Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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?"