Referendums Framework Bill

The questions I have of the Minister on Part 3 of this bill are actually quite crucial in the sense that not only is the Government trying to manipulate the system by shifting the power over who gets to decide what referendum goes off to Cabinet and determining the wording, and taking the power away from Parliament and a select committee and the public from having a say on the question; it is also wanting to control the discussion.

My first question to the Minister is this: when we had the flag referendum, Labour members of Parliament argued very strongly that—

💬 Michael Wood: Glory moment for the National Government.

Well, I’d just be interested in a principled approach from members opposite. When we had the flag referendum, Mr Wood, the Labour Party argued that the publicity campaign had to be run independently. It could not be run by a Government department, because if a Government department ran the referendum on the flag, the concern was that that’d be biased. Now, I think the member would accept, as New Zealanders accept, that the referendum on the flag was played with an absolutely straight bat. [Interruption] Well, members opposite—I’d love them to get to their feet and to argue the deficiencies of the flag referendum that National conducted.

National also had a referendum on MMP. Labour promised it, broke their word; National delivered, and it was a very fair referendum that we had on MMP. Then we look at the referendum that was held on the issue back in time on alcohol. In every case, the advertising has been done by a neutral department, and my concern is that the Minister has his own justice ministry providing an information campaign on the recreational cannabis referendum. The problem I have with that is, as we’ve seen on multiple electoral rules, when the Minister wanted to have the legislation to be able to give party leaders the power to sack MPs, something that is unheard of—I spoke with the Australian Minister of electoral law yesterday. He was gobsmacked that the Parliament of New Zealand would pass such a law. On that, the justice ministry said, “Our job is simply to follow Government policy.”

So my concern is: why has the Labour Party changed its position on the advertising and information campaigns, on the information that New Zealanders will get to make a decision on sensitive issues like recreational cannabis, or, for that matter, any other issue that they may decide through this bill that they want to have a referendum on. Why was it that Labour, on MMP, on the flag, and other issues have said, “Oh, the Government can’t run the information campaign; it needs to be independent.” In the case of the flag referendum, the information campaign was run by a completely independent body of the Government of the day. So why, when Labour argued that, is it changing its tune? Why is it that they want to control the information that goes out to New Zealanders on the recreational cannabis?

That brings me back to my point again. This is all about pretending that New Zealanders are going to be able to have a say while the Minister is gerrymandering the system in the back room and making sure they get the outcome they want—that outcome being the legalisation of recreational cannabis. They don’t have the courage to simply come before the Parliament and advance legislation of that sort—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think the member knows that that’s out of order. He’ll withdraw and apologise for that comment.

I withdraw and apologise. The Government is not being upfront and saying that it wants to legalise recreational cannabis. What it instead is doing is creating an unfair process by which the referendum is generated against the advice of officials, against what is good practice around referendum, and we see that equally in the information campaign that the Government is wanting to conduct. So my question again: why has Labour changed its tune? Why, on the flag referendum, on the MMP referendum, did Labour argue very passionately that the information campaign should be run at arm’s length of the Government, whereas in respect of the recreational cannabis referendum, the Government wants to be in control of the agenda and the information that will have a major influence on the outcome of the referendum that has been proposed? They’re the issues we should focus on in Part 3.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Turning to Part 3, as my colleague the Hon Dr Smith has already done, I’d like to pick up on the subject of advertisements, but I prefix it with the application of the whole part to conduct inside or outside of New Zealand.

At clause 36, we’re posed a bit of a challenge, potentially at least—but the Minister of Justice may be able to clarify—in relation to the meaning of the phrase “in New Zealand,”. I’m not trying to be cute regarding the meaning of New Zealand in relation to its Realm versus what we would often refer to as the nation of New Zealand and challenge any sort of geopolitical understanding of what “New Zealand” means, but, rather, in the environment in which we live, whereby much of such advertising could be expected to exist in the cloud, which, by definition, is not in any particular nation, New Zealand or otherwise.

I’m taking a bit of a literal interpretation of the cloud, but it actually reinforces the point that I’m looking to make regarding the fact that it’s no easy matter to determine whether a promotor of an advertisement—to use the phraseology of Part 3—is within New Zealand or not. So that seems to me an artificial distinction, but one on which the Minister may be able to provide some advice, and I’d be grateful to him if he were to do so.

My next point relates to the interpretation section at clause 38. I note that there’s a particular meaning given to “joint advertisement”. I’d like the Minister’s assurance that the word “joint” doesn’t have any particular meaning in relation to the cannabis referendum and, similarly, that he’s not intending to have any particular meaning ascribed to wasted votes, being any of those that are in favour of legalising the smoking of weed.

But returning, on a reasonably serious basis, to some weighty issues in the bill in the hope that they might get more favour, is the meaning of “referendum advertisement” in clause 39(1), and this really is a very serious matter indeed. We see in that clause that a “referendum advertisement”, unless the context otherwise requires, means “an advertisement in any medium that—” does a number of different things. But the first set of criteria is that it’s something that might be regarded as (a) “encouraging or persuading electors—”, or “may be reasonably regarded as encouraging or persuading electors—”, and I’m wondering who it is that would have the determination of what is reasonably to be expected to be the case in such instances. Would it be the Ministry of Justice and, if so, would it be with any reference to the Minister of Justice himself? Would the Electoral Commission perhaps have a role in that? Would it perhaps be the Advertising Standards Authority or the Broadcasting Standards Authority, depending on where the advertisement took place—so to speak—or was published? So that’s my first question: who would have that ability to decide what could be reasonably regarded as encouraging or persuading electors?

Then, turning to the next part of that subclause, we see that what we’re concerning ourselves with is they’re voting in a particular way, or they’re not voting in a particular way, if you’ll excuse the clumsiness of my expression—I’m trying to capture the syntax of the bill. But, actually, I wonder if we should actually also concern ourselves with whether a referendum advertisement asks voters to vote or not to vote at all, as distinct from voting in a particular way—yes or no, yea or nay, for or against—but, actually, even in the sense of encouraging the mere act of voting, or not the mere act of voting, but the simple fact of voting.

Then, my final point—and, again, I’d be grateful if the Minister would regard this as somewhat of a question or, if not, a challenge. I don’t suppose I need to frame it in quite those terms, but regarding at clause 39 the meaning of a “referendum advertisement”, we’ve got specific exclusions at subclause (2)(b) for editorial content in a periodical, a radio or TV programme, or a publication on a news media internet site. That seems to me a misplaced focus, because it focuses on the medium, and not the message, as determining whether something is a referendum advertisement. I think, with respect, that’s an approach that’s a little bit narrow, and it actually will not serve us well in terms of what is, presumably, the intent of the legislation, which is to exclude from the meaning of “referendum advertisement” particular messages that might be regarded as coming from an editorial position, and perhaps not a partisan one, necessarily. I’m not quite sure if that is, indeed, the intent, and I don’t want to misrepresent it if it is not.

But, in any case, my point is more fundamental, and that’s regarding the fact—[Bell rung] Madam Chair, if I may just be allowed to continue—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Chris Penk.

—thank you—that train of thought in relation to clause 39. That’s the first element under paragraph (b) that I’m a little bit concerned about—that we’re focusing on the medium and not the message.

Similarly, at paragraph (d), for example—probably not only paragraph (d), but let’s just say paragraph (d)—this is, again, an exclusion to the meaning of a “referendum advertisement”: “any transmission (whether live or not) of proceedings in the House of Representatives:”. So in this case, we’re excluding, actually, ourselves as parliamentarians who are being broadcast, to be enjoyed for later viewing, perhaps—because it does say “(whether live or not)”—and so it might be that we could give speeches in the House that are particularly persuasive, one way or the other, or they might be poor contributions, in which case they might be persuasive in a way they are not intended.

But, in any case, we’ve got the opportunity to make statements that are very strongly encouraging a vote, one way or t’other, in a referendum but which would not be regarded as a referendum advertisement, if my reading of this provision is correct. That seems to me to be focusing on the messenger and not the message, as the key distinction regarding whether something is to be considered a referendum advertisement or not.

So we’ve got the medium and the messenger both being preferred as a criterion for understanding whether a particular message should be regarded as a referendum advertisement or not. I’m not sure that that’s really what the Minister is intending by putting that forward, but, in any case, I’d be grateful for some comments that he’d make along those lines, and in relation to those other points that I’ve raised as well.

The key portion of Part 3 deals with the issue of referendum advertising, and I’m very interested in the Minister’s view about who the referee will be in respect of that advertising. Now, we have the Advertising Standards Authority, that, under this bill, will be responsible for any complaints that arise from advertising. What is extraordinary, and what causes real concern for members of the Opposition, is that only two weeks ago, the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, described the Advertising Standards Authority as both—and I quote—“incompetent” and also he said that he has no confidence in them. And he nods his head. Now, essentially, it came down to the fact that he had had a dispute that he took to the Advertising Standards Authority involving myself, and the Advertising Standards Authority decided on four issues out of four that I was correct and that he was wrong.

Now, if the Minister in the chair takes that view of freedom of speech around that issue, why should we have any confidence that unless people’s advertisements and statements say what he thinks is right around cannabis—I’ll give an example. I will argue very strongly that the medical evidence of cannabis shows that it increases the incidence of mental health problems and lower educational achievement for young people. Now, there are people that dispute that, and I am happy to have that argument. What I do not want to have is the Government, through this part, limiting people’s freedom of expression as we have that referendum or, equally so, on the issue of euthanasia.

There are very strongly well-informed people who say that if you legalise euthanasia, you are indeed changing the culture around suicide, and you’re going to make the problem of New Zealand addressing suicide more difficult. Now, whether you agree or disagree with those views, I hold a very strong opinion around the right of freedom of expression and, equally, the right of people to be able to advertise and express those views. So I’m very interested, particularly with the number of the public comments and measures that have been taken by the Government to constrain freedom of speech, as to what is their intent in respect of the section around freedom of speech issues in respect of these referendum.

We actually do not know all the topics that there will be referendum on, and that is because the Government is asking this Parliament to give this Government a blank cheque to have as many referendum as they want. If they want to have 20 referendum at the next election, they could lawfully do so at the next election, and the key question is, whatever those topics might be—whether it be euthanasia or whether it be abortion or whether it be the issue of recreational cannabis—how strongly does the Minister in the chair believe in freedom of speech?

We know that he will condemn, as a Minister of Justice, an independent authority like the Advertising Standards Authority simply because it doesn’t agree with him, and that causes great unease—almost a sort of Orwellian view—of what the Minister’s commitment is to areas of free speech. The Minister’s view is that people who agree with the Minister should be able to have free speech, but people like myself that disagree with the Minister often, “Well, we’ll try and shut him down, remove his capacity to be able to advertise or his express his views.” So I do ask the Minister in the chair, given that he has confirmed this evening that he has no confidence in the Advertising Standards Authority—he nodded his head and says he thinks that they are incompetent—why, in Part 3 of this bill, is he relying on them as the arbitrator of the appropriateness of advertising? I, frankly, think that it is incredibly dangerous.

I’ve just come from an interesting visit in Singapore, where, actually, it’s the Ministers that get to decide. When we’ve got the Ministry of Justice under the Minister’s instruction that’s going to decide what might be in the information campaign, this material matters greatly. I’d ask the Minister to comment on the role of the Advertising Standards Authority around those provisions that relate to referendum advertising. I would really like him to express and to assert, as the Minister of Justice, the freedom of speech values that are so important in any sort of debate such as those before the referendum.

Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to take a call. Minister Little, I’m not completely over the detail, but I would like you to answer these questions around the advertising part, because I want you to explain to me how this may not be rorted. It’s particularly around expenditure. So at the next election, like any election, members of Parliament and political parties are subject to expenditure limitations. So a member of Parliament or a candidate is allowed to spend around $27,000, something like that number. If, in fact, this legislation is passed, and if an individual, whether it’s a member of Parliament or a political party, becomes a promoter of one of those particular causes—and when I look at the clauses in the bill, it seems perfectly feasible that any candidate could become a promoter—it is potentially possible that a candidate could double up, or even triple up if there’s more than one view, their expenditure in an election period to get round that $27,000 threshold. I can’t see in the bill, Minister, where that can be prevented. I think that poses a real problem for people and political parties who may use the referendum provision as a way of extending their expendable allowances in a very murky area.

We all know, as members and candidates who have stood for election, that there is a fine line between what is a party expense and what is a candidate expense. I just cannot see in this legislation, from what I’ve read, that it is not possible for a candidate to become a registered promoter, to then use the advertising provisions, either jointly with their party advertising or separately, to double up or even triple up next year their ability to promote a cause, and themselves associated with a cause.

If you come back to why we’re doing this, we are doing this because the Green Party wants to hold a referendum on the legalisation of cannabis at the next election. The material hasn’t been prepared in time, and therefore, we are trying to put a piece of legislation in that allows the referendum to occur at next year’s general election, which is very different from the normal process or as the Hon Nick Smith has said, 165 years of process.

So I’m trying to seek a guarantee or an understanding from the Minister that my concern is not real. I read what I can from it and I cannot see how that is excluded. So I cannot see how, if I wanted to—and I’m not saying I would, but if I wanted to—become a promoter on a referendum, to actually use the expenditure allowances, the advertising, to maximise my profile to be associated with an issue or a political party to be associated with an issue. Now, if I’ve got that wrong, I’m happy to be corrected by the Minister. Sometimes in these situations, we end up doing things that are not foreseen, and I think that poses a real issue for New Zealand.

We know that there is the potential, and political parties and candidates do it from time to time, to maximise their opportunity if they’re not forbidden from doing so in the law. While I’m not a lawyer like some of my esteemed colleagues who are more familiar with this, I cannot see in the law, as it’s promoted today, how that particular issue can be avoided. I think that’s a really important point for New Zealand politics. We are limited by thresholds for election expenditure. I do not want to see this referendum bill, even though it’s a one-off that only applies for the next election, create an opportunity for people to rort, effectively, the electoral maximums as part of a general election and a referendum.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just take the opportunity to respond to a couple of points raised by previous speakers. I’ll start with Lawrence Yule and his comments, because he raises a very important question—I totally agree with that. That is covered by clause 49(2)(b)(ii) of the bill. The effect of that clause is that if you’re, for example, a candidate doing an advertisement that covers a referendum question and your candidacy—well, your badge is your candidacy to it—or if you’re a party with an advertisement that covers both your party branding and a referendum question, then the costs of that advertisement are attributable to the expenditure limit for both the issues campaign and the candidate and/or party. So there is no doubling of your ability to, sort of, spend more if you both advertise yourself as a candidate, and also do some advertising on a referendum question but with your candidacy badged to it. If you’re a candidate, you have a maximum of $27,000, and if you take out an ad that includes advertising for a referendum question, that all falls within your $27,000. You can’t, sort of, then say, “Oh, that was the referendum advertising; it’s completely separate.” So I hope that answers and reassures that member.

Chris Penk raised some questions. The meaning of “in New Zealand”—I think that clause 36, as I recall, clearly covers it off. It is to take account of an advertisement that appears in New Zealand that might originate in New Zealand, or originate out of New Zealand. It simply ensures that we’re able to cover it off, whatever that advertising, whatever its source. If it’s in New Zealand, it’s accounted for, and there will be some accountability for it, to make sure it stays within the expenditure thresholds.

In terms of who decides whether it is advertising, as is the current situation with advertising in relation to a general election, it is the Electoral Commission. They deal with complaints about breaches of the electoral laws and electoral regulations. They will make that decision.

In relation to that member’s query about clause 39(2), I think it was, and editorial content, I know the member focused on the media that were, sort of, described there. I would invite the member to focus on “editorial content”. It’s very clear that where there is news reporting, which is what we typically characterise as editorial content, that is not covered by the restrictions that would otherwise apply to advertising. The exclusion for House proceedings is pretty obvious. Members have to be free to express their views. I know that we all like to think that half of New Zealand is sitting on the edge of its seats every time Parliament is broadcast, waiting with bated breath on the great pearl of wisdom that’s going to fall from the next speaker’s mouth, and they live in constant disappointment—

💬 Chris Penk: Ha, ha! Speak for yourself.

I’m being self-deprecating to the member. So it is right that the proceedings of this House should be excluded from any possibility of being caught up in advertising. This part of the bill deals with the same sort of topic that the Electoral Act deals with, which is the advertising—the paid advertising. That characterises what a campaign is about. It’s about making sure that the campaigns on this issue are not dominated by the wealthy, and that everybody has a fair crack at the whip of getting their message out, pro or anti, regardless of the issue. We do want a good, strong, robust debate; we do want civil society involved and engaged; but we don’t want one side completely dominated by another side that might have much, much deeper pockets. We had applied the same principle on the MMP debate and on other referendums as well, so the same will apply here.

It is completely separate from the obligation of the State, of the Government of the day, to ensure that there is neutral, impartial information available about the content—in one case, about the End of Life Choice Act, and, in the other, the draft bill dealing with the legalisation of cannabis. There has to be information out there, and that will be available. It will be neutral, it will be impartial.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith gets it completely wrong in yet again another faux-constitutional principle. The Government of the day is not the political party in Government of the day; it is the Government with its ongoing, continuous obligations, responsibilities, and duties to the citizens of New Zealand. It is on that basis that neutral, impartial information is prepared to inform referendums.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little’s contribution did not answer the very simple question: why did Labour promote the view on the flag referendum that the information campaign from Government could not be run by a Government department, it had to be independent, yet take the different view on the recreational cannabis referendum. He has not addressed that, because—and I can’t use the “H” word—there are double standards on the Government benches that are littered all the way through this bill.

I want to raise specific questions around clause 37 in Part 3 of this bill. We all know that the only reason we’re having a referendum on recreational cannabis issues is because it was advocated very heavily by the Green Party. We equally know that the Green Party at the last election was in a battle with The Opportunities Party as to who could be more pro-dope. Now, my concern is whether the Green Party, that has got taxpayers’ funding of over $1 million a year through Parliamentary Service, can spend $1 million of public money promoting one side of the referendum, while at the same time, later in the bill, we’re restricting what anybody else can spend. Now, how could anybody say that’s fair, that the good old private person who has a strong view, whether pro- or anti-cannabis, is restricted to a figure, but not the taxpayer expenditure that may be spent by the Green Party? I think that would be quite unfair. My view is that that would not be particularly effective.

The second question I have for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, is: how effective can the caps on expenditure on advertising really be, when all an organisation needs to do is the morph into two? So if I’ve got a trust and I’m the “No Dope Trust” or I’m the “Dope’s Great Trust” and I’m worried I’m going to exceed the expenditure of the $300,000 limit in Part 3 of this bill, why don’t I just set up the “Dope’s a Good Idea No. 2 Trust” or the “Dope No. 3 or 4 Trust”?

💬 Chris Penk: “Foundation” might be good.

Well, actually, my colleague suggests that you might want to call it a foundation, that has got particular form with the Government as a means of subverting electoral law and the very sorts of provisions that we have in this part. So I say to the Minister in the chair: where is the protection that the very racket that the Deputy Prime Minister in the Government is an expert at doing of subverting electoral law—where are the protections in Part 3 of this bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Very close to the wind.

Well, it’s a matter of the lead story in The Dominion Post today. It does point out that the very questions that we are debating in Part 3 have been rorted, and it is quite fair to ask—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Allegedly.

Well, it is a matter of public record, and I’m happy to ask: is there any member in this House that’s prepared to put their hand up to say that New Zealand First did not see any donations over $15,000? Does anybody think that’s true?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can we come back to the bill?

Well, the relevance to this part is that the same regulations are being relied upon here, and I want to ask the Minister in the chair how he is going to protect—as my member said—foundations from being set up to be able to rort the disclosure and the advertising limits that are proposed in this part. My view is that the Minister’s provisions, you could drive a bus through. You could drive a bus through, because you need only set up a very similar trust either arguing for euthanasia or against euthanasia, for cannabis reform, or for any referendum the Government might dream up.

This bill is not just about cannabis and euthanasia. If the Government decided that it wanted to completely distract the electorate, we know they’re in some trouble, they might want to win the election and not have people’s advertising space being used up on whether the Government should or should not be re-elected. They, under this bill, could have 20 referendum under the next election.

So I do ask the Minister to address the question as to whether Parliamentary Service’s money can be spent, and why can a person not just set up a second trust to avoid the intent of the limits on expenditure in terms of the campaigns on what referendum there will be.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My contribution in this instance will be, I think, reasonably narrow. I’ve got a couple of quite particular questions that I would seek the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, to respond to in a way that’s very helpful in a committee of the whole House stage; it’s a good forum for being able to get clarification on points in which one is genuinely uncertain. I know that there will be a lot of interest—if not now in my particular delivery of the question then in the answer—because it will have an effect, I suspect, on some intentions and plans and the execution thereof next year in relation to at least a couple of referenda that we will have—and as my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith points out, it’s at least theoretically possible that there could be more.

My specific question is in relation to clause 40 within Part 3, “Meaning of referendum expenses”. I actually don’t want to ask a question about what the phrase “referendum expenses” means, so much as: from what point do we consider such expenses are incurred? Foreshadowing what may be the answer—I genuinely don’t know; I approach this task with some humility—I genuinely seek clarification on this. In clause 42 we have the meaning of “regulated period”, so it might be that the answer to my question is that expenses are occurred within the regulated period, and those are counted as such, but, otherwise, in relation to the two referenda that we know will be likely at the 2020 election, there are some possibilities as well.

In the case of the referendum on liberalising—whether decriminalising or legalising—drug use, it’s possible that under the dictates of this Act governing the conduct of referendum, the referendum would apply from the time that this Act passes in Parliament at its third reading or perhaps the Royal assent. We’re only talking about one day’s difference, so we’ll gloss over that; let’s just say “the passing of the Act.” Or it could be that they apply from the time that the Government advises, in some official manner, exactly what the question will be. Another alternative would be that the election year—and by that I suppose I mean calendar year 2020, as opposed to 12 months prior to the election; it could be writ day, I suppose that has some significance in electoral law terms. But I suspect that the most likely answer is that the “regulated period”, in clause 42, would be the time that various provisions apply, particularly in relation to when referendum expenses begin to be incurred or accrue.

In relation to the End of Life Choice Bill, different options would apply given that that’s taking a slightly different path. In that case it could be, I suppose, the third reading day, the Royal assent, or, again, potentially the passage of this bill, because I suppose it wouldn’t be right; it would be a matter of retrospective lawmaking if we were to say that the conduct leading up to the referendum on the End of Life Choice Act would be governed by the provisions of this legislation before such time as it’s passed. So that’s one quite specific question on which I would be very grateful for an answer from the Minister.

Then, second, within this five-minute call, if I may, is just to dig a little bit into the meaning of “publish”—that’s in the title of clause 41. I note there is a very long list and quite a broad range of different kinds of acts that constitute publication. The Minister will recall from his study of the legal method, statutory interpretation 101, that having a list of different activities—in this case, activities—implies that other similar things that are like that may also be included. Of course, the list doesn’t purport to be exhaustive; it includes those various things, and all we have specifically excluded is the addressing of one or more persons face to face.

So I have a couple of, sort of, questions in relation to this particular provision. One is whether it would not simply be easier to say something like “by any means whatsoever”, replacing all of paragraph (a) and that long list from Roman numerals (i) to (xi) inclusive with, simply, a very broad statement of “any means whatsoever”, meaning we don’t need to talk about sending by post or otherwise, disseminating by means of the internet or other electronic medium, and so forth. It seems to me that we could structure that provision much more neatly, simply by saying that the publication in reference to a referendum advertisement includes any means whatsoever, other than, or excluding, by addressing one or more persons face to face. If the Minister can explain the rationale for having that face-to-face exclusion as different from the other means, that would be helpful too.

Just to respond to the points raised by Chris Penk just now—in relation to the provisions in clause 40 relating to the definition of “referendum expenses”, that is pretty much taken out of the Electoral Act. It is what I would describe as mutatis mutandis, the same provisions about electoral expenses in the Electoral Act as apply to general election campaigning. So there won’t be anything that members who’ve read the Electoral Act as they’ve prepared for their campaigns will be unfamiliar with.

I wasn’t quite clear about what the member’s concerns were in relation to clause 42 and the regulated period, except to say it is pretty clear that whatever the regulated period is for the general election will be the regulated period for the referendums.

Then, finally, in relation to the meaning of “published”, I get the member’s point about trying to find a generalised definition that means we don’t have to list every detail, and the member is correct—a principle interpretation means that the more detail you provide, then the less scope there is for a judge to read in something that doesn’t look like it’s provided for but should be included. But this is the list that has been developed. A lot of this is kind of a “for the avoidance of doubt” - type sort of drafting, so to be absolutely clear about what is included, and then, effectively, to exclude a meeting—that it must be possible to have a meeting that doesn’t get caught up in definitions of “publish” and therefore whether that contributes or is attributable to or least accountable to your electoral expenses.

So I think that’s the intention there, because in the end, whether it’s a referendum or whether it’s the general election electing political representatives, we want good, free-flowing debate. We just want to make sure that those with deeper pockets don’t dominate. But we want, you know, the basic thing, the old street-corner meeting, the stump meeting, the town hall meeting—we want those things to take place. They should not be included in a definition of “publish” or “publication”. So that, I hope, explains the drafting in that respect.

I’ve read quite extensively on some of the debates that have occurred in US states around the issues of recreational cannabis that are pertinent to this part, knowing that one of the Government’s key intents around this law is to hold a referendum on recreational cannabis. We are somewhat frustrated that Parliament’s not going to have any say and the public is not going to have any say on the question, and we’ve also found different views between the Government, from the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, and also from the Green Party on the nature of that question.

But the part that’s quite concerning is that as the commercial cannabis industry has grown in the United States, there’s been a lot of money spent by those that profit from peddling the recreational drug of cannabis in those jurisdictions. So the question I’m interested in from the Minister is what the intent is around overseas corporations who are profiting from recreational cannabis in places like Colorado being able to advertise and promote. Now, those companies would be perfectly free to set up a company of, you know, “Cannabis New Zealand”, and then to advertise and spend quite extensively. I can only come to the conclusion when I read Part 3 of this bill that the Government is quite open about those that would profit from a recreational cannabis industry in New Zealand being able to spend quite big money on it.

I do ask the question in terms of Government policy that—we know that recreational cannabis is substantially more carcinogenic than tobacco, and so we put very extensive restrictions on tobacco companies around advertising their products. My question for the Minister: is it the intent to put, to use the loose term in the US, “Big Cannabis”, which is a very substantive, hundreds of millions of dollars a year industry, an industry that spends a huge amount of money on PR and advertising—is it the intent that those companies that are already being launched and floated, that would profit from the legalisation of recreational cannabis, are to be able to advertise in the referendum next year, and whether he thinks that’s appropriate?

That’s one of the great difficulties of this framework legislation that doesn’t actually tell us any of the specifics of the issues. We had, very clearly, around the MMP, around the flag, and the other referendum—we were able to have a very specific debate in the Parliament about the advertising rules that would apply. We’re not sure what referendum will apply. This bill gives open licence to Cabinet to have as many referendum as it likes. But because we know that there will be, with this bill, the opportunity for the Government to have a referendum on recreational cannabis, it is fair to ask as to whether those that would profit and have set up companies to be able to promote recreational cannabis—is it the intent of Part 3 that they will be able to participate, and is it the intent that not just one and their expenditure limits, but that they will actually be able to set up multiple entities and spend, effectively, millions of dollars on promoting people to vote Yes to dope?

So I just ask for an indication, whether it be from the Green Party, who are the ultimate architects of the referendum on recreational cannabis; any Government member opposite; or the Minister in the chair: is it the intent that those that would profit from recreational cannabis will be able to advertise and promote a Yes vote on that? And are they open and honest about the fact that, actually, there is no limit on the amount that they could spend, because they could easily set up multiple organisations—each promoter, as it’s referred to in Part 3, could set up an entity to do that—and isn’t that highly contradictory to the Government having such a fierce view of opposition to any advertising around tobacco, and doesn’t that really expose the double standards in the Government?