Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): 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 $27000 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 $27000 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.