Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): 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. 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."