Hon Andrew Little
Minister of Justice
Proactive release – 2020 Cannabis Referendum
Date of issue: 7 May 2019
The following document has been proactively released in accordance with Cabinet Office
Circular CO (18) 4.
Some information has been withheld on the basis that it would not, if requested under the
Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), be released. Where that is the case, the relevant
section of the OIA has been noted and no public interest has been identified that would
outweigh the reasons for withholding it.
No. Document
1

2020 Cannabis Referendum – legislative
process and overarching policy settings
for the regulatory model
Cabinet paper
Office of the Minister of Justice
Considered by Cabinet on 6 May 2019

Comments
Some information has been withheld in
accordance with:
•

section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA to protect the
confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers
of the Crown and officials, and

•

section 9(2)(h) of the OIA to maintain legal
professional privilege.

© Crown Copyright, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

 JU
ST
IC
E

In Confidence

Office of the Minister of Justice
Chair, Cabinet

OF

2020 Cannabis Referendum – legislative process and overarching policy settings for
the regulatory model
Proposal

Following decisions taken at the end of last year on the nature and timing of the
referendum, this paper reports back on the potential process for the binding
referendum on the legalisation of recreational cannabis The next issue to be
resolved is the content of the question used for the referendum.

2.

The paper sets out options for the nature of the question to be asked. Three of the
options relate to policy frameworks, with two of these relating to possible legislation.
Possible content of policy frameworks is set out. Following these decisions, I will
report back to the Cabinet Social Wellbeing Committee with further details of the
regulatory model.

MI
NI

ST
ER

1.

Executive Summary

Cabinet has agreed to hold a binding referendum at the 2020 General Election to
determine whether personal use of recreational cannabis should be legalised. If the
binding nature of the referendum is to be meaningful it will be necessary to be as
clear and certain about the outcome of a ‘yes’ vote as possible.

4.

The referendum question should provide voters with a clear choice on this important
matter. Also, there may be merit in allowing for the public education in the lead up to
the referendum to better understand the final regulatory model that is adopted.

5.

I have identified four possible approaches to setting the referendum question, each
providing a different balance between flexibility for the regulatory model to adapt and
be shaped by the public debate, and certainty of outcome in the case of a ‘yes’ vote
in the referendum.

6.

For reasons I outline, I prefer a ‘yes/no’ question based on a clear proposition. It
follows from th s that a question including multiple parts with separate choices over
different aspects of a possible regulatory regime has the potential to lead to
confusion and should be avoided.

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

TH

E

3.

Background
7.

On 17 December 2018, Cabinet agreed to hold a binding referendum at the 2020
General Election to determine whether legislative provisions for the legalisation of
cannabis should be adopted [CAB-18-MIN-0641.02 refers].

8.

The referendum question and associated publicity material needs to clearly signal
what would happen as a consequence of a ‘yes’ vote. A ‘no’ vote would mean
1

 JU
ST
IC
E

continuation of the status quo, and so that outcome would be certain. In the interests
of an informed referendum, there must be certainty about the consequence of a ‘yes’
vote.
What that consequence will be is dependent on the extent of change Cabinet is
prepared to countenance. Cabinet has invited me to report back to the Cabinet
Social Wellbeing Committee (SWC) on the legislative process for the binding
referendum.

10.

Cabinet agreed to establishing a cross-party reference group to test any regulatory
model being developed and allow other political parties a chance to input into the
process [CAB-18-MIN-0641.02 refers].

11.

Cabinet also agreed to an iterative process to meet these timeframes, whereby SWC
will make decisions on any regulatory model through short-form Cabinet papers and
oral items between now and April 2019. The final agreed approach to the referendum
will then be considered by Cabinet [CAB-18-MIN-0641.02 refers].

12.

Decisions now need to be made on the content of the question to be used for the
referendum, and the overarching policy settings for any proposed regulatory model.

ST
ER

OF

9.

Approach to the referendum question

The content of the question used for the referendum will be important in helping to
frame the public conversation about leg lising recreational cannabis. A simple
yes/no question, based on a clear proposition, gives voters the clearest choice.1 For
this to be meaningful, the public will need to have clarity about what will happen after
the referendum, if the outcome is n affirmative vote to legalise recreational
cannabis.

14.

There are four possible approaches to posing the referendum question:

TH

E

MI
NI

13.

BY

14.1. A general question consistent with the undertaking in the Confidence and
Supply agreement: “Do you support legalising the personal use of
recreational cannabis?” This would not be accompanied by any legal
framework or other policy decisions, and it would be left to a subsequent
Parliament to determine what to do in the event of a ‘yes’ vote;

RE
LE
AS
ED

14.2. A question referring to a specific policy framework document setting out
the basic principles of what legalisation of the personal use of recreational
cannabis in New Zealand might entail: “Do you support legalising
recreational cannabis in accordance with [published policy document]?” A
yes’ vote would result in the duly elected government and Parliament
having some moral imperative, but no obligation, to enact law changes
consistent with that policy document;
14.3. A question referring to an exposure draft piece of legislation that outlines
the suggested regulatory model for cannabis but was not introduced into
the House until the result of the referendum was known: ‘Do you support

1

A single option outcome, rather than multiple options, is also important because such votes can be counted
manually. Any form of preferential voting requires the creation of an automated counting process to reallocate
votes; this is much more costly and time consuming to develop.

2

 JU
ST
IC
E

legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis in accordance with
[published draft legislation]?”. This exposure draft would be provided in
confidence to limited stakeholders for consultation and a final exposure
draft that would be the subject of the referendum would follow. Similar to
option 2, a ‘yes’ vote would result in the duly elected government and
Parliament having some moral imperative, but no obligation, to enact the
legislation;

BY

TH

E

MI
NI

ST
ER

The table below sets out the four possible approaches to framing the referendum
question, and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

RE
LE
AS
ED

15.

OF

14.4. A question referring to legislation already enacted but conditional on an
affirmative vote on the referendum: “Do you support legalising
recreational cannabis in accordance with the [Drug Reform] Act 20XX?” A
‘yes’ vote would trigger the legislation coming into effect.

3

 Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 1: Yes/No question on whether personal use of recreational cannabis should be legalised through action by subsequent

Government/Parliament

e. 9. Do you support Iegalising the personal use of recreational cannabis?

 

This option would not include a fully developed and enacted
law. Rather, it would rely on voters developing their
understanding and views of what Iegalisation might look like
from public debate, and statements made by political parties
leading up to the referendum.

Following an af?rmative vote, the Government would determine
whether and when to introduce legislation. It would also need to
determine the shape of the regulatory model.

The usual Parliamentary process would apply to the Bill and
enable the regulatory model to be adjusted accordingly.

 

Offers greater ?exibility for the
Government to shape the regulatory
model based on the public debate
leading up to the referendum.

Parliament?s consideration of the
regulatory model would be informed by
the public debate prior to the
referendum.

Provides maximum amount of time to
develop the details of the regulatory
model.

 

Offers little certainty about key features of
the regulatory model (such as minimum
age to use and purchase) which may be
important factors for many voters

Does not provide certainty to the public
about what will happen (and when)
following any af?rmative vote. It is
effectively a Brexit referendum question.

 

Option 2: Yes/No question on whether a published policy framework should be enacted by subsequent Government/Parliament
e.g. Do you support Iegalising the personal use of recreational cannabis in accordance with [policy document]?

 

 

This option could use a policy document to provide more detail
on the proposed regulatory model. No legislation would be
enacted prior to the referendum.

Following an af?rmative vote, the Government would have a
clear mandate to act on and could introduce legislation in
accordance with the policy document.

The usual Parliamentary process would apply to the Bill and
enable the regulatory model to be adjusted accordingly.

 

Offers more certainty for the public about
what the regulatory model could look
like.

Parliament?s consideration of the
regulatory model would be informed by
the public debate prior to the
referendum.

Provides some more time to develop the
details of the regulatory model, and
?exibility to incorporate changes or new
ideas arising from the public debate.

 

- Any bespoke public engagement process

(rather than a select committee process)
requires additional funding.

Potential for public confusion over the
status of the policy document in the
referendum.

A change of Government post-election

could entail major changes to the
proposed policy approach, including
disregarding the public?s will, which could
be seen to undermine the referendum.

 

 

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 3: Yes/No question on whether draft legislation should be enacted by subsequent Government/Parliament
e.g Do you support legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis in accordance with [exposure draft legislation]?

 

This option could use draft legislation to provide more detail on
the proposed regulatory model. The legislation would not be
enacted prior to the referendum. As per usual exposure draft
practices, it would be accompanied by straightforward guides to
the legislation.

Following an af?rmative vote, the Government would have a
clear mandate to introduce, and subsequently enact, the
legislation.

The usual Parliamentary process would apply to the Bill and
enable the regulatory model to be adjusted accordingly.

 

0 Offers a high level of certainty for the
public as to what the regulatory model
would look like and how it would be put
into law

- Parliament?s consideration of the
regulatory model would be informed by
the public debate prior to the
referendum.

0 Provides some more time to develop the
details of the regulatory model, and
?exibility to incorporate changes or new
ideas arising from the public debate.

 

Any bespoke public engagement process
(rather than a select committee process)
requires additional funding.

0 Limited opportunity for public debate and
discussion to inform the content of the
regulatory model.

0 A change of Government post-election
could entail major changes to the
legislation, including disregarding the
public?s will, which could be seen to
undermine the referendum.

 

Option 4: Yes/No question on whether legislation enacted prior to the referendum should come into force

e. Q. Do you support legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis in accordance with the [Drug Reform] Act 

 

 

This option would provide the greatest level of certainty about
the regulatory model, what would occur and when, following an
af?rmative vote.

An af?rmative vote would bring into force an already enacted
piece of legislation, which regulates the personal use of
recreational cannabis, including age, access and supply limits.

The legislation could include transitional provisions and further
work to implement the law could begin immediately following a
?yes? vote.

 

0 Provides maximum certainty about what

the regulatory model would look like,
enabling voters to make an informed
choice.

0 Provides maximum certainty about what

would happen, and when, immediately
following the referendum.

- It is the option most consistent with the

binding nature of the referendum.

 

0 Time is very tight to develop and enact
the necessary regulatory model before
December 2019.

There is less opportunity for public
debate and discussion to inform the
content of the regulatory model.

0 The process for developing and enacting
the legislation may give the appearance
of approving a scheme ahead of the
public?s view expressed in the
referendum.

 

 

JU
ST
IC
E

16.

Any government-initiated referendum held alongside the General Election will require
legislation to set up the referendum framework. This proposal was agreed by Cabinet
on 8 April 2019 in the paper ‘Planning for the delivery of the 2020 General Election’
[CAB-19-MIN-0129].

General question with no accompanying material

Asking the general question “Do you support legalising the personal use of
recreational cannabis?” without any accompanying material would, in my view, be
the least helpful of the options and the least consistent with the binding nature of the
referendum. It would leave the electorate uncertain about what the consequence of a
‘yes’ vote might be.

18.

Having identified previously [CAB-18-MIN-0461.02] the three principle risks
associated with some form of legalisation (access by adolescents, incidence of
driving under the influence, impact on work health and safety), the absence of
associated material would leave the electorate unce tain about how these and other
risks would be addressed. In the event of a ‘yes’ resul , it would leave the next
Parliament to discern what the public is prepared to accept by way of regulation and
control. I do not recommend this option.

ST
ER

OF

17.

MI
NI

General question with reference to policy document

Asking the referendum question with reference to a policy document provides greater
certainty for voters about what a ‘yes’ vote would mean.

20.

The policy document could set out how public health and other risks would be
addressed. In the event of a ‘yes’ result, the policy document would be the basis on
which the subsequent Parliament might legislate.

21.

However, as each Parliament is sovereign to itself, it would ultimately be a matter for
that Parliament what it legislates for, if anything.

22.

Although a policy document accompanying the referendum question may create a
political imperative for Parliament to follow it in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, there would
be no certainty that he policy document would be followed as Parliament would be
free to make its own collective judgement about the content of legislation.

BY

TH

E

19.

General question with reference to draft legislation
Asking a general question with reference to draft legislation provides a high level of
certainty for vo ers about what a ‘yes’ vote would mean.

24.

The exposure draft legislation could set out how the regulatory model would work
and, like other exposure draft processes, be accompanied by a ‘walkthrough’ and
other materials to assist the public in their understanding of the draft legislation.

25.

However, as with the above options, each Parliament is sovereign to itself and it
would ultimately be a matter for that Parliament what it legislates for, if anything.
Following a ‘yes’ vote, there is also a risk that the legislation, if introduced, could be
changed significantly by the next Parliament or Government before it is enacted.

RE
LE
AS
ED

23.

6

 JU
ST
IC
E

Question with reference to enacted legislation

A referendum question that refers to an enacted piece of legislation, with that
legislation coming into effect only in the event of a ‘yes’ result, would provide the
electorate with the greatest certainty about the consequences of their vote.

27.

It would require the current Parliament to make the rules which would be sub ect to
the usual public consultation applying in any law-making process. This would create
a number of efficiencies and certainty around the process for engagement. If this
option is favoured, an ad-hoc select committee focused solely on this issue could be
established and engage with people across the country (discussed below).

28.

However, as with the above options, each Parliament is sovereign to itself.
Following a “yes” vote, there is also a risk that the legislation could then be repealed
by a subsequent parliament or government.

ST
ER

OF

26.

Proposed legislative process (Option 4)
29.

Subject to Cabinet decisions, any legislation would preferably be passed by
December 2019, with March 2020 as an absolute deadline. s9(2)(f)(iv)
.

A full legislative process would provide an opportunity to develop a robust regulatory
model with input from the public.

31.

If Option 4 is considered, then our role in Government would be to design, with a
limited and confidential stakeholder consultation framework, a workable regulatory
model that minimises the harms associated with cannabis use. Should the
referendum return a “yes” vote then this would subsequently be debated.

32.

If Option 4 is considered then the select committee would examine the details of the
model and also consider the views of the public.

33.

Should Cabinet approve an approach in which regulatory legislation is fully
developed (Option 4), I anticipate that there would be a large number of public
submissions on the Bill. I consider that a standard select committee process may
produce an unmanageable workload that could hamper the committee’s ability to
make meaningful contributions.

34.

I would propose to write to the Business Committee to discuss establishing an
ad-hoc select committee. This would enable the committee to have a mixture of
sectoral expert se and focus on one issue, allowing it to take the time to hold
meetings in a wide range of locations to hear from a cross-section of submitters
within the set timeframe.

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

TH

E

MI
NI

30.

35.

I would also consider mechanisms to ensure the Committee of the whole House
stage is used efficiently to meet the timeframes.

36.

The timeline for this process, would be as follows:

7

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Process Timeframe

Targeted stakeholder engagement Now

SWC Now June 2019

Cross-party reference group Now June 2019

Bill introduced June/July 2019

Ad-hoc Select Committee (4-5 months) July/August 2019 November 2019
Remaining stages of the House and Bill Preferably by December 2019, but
passed March 2020 at the absolute latest
Electoral Commission?s voter education May 2020 Election

campaign

 

 

 

Proposed process for a policy document or exposure draft (Option policy document or exposure draft is preferred, the process will focus on
developing a document that has enough detail for the public to understand what they
are voting on and the implications of Iegalisation. The formal document could be
accompanied by a range of other material to assist with understanding. The
document would also need to provide enough detail for the next Parliament to
progress the work accordingly, subject to a ?yes? vote.

Under option 3, I would direct of?cials to develop the detail of a workable regulatory
model and consult with relevant Ministers and the coalition and con?dence and
supply partners, to inform the drafting of the Bill.

I would report back to SWC seeking con?rmation of the draft Bill, prior to targeted
stakeholder engagement in August/September 2019. Cabinet approval of the ?nal
exposure draft will be sought in early 2020, prior to materials being prepared for the
referendum

Targeted stakeholder engagement on the regulatory model is vital to a model being
workable for New Zealand and mitigating risks of unintended consequences. This
could be achieved through limited and con?dential workshops with individuals who
have expertise and experience to stress test the regulatory model and identify
potential areas for re?nement. Workshops could target academics and researchers,
those already working in related industries medicinal cannabis), cannabis users
and iwi/Maori.

This process would be led by the Ministry of Justice, with input from other
government agencies. The timeframes for the process would be:

 

Process Timeframe

 

 

Cabinet process on the regulatory model Now - July 2019

 

 

 

Cross-party reference group Now - March 2020

 

Targeted stakeholder engagement August September 2019

 

Analysis - consider feedback and September November 2019
recommendations for changes to regulatory model
Cabinet process on the ?nalised regulatory model January March 2020

 

 

Printing and dissemination of documents March June 2020

 

Public education Release of ?nalised documents June 2020 Election
alongside the Electoral Commission?s voter
education campaign

 

 

 

 

42. If Cabinet agrees to Option 2 or Option 3, the cost of this mirrors Option 1. The
funding needed would be for public education, which is a key part of upholding the
integrity of the referendum.

Extent of regulation

43. If it is agreed the referendum question should refer to a policy document, draft
legislation, or enacted legislation, then the next question is what the extent of
regulation should be.

New Zealand?s prohibition approach has had limited success in addressing the harm
caused by cannabis use

44. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 contains a range of offences relating to the
use, cultivation, and sale and supply of cannabis and cannabis preparations 
resin and oil). Penalties range from a fine not exceeding $500 for use of cannabis to
a maximum sentence of 14 years? imprisonment for supply.

45. Despite its prohibition, including a vigorous campaign in the employer community
over the last 20 years for drug-free workplaces, cannabis is the most commonly used
illegal drug in New Zealand. Various studies indicate around 10 to 12 percent of
adults use cannabis at least once a year and nearly a third of those people are
Maori.

46. Prohibition has had a limited effect in reducing harms related to cannabis use in New
Zealand. For example, prohibition does not directly address addiction or other health
issues. The outcome of a criminal conviction creates additional social harms with
lifelong consequences for users, their families and communities. Prohibition also
poses a barrier for people to seek help for cannabis use due to the stigmatisation
associated with its criminal element.

Maori are disproportionately harmed by prohibition

47. Research shows that Maori are more likely to use cannabis and experience harm
from its use. In 2016/17, 26 percent of Maori adults had used cannabis for
non-medicinal reasons compared to 12 percent of the total adult population. Maori

JU
ST
IC
E

are also significantly more likely to have tried cannabis before the age of 14 than
non-Māori.

Māori are also more likely to receive a cannabis-related conviction than non-Māori.
While data shows the proceeding rates for both Māori and non-Māori have
decreased over the past four years by 14% and 17% respectively, in 2017/18 Māori
were 3.8 times more likely to be proceeded against for use and possession than nonMāori. In that same period, 42 percent of individuals who received a prison sentence
for cannabis offending were Māori. 2

49.

New Zealand Police has actively shifted away from prosecuting people for use and
possession of cannabis. However, the approach is discretionary. Proceedings data
indicates that Māori still experience more criminalisation and the resulting social
harms than other ethnicities. Should cannabis be legalised, the model must promote
equity and improve opportunities for Māori.

50.

A harm reduction approach to cannabis must seek to improve health outcomes for all
New Zealanders, particularly Māori. The Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction
indicated that existing services do not always work for Māori. This will need to be
considered as part of the investment in health services alongside the regulatory
model.

ST
ER

OF

48.

51.

MI
NI

Models of legalisation

Options 2, 3 and 4 on the referendum question require the development of a legal
framework, whether as a policy document, draft legislation or as enacted law. The
ways to achieve legalisation of personal use of recreational cannabis are:

E

51.1. Decriminalisation of recreational cannabis use;

52.

TH

51.2. A full legal and regulated market for recreational cannabis.
The principal question, in the event there is an appetite across the majority of the
electorate to legalise the personal use of recreational cannabis, is what legal model
is more likely to achieve harm minimisation objectives.

Generally, decriminalisation is where personal use of recreational cannabis would
remain illegal. Instead of prosecution, alternative penalties (such as a fine) would be
given for cannabis use and possession offences. Decriminalisation could also apply
to personal cultivation of a limited number of plants to provide some form of supply.

RE
LE
AS
ED

53.

BY

Decriminalisation

54.

Decriminalising use, possession and private cultivation of recreational cannabis
would end the criminalisation of people for minor instances of use, possession and
private cultivation. This is a particularly significant issue for Māori. However,

2

While Po ice may prosecute adults for cannabis use and possession, the prison population directly
att ibutable to these offences is zero. People in prison, whose sentence is linked to cannabis use of
poss ssion, have been imprisoned due to other offending but have also attracted a concurrent term due to the
cannabis offence.

10

 JU
ST
IC
E

decriminalisation would not address the issue of supply. People who want to use
cannabis but cannot or do not wish to grow their own supply, would be forced to turn
to the illicit market. This is essentially the model that applies in the Netherlands and
requires the authorities to refrain from enforcing the law against supply where no
harm is evident.
Decriminalisation offers the possibility of non-criminal use, and possibly legal use if
there were no infringement regime, of cannabis. It would almost certainly need to be
accompanied by regulation of age and place of use. It would create the opportunity
for suitable public health messages in places of use.

56.

The problem with decriminalisation models (including those that legalise possession
and use by individuals) is that they leave supply unregulated This impedes the
ability to control quality of products (principally tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content)
and, to the extent most supply in New Zealand is controlled by criminal elements,
impedes any harm minimisation associated with removing criminal elements.

Full regulation of recreational cannabis

ST
ER

OF

55.

A Government controlled and tightly regulated market, with the size of the market set
at a level that is consistent with current demand for cannabis, achieves legalisation
of personal use of recreational cannabis while at the same time allowing regulation
and control of harmful aspects of the substance throughout the whole supply chain.

58.

A Government controlled and tightly regulated market should enable the Government
to steer market behaviour towards achieving the objective of minimising harm, while
providing safe and legal access to cannabis.

59.

There is an expectation that there will be an excise tax regime, similar to other
harmful product regimes, and that revenue raised should be used for harm
minimisation.

60.

Full regulation would address the following elements:

60.2.

Limit the potency of cannabis and cannabis products available;
Limit consumption of cannabis to private homes and specifically licensed
premises;

RE
LE
AS
ED

60.3.

Establish a minimum age to use and purchase recreational cannabis;

BY

60.1.

TH

E

MI
NI

57.

60.4.

Permit the sale of cannabis through physical stores only (not online or by
remote sale);

60 5.

Require the inclusion of health and harm minimisation messaging in the
marketing and retailing of cannabis;

60.6.

Establish the parameters whereby small amounts of cannabis may be
legally shared socially with those over the legal purchase and use age
while reinforcing penalties for individuals who share with those under the
designated purchase and use age;
11

 JU
ST
IC
E

Establish the regulated market controls over seed and / or plant purchase
to permit private cultivation of cannabis at home, including the
requirement to keep children and underage individuals safe;

60.8.

Establish the regulated market controls that would permit cannabisinfused products to be made at home but prohibit extraction of resins and
other concentrates at home;

60.9.

Ensure through a state licensing regime that all stages of the supply chain
are licenced and controlled;

60.10.

Control through state licensing all manufacture of cannabis products,
including resins and other concentrates;

60.11.

Control through state licensing all commercial manufacture of cannabisinfused products, such as edibles;

60.12.

Restrict marketing activities, including a ban on all advertising of cannabis
products;

60.13.

Criminalise the importation of cannabis unless by a Government licensed
wholesaler for the current market to minimise the consequence of an
illegal trade.

MI
NI

ST
ER

OF

60.7.

What should a regulatory model address?
Cannabis use causes harm

Regular use of cannabis increases the risks of developing depression, psychosis and
schizophrenia. Use can be particularly harmful for people under 25 years old as the
brain is still developing. Additionally, consuming cannabis by smoking can increase
the risk of developing breathing issues, lung damage and some cancers, and
second-hand smoke could have detrimental impacts on others. There is also a high
risk of dependence among those who regularly use, including a one in six chance of
young people developing a dependence.

62.

Cannabis use also contributes to social issues. For example, cannabis use can be a
factor in offending by some people, and family and friends can be affected by the
user’s behaviour and addiction issues. Cannabis impairment can be a factor in motor
vehicle accidents (after alcohol, cannabis is the most common substance found in
impaired drivers’ systems) and health and safety incidents at work.

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

TH

E

61.

Objectives for cannabis reform
63.

If it is agreed that a regulatory framework be developed (whether as a policy
document or a exposure draft piece of legislation) then following objectives could
guide the design of the regulatory model:
63 1.

Primary objectives:

12

 JU
ST
IC
E

Lower the overall use of cannabis over time through education and
addiction services – with a particular focus on lowering the use
amongst youths by increasing the age of first use. Revenue raised
through the regulation of cannabis should contribute to relevant
health-related measures.

OF

63.1.2.

Secondary objectives:

Disempowering the gangs and the illegal trade in cannabis;

63.2.2.

Lowering the prison population over time and lowering the number
of New Zealanders (especially Maori) whose future opportunities
are negatively affected by cannabis use charges;

63.2.3.

Ensure product safety and control of THC levels via legislation and
regulation;

63.2.4.

Be consistent with the rule of law – the model should uphold New
Zealand’s constitution. It should also minimise opportunities for the
illicit market and be clear and easy to follow;

63.2.5.

Tailored and workable for New Zealand – the model should
recognise and reflect our cultural practices and the values of New
Zealand society so that it can be accepted by New Zealanders;

63.2.6.

Fiscal sustainability – the model should seek to fund mechanisms
that directly address cannabis-related harms, while also aiming to
lower use over time

E

MI
NI

ST
ER

63.2.1.

I note that there is a tension between the primary objective of improving the
wellbeing of New Zealanders, which requires minimising harm caused by cannabis
use, and the potential revenue that could be raised through a domestic cannabis
market. The proposed regulatory model outlined below prioritises wellbeing while
taking into account the potential fiscal and financial consequences.

BY

64.

Address the wellbeing of New Zealanders and harm reduction – the
model should minimise harms associated with cannabis, such as
health-related harm, social harms and harm to youth.

TH

63.2.

63.1.1.

RE
LE
AS
ED

Lessons from the alcohol and tobacco regulatory models
65.

Existing alcoho and tobacco regulatory models provide lessons for the regulation of
cannabis as there are key similarities between the three substances. However, it
should be noted that there are also important differences, such as their effects, the
way they are used, and the Government’s response to use.

66.

Regulation of cannabis provides a unique opportunity to develop a new regulatory
system aimed at carefully mitigating harm and shaping the social norms that will
develop around recreational cannabis use. We have an opportunity to anticipate and
mitigate the risks seen with tobacco and alcohol regulation in New Zealand and

13

 JU
ST
IC
E

internationally, while also recognising that cannabis is a unique product and will
require its own tailored regulatory model.
Possible regulatory model

The following proposal sets out aspects of a regulatory model that emphasises harm
minimisation through a government-controlled regulated market for the production,
supply and use of recreational cannabis. The size of the market should be limited (ie,
a small number of licensed businesses operating in the market) to a level that is
adequate for meeting current demand levels, with a view to reducing demand and
thus market size over time.

68.

This approach would see the Government controlling and regulating all parts of the
supply chain to ensure that any incentives for competitive commercial measures
targeted at increasing demand for cannabis, such as low prices and mass marketing
campaigns, could not eventuate. Good quality public health messaging would be
required.

69.

The Government can also ensure the rights and interests of Māori are protected. A
small market with government control over how many businesses can operate and
how much they can produce should also ensure businesses have strong incentives
to cooperate and adhere to government policy.

70.

Legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis without providing a safe and
legal way for people to access cannabis products carries the risk of exposing users
to more harmful drugs and other illicit activities.

71.

A Government controlled and regulated market provides a safe way for people to
access cannabis products and allows them to know the quality and potency of the
products they are consuming, minimising harms from use of these products.

72.

The following considers the first set of decisions that need to be made in designing
the government-controlled regulated market. They are:

TH

E

MI
NI

ST
ER

OF

67.

who can use and purchase cannabis;

72.2.

what forms of cannabis should be regulated;

72.3.

where cannabis can be used;

72.4.

the scope of the private sphere – what people can do in their own home; and

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

72.1.

72.5.

the scope of the commercial sphere – what can be conducted commercially.

Setting a minimum age for the personal use and purchase of recreational cannabis
73.

Consumption of cannabis is particularly harmful for those under 25 as the brain
continues to develop until the mid-20s. Studies show that the likelihood of developing
dependence on cannabis increases for those who use when they are young.
Cannabis use is also associated with educational underachievement and school
dropout, which can have significant enduring life consequences.

14

 JU
ST
IC
E

Use and experimentation of cannabis is currently prevalent among young people in
New Zealand, with a 2011 report from the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief
Science Advisor suggesting that by age 21, around 80 percent of young New
Zealanders have tried cannabis.

75.

In setting the appropriate minimum age for cannabis use it is important to ensure
access to cannabis by young people would be restricted, thus minimising harm to
youth. At the same time, however, we need to find a balance between regulating to
protect young people and inadvertently driving supply underground.

76.

In my view the minimum age for cannabis use, including the purchase age, should
be set at 20. I consider that a minimum age of 20 is workable in New Zealand and
adequately addresses the objective of improving the wellbeing of young people who
are at greater risk of harm from cannabis use. It would also contribute to establishing
social and cultural norms against use by young people, especially those in
secondary school. Although a minimum age of 20 would not align with the current
age limit of 18 for tobacco and alcohol, it does align with entry to casinos and the
zero tolerance/drink driving age, both of which are 20

77.

The main issue with setting a minimum age of 18 is that it would provide an
opportunity for 18-year olds to supply cannabis to younger school-aged peers.
Setting the minimum age higher than 20 would recognise the greater risk of harm
cannabis use has on people under 25. However, it would likely push a significant
number of people to the black market, which would be inconsistent with the primary
objective of minimising harm.

78.

I consider that setting the minimum age at 20 strikes the appropriate balance
between deterring use by young people, especially those in secondary school, while
ensuring safe and legal access to cannabis is available for most of the people who
choose to use it.

E

MI
NI

ST
ER

OF

74.

TH

Regulating different forms of cannabis

The risks associated with cannabis use are significantly influenced by preparation,
dosage and method of consumption, which are all closely linked to potency. Raw
cannabis is the mos commonly consumed type of cannabis in New Zealand, but
anecdotal evidence suggests various forms of cannabis, such as resins, edible and
lotions, are also used.

80.

The following forms of cannabis should be legalised and regulated:

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

79.

80.1.

Raw cannabis – this includes fresh or dried cannabis plant material
(including seeds) with no additives. It can be smoked, vaporised or
consumed with food or drink;

80.2.

Cannabis resin and other concentrates – this includes a wide range of
concentrated products, including resin, oil and wax. Concentrates are
generally more potent than raw cannabis, although potency can vary
significantly;

15

 Cannabis-infused products – this includes edibles, drinks, lotions and
patches, all of which are used without smoking or inhaling. These products
can be made with varying levels of potency.

Making these products, which are already used for cannabis consumption in New
Zealand, available in a Government controlled and regulated market would reduce
the need for people to engage with the illicit market. It would also enable better
control of the quality and potency of cannabis and these cannabis preparations,
which could help to minimise cannabis-related harms. Specifically it would enable
regulation of the psychoactive substance in cannabis, THC.

OF

81.

JU
ST
IC
E

80.3.

Limiting cannabis consumption to private homes and licensed premises
To ensure cannabis use is not promoted or encouraged, it is important that exposure
to cannabis is limited where possible. One means to limit exposure is restricting
where cannabis can be used. Jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis have
responded differently to this question. For example, Colorado, Oregon and
Washington State have banned cannabis consumption in public places. In British
Columbia, smoking and vaping cannabis is generally permitted in places where
smoking and vaping tobacco is permitted but there are some additional areas where
smoking and vaping cannabis is prohibited (e g playgrounds, sports fields, at bus
stops or within 6 metres of a bus stop).

83.

Permitting cannabis use in public places esp cially around areas frequented by
children and young people, may normalise the behaviour and expose more people to
cannabis and its effects (e.g. second-hand smoke which can have psychoactive
effects). Therefore, I propose that cannabis use should be restricted to individuals’
homes, including their outdoor areas, and in the homes of other people with their
permission.

84.

Licensing premises would provide for safe spaces for people to use cannabis away
from home. Permitting use at specifically licensed premises recognises that some
people, such as tenants and people with children at home, cannot or may not wish to
use cannabis at home. Licensed premises may also provide an opportunity for staff
to monitor and promote safe consumption behaviours.

BY

TH

E

MI
NI

ST
ER

82.

Commercial cultivation, production and supply
Commercial cultivation and production
Legalising the personal use of recreational cannabis without legalising its commercial
cultivation and production could lead to a situation similar to the Netherlands.
Cannabis use in the Netherlands has been decriminalised and ‘coffee shop’ sales
are tolerated but production is strictly forbidden, which has resulted in coffee shops
be ng supplied via the illicit market.

86.

A legal cannabis industry, if well-designed, would reduce people’s need to engage
w th the illicit market. It would also enable the Government to implement a robust
safety and quality assurance regime to provide control over growing conditions and
product quality standards. Creation of a new industry could also provide
opportunities for regional development.

RE
LE
AS
ED

85.

16

 JU
ST
IC
E

87.

Registering or licensing every part of the supply chain, including growers and
producers, would be important to monitor safety and quality standards. Further
details regarding the most appropriate licensing regime and the necessary regulatory
framework are still being developed which would include the most appropriate way to
restrict direct sales to the public except by a Government licensed retailer

Commercial manufacture of cannabis-infused products

There are a number of ways that cannabis can be consumed, from smoking to
consuming in food and drinks. The harms from smoking are widely known; it harms
nearly every organ in the body, causing many diseases and reducing health in
general. Enabling access to cannabis-infused products, such as edibles, could
encourage users to consume cannabis in ways other than smoking.

89.

However, there is a tension between enabling alternative ways to consume cannabis
and providing easy, convenient consumption methods that may encourage cannabis
use. Therefore, I recommend that commercial manufacture of cannabis-infused
products be permitted with strict regulations, such as strict labelling and packaging
requirements. Regulations should ensure cannabis-infused products provide clear
information on what the product contains, its potency, effects and dosage to help
users make informed choices. These products would only be able to be sold to
Government licensed retail outlets, not direct to the consumer.

MI
NI

ST
ER

OF

88.

Commercial manufacture of cannabis resin and other concentrates
Cannabis resins and other concentrates (e g. oils), which are used in New Zealand,
are generally more potent than raw cannabis. As with raw cannabis, they can be
smoked or consumed in food and drink.

91.

Resins and other concentrates should only be manufactured commercially. This is
because many of the solvents used for extraction are highly flammable (e.g. butane),
so the process of extracting these products can be dangerous.

92.

Allowing Government controlled and regulated commercial manufacture of resins
and other concentrates would provide access for users and reduce the need for
people to extract these products at home unsafely. As these products are generally
more potent than raw cannabis, commercial manufacture would also enable potency
to be regulated and help people who choose to use them to make informed choices.

BY

TH

E

90.

RE
LE
AS
ED

Sale of cannabis in physical stores only
93.

Cannabis and cannabis products should only be sold in physical stores. Physical
stores make enforcement of minimum-age restrictions easier and provide an
opportunity for vendors to intervene in instances of problematic use and guide users
to support services if necessary. Harm-related messaging should also be included in
the marketing of cannabis, including in retail outlets.

94.

While online sales or other forms of remote sale (e.g. mail or phone orders) may be a
better option for some people, such as those in remote areas, these methods of sale
make enforcement of critical safeguards, such as the age restriction or safe delivery
of products, more difficult. The convenience of online sales may also encourage new
17

 JU
ST
IC
E

users to try cannabis. For people unable to access physical stores, Government
controlled and regulated seed and plant sales could allow for private cultivation This
would be available as an alternative way to legally source cannabis products.
Parameters outlining the definition of “private cultivation” quantities would need to be
developed.
Marketing restrictions

Alcohol and tobacco research shows the impact marketing can have on levels of use
and patterns of use. For example, various alcohol research suggests that exposure
through adverts, promotions, retail outlets and media is associated with the likelihood
that youth will start to drink alcohol, and with increased drinking among existing
drinkers. I recommend that marketing activities be restricted for cannabis, including a
ban on all advertising of cannabis products. Any permitted marketing activities must
include health-related and harm minimisation messaging.

ST
ER

OF

95.

Limiting the import of cannabis

It is important to consider the regulation of import of cannabis, as export of certain
types of cannabis is legal in other countries, such as export of cannabis seeds in the
United Kingdom.

97.

The import of cannabis, including cannabis seeds, should be limited to Government
licensed entities and allowed only to address ertain needs in the market, such as
shortages that could not be met by the domestic market. This approach would help
ensure legal supply of cannabis can meet demand, thus minimising possible
opportunities for the illicit market.

98.

Import of cannabis by individuals for personal use should not be permitted as it
would make the cannabis market more difficult to control and could lead to
oversupply of cannabis. Other jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis also do not
currently allow import of cannabis for personal use.

TH

E

MI
NI

96.

Private cultivation, production and supply

Although it is a criminal offence to grow cannabis currently, private cultivation already
exists in New Zealand as some people prefer to grow their own supply of cannabis in
order to avoid contact with the illicit market and have cannabis for lower cost.

RE
LE
AS
ED

99.

BY

Growing cannabis plants at home

100.

Private personal use and cultivation of cannabis could be permitted and controlled
through the requirement to purchase seeds / seedlings only from a Government
controlled and regulated body. It acknowledges that people already grow cannabis
plants in New Zealand and provides an alternative way of accessing cannabis other
than through a physical store, which may be preferable for people in rural and
remote communities.

Making cannabis products at home

18

 JU
ST
IC
E

101.

Government controlled and regulated production of the raw material means that
cannabis-infused products could be permitted to be produced at home to provide
people with access to alternative consumption methods. However, cannabis resins
and other concentrates should not be permitted to be produced at home given the
dangers associated with the extraction process. Instead, resins and other
concentrates will be available commercially.

Sharing small amounts of cannabis socially

Cannabis is a social drug and is often shared in social settings among friends or
acquaintances with no significant element of commerciality.

103.

Social sharing of cannabis between people who meet the age requirement (ie, 20
years or over) should be permitted. This should be limited to sharing of a small
quantity between friends or acquaintances and must not include or be associated
with activities such as selling or gifting for promotion or remuneration purposes.
Sharing with young people under the age requirement would be prohibited,
regardless of parental or guardian permission.

104.

It is possible that social sharing could be seen to enable and possibly encourage
experimentation with cannabis. However, social sharing already occurs in New
Zealand despite the current prohibition. This approach recognises that prohibition is
not a deterrence and instead removes the criminal element associated with social
sharing, thus minimising the harm caused by riminal convictions.

MI
NI

ST
ER

OF

102.

Regulating recreational cannabis use alongside other existing systems
Investment in cannabis-related health services

The Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, He Ara
Oranga, released on 4 December 2018, found that existing services do not always
work for people, particularly for Māori, Pasifika, ethnic communities, migrants and
refugees.

106.

As cannabis use increases the risk of mental health and addiction problems, the
regulatory model for recreational cannabis needs to sit alongside greater investment
in resources for prevention, early intervention, and wrap-around health and treatment
services for substance use disorders. Services need to be more widely available and
adequately address people’s needs, including culturally appropriate services and
services targeted to young people.

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

TH

E

105.

107.

The Ministry of Health will be reporting back on the Inquiry in March 2019. Ministry of
Justice officials will be working with the Ministry of Health to determine how to best
target services and ensure the health-focused, harm reduction approach of the
model aligns with the recommendations of the Inquiry.

Investment in education
108.

Long-term public education and awareness raising, including in schools, will be
required to counter the persistent and somewhat socially-accepted view that

19

 JU
ST
IC
E

cannabis does not cause harm, including health-related harm. This will need to be
targeted to different communities and age groups, rather than a generic approach.

Public education would provide information to enable informed decisions on
cannabis use and greater awareness of ways to seek help. Prevention efforts will be
necessary to target early-onset of cannabis use, impairment at work,
cannabis-impaired driving, and to contribute to the development of norms against
use. Lessons can be learned from the successful anti-tobacco message in New
Zealand.

OF

109.

Medicinal cannabis regime

There is likely to be an overlap between the framework for medicinal cannabis
products and any regulatory model for the personal use of recreational cannabis.
Evidence suggests that many people use cannabis for medical reasons; a study by
the Ministry of Health in 2012/13 indicated that 42 percent of New Zealanders who
used cannabis report using it for medicinal purposes. The potential effects of a
legalised government controlled and regulated market for personal use of
recreational cannabis on the existing medicinal cannabis framework needs to be well
understood.

111.

A government controlled regulatory model for the personal use of recreational
cannabis could be developed separately from the existing medicinal model to
preserve medical access and prioritise the ne ds and wellbeing of patients. Such an
approach could also allow clear and consistent messaging about the harms of
cannabis for personal use. An alternative would be for a single framework to regulate
both. Ministry of Justice officials are working with the Ministry of Health to determine
the best approach.

Industrial hemp regime

E

MI
NI

ST
ER

110.

Industrial hemp is a variety of cannabis that generally has a THC content below 0.35
percent. It also contains cannabidiol (CBD), which does not contain any psychoactive
properties. In contrast, recreational cannabis for personal use generally has a much
higher THC concentration (usually as high as 30 percent for raw cannabis and 80
percent for concentrates) and also contains CBD. Hemp is primarily used for
industrial purposes while cannabis is generally grown for its psychoactive properties.

113.

Hemp is a controlled drug under MoDA. However, people can apply for a licence to
be a cultivator, which enables them to process hemp into specified products.

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

TH

112.

114.

A government controlled regulatory model for the personal use of recreational
cannabis will also have an impact on the existing industrial hemp regime. Separate
models would recognise that, while closely related, hemp and cannabis possess
markedly different characteristics and use, and could also prevent conflicting health
messages associated with each substance. Ministry of Justice officials are
undertaking further work to better understand the relationship between the models
and determine the best approach.

20

 JU
ST
IC
E

Consultation

The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Ministers of Corrections, Health, Housing
and Urban Development, Education, Employment, Finance, Police, Ministers for
Children, Community and Voluntary Sector, Ethnic Communities, Māori
Development, Pacific Peoples, Rural Communities, Social Development, and
Women have been consulted on this paper. The Green Party and New Zealand First
have been consulted on this paper.

116.

The following government agencies have been consulted on this paper: The
Treasury, Te Puni Kōkiri, New Zealand Police, Electoral Commission, New Zealand
Customs Service, Ministry of Primary Industries, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Ministry for Women,
Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Ministry for Environment, Department of Internal Affairs,
Ministry of Transport, Department of Corrections, Ministry of Social Development,
Oranga Tamariki, State Services Commission, Inland Revenue, Stats NZ, Ministry of
Education, Crown Law Office, Social Investment Agency and the Ministry of Health.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was informed of the contents of
this paper.

ST
ER

OF

115.

s9(2)(h)

Cabinet agreed to fund the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Health for 2018/19
through the between-Budget contingency fund for $1.93m [CAB-18-MIN-0641.02
refers]. s9(2)(f)(iv)

RE
LE
AS
ED

118.

BY

Financial Implications

TH

E

MI
NI

s9(2)(h)

s9(2)(f)(iv)

s9(2)(h)

21

 JU
ST
IC
E
MI
NI

ST
ER

OF

s9(2)(f)(iv)

Legislative Implications

Subject to Cabinet decisions, any legislation to be enacted before the referendum
that includes provisions relating to the overall system of cannabis, including the
cultivation, sale and supply, and use of recreational cannabis in New Zealand would
preferably be passed by December 2019, with March 2020 as an absolute deadline
in order to undertake the referendum at the 2020 General Election. s9(2)(f)(iv)

TH

E

123.

BY

Impact Analysis

The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) requirements apply to the proposals in this
paper. A RIA has been prepared and is attached.

125.

A Quality Assurance Panel with representatives from the Ministry of Health and the
Treasury Regulatory Quality Team has reviewed the RIA ‘cannabis regulatory model’
produced by the Ministry of Justice and dated March 2019. The panel considers that
it partially meets the Quality Assurance criteria. Further analysis by the Ministry of
Justice in subsequent RIA might see this assessment change.

126.

The RIA clearly describes the types of options that can make up a regulatory model,
contains a lot of information about current issues, and does a good job identifying the
types of impacts that would be expected from different regulatory design.

RE
LE
AS
ED

124.

22

 JU
ST
IC
E

Some features of the regulatory model are incomplete. For example, it is unclear
how the licencing regime will operate and the quantity of supply will be regulated,
and how effective this will be at achieving reductions in cannabis use while avoiding
consequences, such as perpetuating the illicit market.

128.

Impacts of different options are generally unquantified. This makes it hard to be
confident that the RIA recommends the best options. For instance, prohibiting the
commercial production of edibles would bring benefits of reduced risk of accidental
consumption (including by children), but costs from greater consumption by smoking,
increased risk of people mis-dosing homemade edibles and reduced choice for
people with disabilities. Whether prohibiting sales is the best option depends on the
relative size of these benefits and costs, and what weight the Government places on
them.

129.

Many of these impacts would be hard to quantify even with more analysis.
Uncertainty around the impacts of the regulatory regime means that there will be
benefit in ongoing review of regulatory settings once the regime is established. This
may, however, conflict with public expectations that their vote on a particular
regulatory model be respected. The subsequent RIA should detail how monitoring
and review will be handled, and whether this should be signalled at the referendum.

ST
ER

OF

127.

MI
NI

Human Rights

Establishing a minimum age of 20 to use and purchase cannabis limits the right to be
free from discrimination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

131.

I consider that the limitation is justified as it meets the Government’s objective of
improving the wellbeing of young people who have a greater risk of harm from
cannabis use. A minimum age of 20 would create social and cultural norms against
use by young people and seeks to limit the supply of cannabis to those in secondary
school. It also aligns with the minimum age of entry into casinos and the zero
tolerance/drink driving age

132.

Crown Law Office will complete a final determination of the consistency of the Bill
with NZBORA, including any limits on minimum age, once the Bill is drafted.

BY

TH

E

130.

Māori/Crown Relationship Implications
As discussed ea lier in this paper, the regulatory system will have a significant
impact on Māori. Officials will be undertaking targeted engagement with Māori and
iwi to ensure that the regulatory model recognises and actively protects Māori rights
and interests. I will be carefully considering these views and report to SWC on how
the regulatory model will impact Māori and any key views put forward by Māori/iwi.

RE
LE
AS
ED

133.

Gender Implications
134.

In New Zealand, surveys indicate that women are much less likely to use cannabis
and are less likely to report harm from cannabis use. Some research suggests that
women may experience different impacts from cannabis use than men. However,
further research is required to fully understand the impacts of cannabis use on
women. Officials will work with the Ministry of Health and Ministry for Women to
23

 JU
ST
IC
E

ensure that the proposed regulatory model facilitates further research to better
address the needs of different groups, including women.
Disability Perspective
135.

The proposed model limits how people can purchase cannabis, which may raise
issues for people with disabilities. Officials will work with the Office for Disability
Issues to consider issues of equal access and protections.

I will make public announcements in due course about the referendum and the
nature of it. My Office will provide your Offices with key points to assist with any other
public statements.

ST
ER

136.

OF

Publicity

Proactive Release
137.

I propose to proactively release this Cabinet paper as part of the public engagement
on the cannabis referendum. I will likely release it as part of a suite of Cabinet papers
on the referendum. My Office will work with other relevant Ministers’ Offices on the
timing of the release.

MI
NI

Recommendations

The Minister of Justice recommends that Cabinet:
Previous considerations

note that in December 2018, Cabinet agreed that a binding referendum will be held
at the 2020 General Election to determine whether legislative provisions for the
legalisation of (recreational) cannabis should be adopted [CAB-18-MIN-0641.02]

TH

E

1.

Approach to the referendum question
note that the content of the question used for the referendum will help to frame the
public conversation about legalising recreational cannabis

3.

note that an informed debate on the legalisation issue relies on the public having
clarity about what will happen in response to an affirmative vote to legalise
recreational cannabis

4.

EITHER

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

2.

4.1. agree to the framing of the referendum question as a Yes/No question on whether
personal use of recreational cannabis should be legalised through action by
subsequent Government/Parliament (Option 1)

OR

4.2. agree to the framing of the referendum question as a Yes/No question on whether
published policy framework should be enacted by subsequent
Government/Parliament (Option 2)

OR

24

 JU
ST
IC
E

4.3. agree to the framing of the referendum question as a Yes/No question on whether
draft legislation should be enacted by subsequent Government/Parliament (Option
3)
OR

4.4. agree to the framing of the referendum question as a Yes/No question on whether
legislation enacted prior to the referendum should come into force (Option 4)
note that all parties currently in government will abide by the outcome of the
referendum;

OF

5.

[Subject to decisions at recommendation 4, should Cabinet agree to either Option 2
Option 3 or Option 4]

ST
ER

Legalisation through tight regulation

note that Option 2, Option 3 and Option 4 require the development of a regulatory
model for personal use of recreational cannabis, whether as a policy document, draft
legislation or as enacted law

7.

agree that the Government’s role is to design a workable regulatory model for
discussion and debate

8.

note that legalisation of the personal use of recreational cannabis would make
aspects of cannabis use, possession and supply lawful

9.

note that the adoption of a tightly regulated approach, governing the production, sale
and use of cannabis would allow government to control the quality and safety of
cannabis used in New Zealand, and minimise harm

10.

agree that the referendum provide a clear choice between the status quo and a
legal, regulated recreational cannabis market

TH

E

MI
NI

6.

s9(2)(h)

note that New Zealand’s current prohibition approach has had limited success in
addressing harm caused by cannabis use and that Māori have been
disproportionately harmed by the approach

RE
LE
AS
ED

12.

BY

Overarching policy settings for a regulatory model for cannabis

13.

agree that the primary policy objectives to guide the development of the regulatory
model for personal use of recreational cannabis are:
13.1. address the wellbeing of New Zealanders and harm reduction – the model
should minimise harms associated with cannabis, such as health-related
harm, social harms and harm to youth; and
13.2. Lower the overall use of cannabis over time through education and
addiction services – with a particular focus on lowering the use amongst
youths by increasing the age of first use for those disposed to using it.
25

 JU
ST
IC
E

Revenue raised through the regulation of cannabis should contribute to
relevant health-related measures.
14.

agree that the following secondary policy objectives also guide the development of
the regulatory model:
14.1. Disempowering the gangs and the illegal trade in cannabis;

OF

14.2. Lowering the prison population over time and lowering the number of New
Zealanders (especially Maori) whose future opportunities are negatively
affected by cannabis use charges;
14.3. Ensure product safety and control of THC levels v a leg slation and
regulation;

ST
ER

14.4. Be consistent with the rule of law – the model should uphold New
Zealand’s constitution. It should also minimise opportunities for the illicit
market and be clear and easy to follow;

MI
NI

14.5. Tailored and workable for New Zealand – the model should recognise and
reflect our cultural practices and the values of New Zealand society so
that it can be accepted by New Zealanders;
14.6. Fiscal sustainability – the model should seek to fund mechanisms that
directly address cannabis-related harms, while also aiming to lower use
over time
agree that the overall structure of the regulatory model be a government-controlled
regulated market for the production, supply and use of cannabis, with the size of the
market limited to a level that is adequate for meeting current demand

16.

agree that the regulatory model to be considered at the referendum is a model that:

TH

E

15.

16.1. Establishes a minimum age of 20 to use and purchase recreational
cannabis;

BY

16.2. Controls and regulates the potency of cannabis and cannabis products
available;

RE
LE
AS
ED

16.3. Controls and regulates consumption of cannabis to private homes and
specifically licensed premises;
16 4. Controls and regulates the sale of cannabis through physical stores only
(not online or by remote sale);
16.5

Requires the inclusion of health and harm minimisation messaging in the
marketing and retailing of cannabis;

16.6. Controls and regulates the parameters whereby small amounts of
cannabis may be legally shared socially with those over the legal
purchase and use age while reinforcing penalties for individuals who
share with those under the designated purchase and use age;
26

 JU
ST
IC
E

16.7. Establishes the regulated market controls over seed and / or plant
purchase to permit private cultivation of cannabis at home, including the
requirement to keep children and underage individuals safe;

16.8. Establishes the regulated market controls that would permit cannabisinfused products to be made at home but prohibit extraction of resins and
other concentrates at home;

OF

16.9. Ensures through a state licensing regime that all stages of the supply
chain are licenced and controlled;

16.10. Controls through a state licensing regime all manufacture of cannabis
products, including resins and other concentrates;

ST
ER

16.11. Control through a state licensing regime all commercial manufacture of
cannabis-infused products, such as edibles;
16.12. Restricts marketing activities, including a ban on all advertising of
cannabis products;

MI
NI

16.13. Criminalises the importation of cannabis unless by a Government licensed
wholesaler for the current market to minimise the consequence of an
illegal trade.
Other considerations

note that Cabinet has agreed to fund a scaled amount of the estimated costs
associated with the cannabis referendum, and future funding or reprioritisation
decisions may be required;

18.

note that investment in cannabis-related health services and education will be
needed alongside the regulatory model;

19.

note that there is likely to be an overlap between the medicinal cannabis regime and
the regulatory model for the personal use of recreational cannabis, and Ministry of
Justice officials are working with the Ministry of Health to determine the best
approach to address this

20.

note that the regula ory model for personal use of recreational cannabis will have an
impact on the existing industrial hemp regime, and Ministry of Justice officials are
undertaking further work.

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

TH

E

17.

[Should Cabinet agree to Option 2 or 3]
Proposed process for a policy document or exposure draft
21.

note that the document setting out the legislation would need to include enough
detail for the public to vote on and, following a ‘yes’ vote, for the next Parliament to
progress the work accordingly

27

 JU
ST
IC
E

22.

agree to a limited and confidential stakeholder engagement approach that focuses
on utilising expertise and experience to assess whether the document has any
unintended consequences, following Cabinet’s initial agreement to the document

s9(2)(f)(iv)

invite the Minister of Justice to issue drafting instructions for Parliamenta y Counsel
Office to prepare an exposure draft of a Bill reflecting the decisions above and made
as part of the process outlined in rec 23 below (option 3 only)

25.

authorise the Minister of Justice to make decisions, in consultation with other
Ministers and coalition and confidence and supply partners as appropriate, on the
detail of the overall regulatory system for cannabis to prepare an exposure draft of a
Bill (option 3 only);

26.

invite the Minister of Justice to report back to SWC seeking confirmation of the
detailed decisions made as part of rec 23 (option 3 only);

27.

invite the Minister of Justice to report back to SWC with an exposure draft of the Bill
to release for targeted stakeholder engagement (option 3 only);

MI
NI

ST
ER

OF

24.

[Should Cabinet agree to Option 4]
Proposed legislative process

note that if Option Four is selected legislation would need to be passed by March
2020 in order to hold a binding referendum at the 2020 General Election

E

28.

TH

s9(2)(f)(iv)

invite the Minister of Justice to issue drafting instructions for Parliamentary Counsel
Office to begin draft ng provisions relating to the overall regulatory system for
cannabis

31.

agree, should Option Four be selected, to the Minister of Justice writing to the
House Business Committee to discuss establishing an ad-hoc select committee for
the legislation on the legalisation of cannabis

RE
LE
AS
ED

BY

30.

Next steps
32.

invite the Minister of Justice to report back to the Cabinet Social Wellbeing
Commit ee with further details of the regulatory model.

Authorised for lodgement
Hon Andrew Little

28