Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak at this the second reading of the Election Access Fund Bill a bill that National supports. I think we have a proud record of identifying ways in which people who are living with disabilities—and that's nearly 25 percent of our population—are given every opportunity. We had Enabling Good Lives. We've had a number of other initiatives seeking to increase the ability of the one in four New Zealanders living with disabilities to participate fully in society. This bill is about people with disabilities being able to participate fully in the democracy and to stand for Parliament. I'll talk about the number of submissions that we had that also wanted to include local body elections as well a little bit later.I think the underlying aim and the philosophical principle behind this bill is the reason why we are supporting it. It was in the name of the Green MP Mojo Mathers at the beginning and Chlöe Swarbrick has taken it over now. I had talked to Chlöe about this when it first came in and thought this was an outstanding initiative and I had worked with Mojo when she first came in and understood the struggles and the need to have technical assistance. She coped admirably well but it was a very difficult process for this place to accommodate her as a Deaf person. I can't imagine how bad it would be for people in wheelchairs. The entire old Parliament would have to change dramatically but that's another issue and another story. There are always challenges to be addressed and I think it is really important to have an entity like the Electoral Commission involved in establishing a contestable fund. They're an independent entity. They are rigorous in their approach. I think separate from Parliament is desirable and I think contestable funds will work really well because the people who deserve it most and need that targeted assistance will be able to apply for it.Some of the other clauses that colleagues have talked about in determining eligibility criteria with individuals standing as candidates non-profit organisations who do election education events or political parties—we would prefer the money to go to the individual. We are of course cautious about the other aspect of this bill which has been discussed and I think we'll continue to be which is around the whole way political parties and political candidates are funded—a lot of progress and work in progress in that space. We are a bit cautious around that. I think it is important that the taxpayers' dollar is spent wisely and well and that the internal mechanisms of a political party are being funded through taxpayers' money doesn't sit easily with us as a general principle. However I think that the individual who needs assistance to attend the functions to attend the debates to understand what people are saying whether it is in sign language—and there is a terrible shortage of people who are able to do sign language particularly in some of the far flung places around New Zealand. There is a shortage. So these are all acting as barriers to people doing what they need to do which is to make this place more representative to make people like us more aware of the difficulties and problems.There are a lot of questions that still need to be in our view traversed. We've got to be careful about unintended consequences. If we set up a fund to access issues what about other access issues? Where does it stop essentially? What are the other elements that should be covered in this? Should people be able to get assistance to get to meetings—driving for example for petrol allowances or for any other kind of transport to get them to meetings? Should local entities organising events for candidates have to stump up for translators for political party rallies? These are the sorts of shades of beige that we need to give some careful consideration and thought to but we are very much supportive of the underlying principles.When the Governance and Administration Committee started to hear the submissions there were about 90 submissions initially from interested groups and individuals and then there was oral evidence from about 18 submitters. The points that were raised by the submitters were widely discussed by the select committee. I was in there at various times not through the entire process but really some of the elements about the review for example were whether it should be within six months after the release of the Electoral Commission's report. Should we have a clear look at this fund when it's established—how it is working who it is serving well and who it is not serving well? And if those I suppose opportunities to examine are formally enshrined within the bill that would make it easier to do it. And I think it would make the bill and the ability of people with disabilities to access funding they need for what they require to step up to these sorts of jobs—it would be available to them.The Law Society for example recommended that this bill proceed. They like the idea of a bill to support disabled people in political life. That was one of the fundamental points that they made. There was talk about how you define people with disabilities—persons with disabilities" or "disabled persons". When we were in Uganda recently at a Commonwealth parliamentary conference the definition of disabilities took a number of days actually and there was offence taken and the nuances of the languages and the translations and so forth were inordinately complex to get through. I'd like to be able to say the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association arrived at the perfect solution but that was not possible for something like this. But good to keep discussing it and to feel where the mood has changed and I think that this bill has done that very well.Back to the Law Society's submission: they talked about the difficulties the Electoral Commission might face needing some guidance as to how to divide up the payments. So you have a fund that should or could give money to eligible recipients also disabled people seeking to stand as candidates in general elections and as well as that to the not-for-profit entities organising the education events in political parties. I alluded to them earlier about the issues that need to be explored and it was the Law Society that really raised these complexities and suggested that the Electoral Commission be given a lot of guidance on it. The Blind Foundation also submitted on that issue.I think that the Disabled Persons Assembly when they made their points about this particular legislation were very supportive of the notion that this bill be extended to include candidates standing not only for the general election but also for local government as well. The feeling around the committee in the ongoing discussions was to see how it goes at the general election level. But I think it's very important that at local board and at local council level people with disabilities are given further assistance. I had some discussions and I've been observing through social networking how a disabled individual stood for a district health board—the difficulties of affordability of accessibility of her getting to meetings. She's in a very sophisticated wheelchair—high-needs user if you like. It was extremely difficult on a personal level for her and her family to get to meetings. So I agree with the Disabled Persons Assembly that it is really important for democracy. Let's face it a number of people who are in this Chamber now have come through local government and it is a pathway to this place. So why would we not look at funding individuals to get into that access area and point? I think there is a lot of agreement around colleagues that that should be done.I think the eligibility criteria—and again the Disability Persons Assembly emphasised this—must be needs-based and focused on removing barriers rather than diagnosis. Having something that is specific or determined by the degree of impairment is not where they wanted us to go. They wanted us to focus in this bill on removing barriers and I think that that's something that brings it back again to the fundamentals and something that we need to concentrate on and not get too distracted by other things. It is really important that the people with disabilities are included in the design of the criteria the application process and also in the aftermath and the administration and review processes alongside the Electoral Commission. So rather than the Electoral Commission imposing something from on high and handing it over in tablets of stone it would be enormously helpful and I would encourage the Electoral Commission—and it would appear with unanimous support when this bill passes—to really actively include and to recruit people who are living with disabilities who understand the challenges and the barriers that exist.I think that that is a very important part of all of this. "With us not"—what is the phrase? Nicky Wagner will know this because she did Enabling Good Lives. It is "With us not for us." Is that the phrase?Louisa Wall: "Nothing about us without us."Chlöe Swarbrick: "Nothing about us without us."Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There we go. Thank you. A chorus from around the House and showing again the spirit of inclusivity and I suppose collegiality that we all bring to this particular discussion because the idea that the people who are being affected are not part of the process is abhorrent to many of us. I think that for people to understand what it is like to live with disabilities as my colleague Chris Penk said earlier it is presumptuous of us to think that we understand their lives. So it is incredibly important that they are there and hoping that that is the case I commend this bill to the House."