Editorial: Murky methods of tobacco merchants

A petition to repeal the Smokefree 2025 Act has been linked to major tobacco companies. Photo / Screengrab via Facebook

EDITORIAL

In political advertising that we will see more and more in the weeks ahead, credibility and trust will be heavily traded on to persuade voters.

In political lobbying too, such traits should not be waved away recklessly.

Since August 1, adverts have been rising into sightlines on Facebook feeds, urging people to support a petition to “save our stores”.

The ads, which lead to a website called Save Our Stores, ask users to sign a petition to repeal the Smokefree 2025 Act.

The act includes a measure to reduce the number of stores selling full-strength tobacco from 6000 nationwide to 600 by July 2024.

It’s understandable that some stores that rely on tobacco sales to remain in business would be concerned, should they lose the product they depend on to make a profit.

The confirmation of who is supporting the campaign however, is in small type at the bottom of one page that says the website is “proudly supported” by tobacco companies BAT (British American Tobacco) New Zealand and Imperial Brands. The website’s privacy policy says the website is “provided” by the tobacco companies.

A joint statement sent to RNZ from BAT and Imperial Brands did not directly address whether it was clear enough to consumers the website is the work of tobacco companies. But the statement did say the two companies were “supporting the voice of New Zealand’s small convenience store owners being pushed out of business”.

A person identified as Bhavesh in Lower Hutt was said to be the face of the campaign. When RNZ inquired about “Bhavesh” however, his image vanished from the campaign website.

The website itself is coy about its origins and ongoing support. The registration of the website, set up in June, leads to a corporate office in Mascot, Australia. The registrant name is “Campaign Company” and the registrant contact information is simply “NZ”. Contact details for the administrators of the website are the same scant words.

This rear-guard action for the makers of tobacco products isn’t original, or new.

In 2008, British MPs were duped by a “save our shop” campaign they thought was from independent retailers protesting rules for displaying cigarettes. The campaign was run by the Tobacco Retailers’ Association which was linked to tobacco companies BAT, Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher.

Doing business is not a crime, supporting the outlets that retail your legal products is likewise within the law. But guile is never good practice in a public-facing campaign.

If Big Tobacco wants to support convenience stores seeking to retain tobacco sales, then fine. But it should do so up front, without smoke and mirrors.

Petitions to legislative change should be completely transparent about who wants this change, and why they want it.