Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): 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 $27000 and if you take out an ad that includes advertising for a referendum question that all falls within your $27000. 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.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: 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."