Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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 $300000 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. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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 $15000? Does anybody think that's true?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can we come back to the bill?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: 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."