, but a far more original one when it comes to ideas and analysis.

This is his Christmas list. Take note if you were expecting a card.

Bloggers can blog when they like at what length they wish. Admittedly, they are normally not being paid for the privilege. Journalists are. But on a trip like last week's one, the hourly rate slumps drastically by virtue of the hours worked.

The rest of the staff will be horrified to hear this and obviously since he’ll be stepping down from future trips one of those poor bastards will have to go instead. I can’t think of anything worse than getting paid to fly around the world, and all this is reluctantly done.

Few media representatives traveling with John Key would have got more than four or five hours' sleep each night - probably less - because of the Prime Minister's schedule, which ran from 6am (earlier if a flight was involved) until well into the evening.

Getting up at 6am! Did you hear that! 6am! Are you reading this? Do you feel his pain yet?

Days were spent clambering on and off buses in 35C heat and 100 per cent humidity.

AND IT’S HOT! It’s 6am, it’s hot, chicken or fish decisions must be made…Jesus, no wonder nobody wants to go on these things so the top dogs get to do it because they’re too nice to have a junior person hung out to dry like that. 

<CUT> THERE ARE ALSO DEADLINES! D:

They have to WORK during the heat with only six hours of sleep and airplane food. How are you not crying yet? Have you no shame! No one has made sacrifices for humanity like they did that time they covered the TPP. Not even Jesus, because let’s face it, he was acclimatised to the heat and probably got a regular eight hours.

Or is it Campbell's and Edwards' agenda or strategy to make the media feel guilty about not writing more anti-TPP stories?

Because they’re Commies and want to bring down The Man with their commie pinko lefto propaganda.

Given that National and Labour - the two largest parties - both support the TPP, news agencies and organisations have to be careful not to give one side too much coverage, and instead treat stories on merit. With negotiating details kept close to the chest, it is anyway difficult to assess how the talks are going.

Adding to journalists' problems is that Apec meetings are closed. Discovering what really happens requires talking to more than one delegation as every delegation has motives for saying what it is saying to its media contingent,

Because the two main parties like this we HAVE to reflect the TPP in a positive fashion. Plus they couldn’t find any information out any way because they had deadlines to meet. Next year: one journalist for every delegate!

To Campbell's credit, he does do his own digging. He is also a regular attendee at the Prime Minister's weekly press conference. His blog is one of the more valuable. But he does have a blind spot with regards to the press gallery.

Sure, Campbell investigates and reports in his ‘bloggy’ fashion. But he criticises the press gallery which completely undermines him because who could say something critical about the press, besides commies?

The rapidly growing influence of Edwards' blog was initially down to its being an exhaustive wrap-up of all of the day's political news. It is now starting to develop a much more political dynamic that is unlikely to please National.

And pleasing National is what the press should be about. Especially the NZ Herald which has a fine tradition of doing just that.

Edwards' blog is the extreme example of the fact that most blogsites rely on the mainstream media for their information and then use that information to criticise the media for not stressing something enough or deliberately hiding it.

Criticising the media? The sleepless, hot, uninformed, because nobody tells them anything, media? Screw you Edwards!

Unlike the mainstream media, the blogs are not subject to accuracy or taste - and sometimes even the law.

No links to examples, but you can imagine the kind of lawless commie blogging that goes out there in the hinterlands. You can imagine it *shudders*.

It is the ultimate parasitical relationship. And it will not change until the media start charging for use of their material.

We are taking our words and we are hiding them and you can’t play with them anymore! YOU HURT OUR FEELINGS AND WE’RE NOT FRIENDS ANY MORE!

Debate on this article is now closed.
People have ridiculed the column so everyone can shut up now.

Rugby: It's Like Wholesome God Fearing Marriage in a Way

If you don't have time to read Bob McCroskie's compelling arguement against allowing gay people to marry, I'll sum it up for you.

http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=5174

Heterosexual buttocks flex in a manly display of men in short shorts fighting over who gets to touch the ball.

Rugby is a game played by most boys in New Zealand in their childhood, though some don’t want to play it at all, in fact according to statistics NZ out of. A significant section of the community have always preferred to play a different sport, like soccer.

Fact: According to the 2001 NZ Census of the 847,740 people under the age of 15 only 118, 245 play rugby. Which means the majority of people must play soccer, and we all know that soccer is shorthand for gay.

Conclusion: Our kids today are experimenting with the love the dare not speak its name at an alarming rate. Family first demands that soccer be outlawed immediately.

But Rugby gets all the status in New Zealand, commanding all the respect. So much so that those who play soccer are often made to feel like second-class citizens. They lack the mana of those who play the nation’s revered game. Reliable studies show that this has statistically led to a higher degree of depression among soccer playing boys, and already our rate of male youth suicide is far too high.

Fact: Some people might suggest that bringing up youth suicide in such a flippant manner is a sign of a lack of empathy or basic human decency, but Family First wish to emphasise that they only treat people like second-class citizens and drive kids to suicide because rugby must be respected at all costs. Come on people, it's rugby!

To end this discrimination we have decided to redefine Rugby to include any sport involving two teams with a ball.

Fact: Gay Marriage Proponents want to redefine marriage as being between two people with an excess of balls or no balls at all. At Family First we're incredibly anxious that the right ball ratio be kept within the sacred and holy bounds of marriage. We fear if excess/lack of balls is allowed that this will lead to the sickness of hockey sticks and other sport paraphernalia entering into the bedrooms of New Zealand.

We should remember that rugby itself has historically undergone many changes. Once upon a time, there were only four points for a try and now there are five. There are eight in the scrum today instead of six in earlier times. Before you had to jump by yourself in the lineout and now you can be lifted. So the Rugby Union is happy to adjust and refine the definition of rugby throughout the ages– but for some reason they stop at soccer. That old boys’ club want to control the definition themselves because underneath, they really regard soccer players as wusses. But look at how they handled their own finances in Otago. And let’s never forget that once upon a time there were white Rugby Union teams in South Africa who refused to let black people be rugby players alongside them. Do we want to perpetuate the same kind of discrimination by denying that soccer is an equally legitimate form of rugby?

Fact: Rugby, sorry, marriage, has certainly gone through a lot of changes. Which would mean that if you thought of gay people as being, well people, that these changes could move to encompass them being welcomed into the fold of human beings that can now get married. Thank goodness they're just soccer people rather than people people otherwise this logic might be in trouble!

New Zealand has always prided itself on a clear separation between sport and politics, and in the 21st century our political system needs to be free from all forms of discrimination. We led the world in giving women the vote. Yet there are still those who are happy to bar the door to those who play sport differently. There is no point in having a referendum on the issue because of course most rugby-playing New Zealanders will want to defend their privileges and guard the status quo.

Fact: The Springbok tour was certainly a time to be proud of in our strident desire to keep politics and sport seperate. As a nation we all still feel that pride and know that we did the right thing by elevating a game of rugby over political considerations and human rights.

Some say that we have already achieved equality, when the national soccer team finally got called the “All Whites”. That was a step in the right direction, but it didn’t go far enough. Soccer players need the same access to the “All Black” name and jersey. It’s not good enough to call them “All Whites” when overseas everyone’s heard of the All Blacks. No one talks about the All Whites. It is time to embrace the right of all ball-playing New Zealanders to be regarded as rugby players, regardless of the shape of the ball they use and how they choose to handle it.

Fact: Family First also advocate that, like gay soccer players, white and black people must be kept seperate. A lot of research was done handling differently shaped balls to bring you this stunning display of logic.

BATNZ - It Worries and it Cares!

British and American Tobacco is really worried at the moment. Not about the people they're killing, or their profit margins, but about principles and the law. See, all they're concerned about is that their copyright is protected, not that once the mystique is gone from the years they've spent up building up their brands that their product will be reduced to what it actually is, a pack of paper tubes stuffed with an addictive substance that will make you ill and shorten your lifespan. That would be crazy talk.

From their website:

We are strongly opposed to the plain packaging of tobacco products and call on the Government to reject the proposal. Below is an overview of why.

There’s no proof that plain packaging would reduce smoking rates in New Zealand.
Absolutely! That's why they're spending hundreds and thousands of dollars fighting this because they don't want something that may not work being implemented. They want to make sure that whatever comes into force has been proven to reduce demand of their product, that's just logical. And after all, if something hasn't been proven it should never be done and the cultural and social evolution of humankind must be immediately ground to a halt.

Intellectual property is one of the most valuable assets of any business. Our brands are our intellectual property, which we have created and in which we have invested. Plain packaging would deprive us of the right to use our brands.
First of all, while studies have shown links between tobacco and brain damage, they're not talking about that kind of intellectual property, they're talking about the legal right of ownership to a brand by a company, and we all know that things are more important than people. We must protect brands because without them what kind of world would we live in? Not one that I want to be in, that's for sure.

Plain packaging would infringe New Zealand’s international obligations, damage its strong trading reputation and expose the country to legal challenges.
The tobacco industry doesn't WANT to hit us, you've got to understand that baby, but the way you're acting, with your parliamentary supremacy and your laws, you're giving them no choice. It's not them, it's us, and they will legal challenge us even though they don't want to because we've got to see reason. They will be crying while they legally challenge us around the courtroom, and I hope you're happy.

Plain packaging would make packs easier to counterfeit. A growth in the illegal market would reduce the Government’s excise revenue, expose New Zealand consumers to cheap, low quality, unregulated tobacco products, and fuel a rise in criminal activity.
You've got to agree, that is incredibly refreshing to see Big Business concerned about the taxation revenue stream to Government (is that an offer to pay more I detect? SO nice!), but that they're also worried that smokers will get a product that is cheap and low quality which would, I don't know, make them sick? Kill them? They are simply worried for us, can't we understand that?

If plain packaging is implemented, adult consumers would no longer have the freedom to choose based on branding. This could force the industry to compete on price, making cigarettes more affordable and frustrating the stated aim of plain packaging.
This isn't a company worried about market share, this is a company wanting to make sure that fundamental basic liberties, including freedom of choice, are kept. From here on in nicotine and other addictive substances will be removed from their product so that smokers will now have the true freedom of choice whether to stop smoking or not. Just kidding!

Australia is the only country to have passed plain packaging legislation. Other countries, such as Canada, have looked at plain packaging and decided not to introduce the measure.
I like this. Going for the competitive country angle. Who do you want to be more like, New Zealand? Australia or Canada? ONE OF THESE COUNTRIES ONCE BOWLED UNDERARM IN A GAME OF CRICKET. I rest my case.

We have invested in our brands over many years and have a responsibility to our shareholders to do everything we can to defend our right to use them.
See, again? Worried about everyone else but themselves. Take a second to worry about the shareholders, these poor people who put their money in to tobacco, just wanted to profit off an industry that causes the premature deaths of half their users. Those poor shareholding bastards.

Plain packaging, once introduced, is unlikely to be limited to tobacco products. Which products will be next?
GAY MARRIAGE! D: Sorry, I got my slippery slope fear arguments mixed up. It'll probably be medicine for babies in plain packaging and medications will get mixed up and thousands of NZ babies will die. And it all started here, folks. They warned us, but did we listen? What will we tell our grandchildren. Oh, right, we just killed them all by putting cigarettes into plain packaging.