[38] The second publication was another website run by Greenpeace. It opposed offshore oil drilling, and it depicted what appeared to be the website of the Minister of Energy and Resources being flooded by a rising tide of oil. Although it was accessible during the regulated period, the website had been created some time earlier and it contained nothing specific that linked the website to the election or how voters should vote.37 Mander J held that the website could not reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not for a type of candidate or party.38 [39] Conflict is said to arise because Mander J held that advertisement in the definition of election advertisement should be given its ordinary meaning of a notice or announcement to the public,39 while Clifford J held that advertisement has commercial connotations and hence a narrower meaning.40 He had the benefit of Mander J’s judgment, which was delivered three days before Planet Key was argued. He noted that it had not been necessary for Mander J to examine the exceptions and their implications for the definition.41 Because he concluded that Planet Key was not an advertisement, for his part Clifford J was not required to consider its effect upon voters. Election advertisements The legislation [40] The operative provision is s 204B(1) of the Electoral Act, which identifies those who may promote election advertisements: 37 38 39 40 41 204B Persons who may promote election advertisements (1) A person is entitled to promote an election advertisement if the person is— (a) a party secretary: (b) a candidate: Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc v Electoral Commission, above n 2, at [123]–[124]. At [124]. At [24] and [79]–[80]. High Court judgment, above n 1, at [190]–[191]. At [180].