Kevin Hague stressed that nation has the sovereign right to protect the health of its ‘every He warned that implementation is caving in to the threats, extortion, and people.’ ‘Delaying delaying tactics of an evil industry.’ Barbara Stewart of NZ First expressed uncertainties about the legislation, and its impact upon public health. She noted: is a very thought-provoking piece of legislation. I am not a ‘This She observed: is important, we believe, to get the views of the submitters on a smoker.’ ‘It bill such as this, because it can have unintended consequences, both positive and negative.’ John Banks the leader of ACT provided some opposition to the introduction of plain – – packaging of tobacco products. He asserted that the plain packaging of tobacco products violated the intellectual property rights of tobacco companies: This bill guts the intellectual property rights of tobacco companies. Some will ask: well, who cares? But do we want to gut the intellectual property rights of KFC or Red Bull sugar drinks? KFC and Red Bull sugar drinks are putting this level of obesity up at the top of the OECD. They help to country’s contribute to that. It may be seen as a long bow, but the removal of intellectual property rights to the names and brandings of their products from tobacco companies without compensation is wrong, because which international company selling products that are bad for our health will be the next target? The State is effectively seizing their property because it does not like the health effects of their still lawful business. It is still a lawful business. Such arguments are misconceived and ill-founded. In a decisive 6-1 majority, the High Court of Australia emphasized that intellectual property was designed to serve larger public interests such as the protection of public health. The High Court of Australia held that plain – packaging did not constitute an acquisition of property. arguments Rejecting ‘slippery slope’
Kevin Hague stressed that ‘every nation has the sovereign right to protect the health of its people.’ He warned that ‘Delaying implementation is caving in to the threats, extortion, and delaying tactics of an evil industry.’ Barbara Stewart of NZ First expressed uncertainties about the legislation, and its impact upon public health. She noted: ‘This is a very thought-provoking piece of legislation. I am not a smoker.’ She observed: ‘It is important, we believe, to get the views of the submitters on a bill such as this, because it can have unintended consequences, both positive and negative.’ John Banks – the leader of ACT – provided some opposition to the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco products. He asserted that the plain packaging of tobacco products violated the intellectual property rights of tobacco companies: This bill guts the intellectual property rights of tobacco companies. Some will ask: well, who cares? But do we want to gut the intellectual property rights of KFC or Red Bull sugar drinks? KFC and Red Bull sugar drinks are putting this country’s level of obesity up at the top of the OECD. They help to contribute to that. It may be seen as a long bow, but the removal of intellectual property rights to the names and brandings of their products from tobacco companies without compensation is wrong, because which international company selling products that are bad for our health will be the next target? The State is effectively seizing their property because it does not like the health effects of their still lawful business. It is still a lawful business. Such arguments are misconceived and ill-founded. In a decisive 6-1 majority, the High Court of Australia emphasized that intellectual property was designed to serve larger public interests – such as the protection of public health. The High Court of Australia held that plain packaging did not constitute an acquisition of property. Rejecting ‘slippery slope’ arguments