Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It is an absolute pleasure to rise after what I think has been a succession of the most pleasant speeches that I have ever been fortunate enough to hear in my six-odd months in this House. I want to thank all of the members for their very constructive and collaborative and creative contributions to the debate so far. It is with the utmost joy that I'm conscious of the fact that we're going to pass this unanimously so I just want to thank all of the members in this House for their participation in the process to get to that point.I also with just the five minutes that I have point to and address the concerns that I felt were raised by a number of the different members starting in particular with a point mentioned by both the Hon Maggie Barry and Chris Bishop that parties should fund themselves particularly with regard to one of the three kind of funding points where the Electoral Commission would be able to allocate their funds—this Election Access Fund. On the point that parties should be able to fund themselves currently it is the case that the Electoral Commission—and I'm sure all members in this House will be aware—provide a pool of funding for free broadcasting time for all political parties and I just wanted to bring this to the members' attention because that fund rose to the tune of $4.1 million this past election.The reason that I wanted to bring that quantum to mind is for the sake of contrasting it with a similar fund which was similar to the Election Access Fund which the United Kingdom had available for both its local and general election periods of 2012 to 2014 which approved 57 grants of the 50 applicants—the average value being about ₤4500 which cost around ₤244000 in total. That's the equivalent of less than half a million New Zealand dollars for a population far more than 16 times our size. If we were to extrapolate that out we're talking there about the United Kingdom who has 16 times our population utilising a similar fund which costs the equivalent of half a million dollars. So if we're talking about State funding there I'd just like to put that point in context.With regard to the comments about select committee particularly the willingness to be open to the submissions of the general public I would absolutely invite all members of the public—both those who have concerns and ideas about how to improve it and those with lived experience in particular of attempting to navigate our political and democratic system—to have their thoughts be heard and in turn provide this Parliament and the select committee with an opportunity to improve this bill.I'd also like to touch on the points made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith around these not being legal barriers but indeed financial or political barriers. That's exactly right to the heart of what this bill is seeking to address: to not in the words of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni disable people with a lack of access to the funding that they require to jump over those barriers which others simply do not face.Perhaps the most pertinent point as raised by both actually members of the Government benches and members of the Opposition is around how this fund is actually going to be facilitated the eligibility criteria and the fact that political parties are one of the three groups which may apply for this funding pot. On that point I would just refer back to the critical nature of that select committee process and the fact that I am absolutely willing to be upfront about the fact that the bill is not perfect in its current form. I'm absolutely keen to work across the House and ensure that we collaborate to tighten it up so that we can continue to progress in such a collegial and positive manner to ensure that we end up with a more robust representative democracy at the end of the day. Thank you very much.Bill read a first time.