Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National will be supporting the first reading of the Election Access Fund Bill and we wish to acknowledge the work of both Chlöe Swarbrick and Mojo Mathers in bringing it to the House. The bill is about making our democracy and Parliament more accessible for people with disabilities by providing extra support that is available both for voters but also for candidates that may have a disability. National wants our democracy to be as vibrant and representative as possible while also ensuring that our elections are fair and that we have the highest standards of integrity around our voting systems.Now New Zealand in my view can be very proud of its rich democratic heritage. We are one of the oldest continuous parliaments in the world starting back in 1854 albeit initially with only men owning property being able to vote. The Māori seats were added in 1867. In 1879 the property-owning requirement was removed and it's very well-known that we were the first country in the world to provide women with the vote in 1893. Further changes were made in lowering the age from 21 firstly to 20 and then to 18 in the 1960s and 1970s. This bill is a logical progression of being a leader in ensuring Parliament is as representative as possible albeit it is focused on the practical barriers rather than the legal barriers to participation.I also want to acknowledge the efforts that the Electoral Commission has already made to try and be as inclusive as possible of people with disabilities. For instance I note that our current electoral system provides a dictation service for those people who through either being blind or having another disability are not able to mark the voting paper. I also note that in the 2017 electoral review the level of satisfaction from people with disabilities grew from 88 percent in the 2014 election to 92 percent of people with disabilities being satisfied with the electoral system at our last election. Ninety-two percent is not 100 percent—that does not mean that we should not strive to be better.The areas we need to improve are not just the mechanical processes of how one might vote but actually the electoral system in a broader sense of how people are able to participate. I know from my own experience of being a candidate in 10 elections that some organisations like the Deaf Association make special provision at their expense of which they have limited resources for candidates and for people with disabilities. But they have repeatedly expressed to me a desire for—rather than having a separate meeting over there of people with disabilities—there actually being a sign language interpreter at the general candidates' meetings so that people can be fully inclusive. And that's valuable not just for the capacity of those people with a disability being able to participate but also in making sure that we don't sort of cubby hole away those issues that are important to people with disabilities—that they're actually issues for all voters as we go through that electoral and that contest process.Now there are important issues of detail with this bill that National will want to scrutinise. We are interested in the data around the levels of participation of people with different types of disabilities because we want the funding to be focused on those areas where the participation levels are poor. Actually by international standards New Zealand has a very high level of participation in elections but here is an opportunity to improve it further.We also want to ensure that any allocation of additional resources is done in a politically neutral way and that we are going to be neither advantaging nor disadvantaging any particular candidates or parties. There has been a history not just in New Zealand but overseas of public taxpayer resources being used to screw the scrum politically and while we want to provide the support for people with disabilities we also want to ensure that it is being done with integrity.National has a high level of confidence in the political neutrality of the Electoral Commission and the bill properly provides for that. We would prefer that as much of the funding as possible is going to non-political organisations whether it be the Blind Foundation whether it be the Deaf Association or whether it be a body representing people with disabilities of all sorts than have it necessarily going to political parties which we think has a greater level of risk.To be clear National has historically not supported and continues to not support State funding of political parties. Political parties should stand or fall on their merits in being able to generate support. But we do support State funding for ensuring that people with disabilities are able to fully participate in our electoral process.I want to conclude by underlining National's broader philosophy around people with disabilities and I want to acknowledge the work of both my colleagues Nicky Wagner and Shane Reti in championing the importance of recognising and providing for the rights of people with disabilities. Their focus has been about ensuring every arm of Government recognises and supports an inclusive approach for people with disabilities.National believes that we need to focus more on what people can do rather than focusing on those things people cannot do. We also want as much as possible to empower people with disabilities to be able to make the choices for themselves rather than have the temptation by Government agencies to use the funding support to control people's lives. People with disabilities have as much right to make choices about their lives as others do. If we look at the recent Commonwealth Games where there was the inclusive approach to people with disabilities it is in the same vein as the philosophy behind this bill and yes this Parliament will need to make some further changes to be more accommodating of those people with disabilities.There is one issue I have with the mover of the motion on the bill in suggesting this bill should go to the Government and Administration Committee. National would prefer it went to the Justice Committee. The Justice Committee is where all other electoral bills go. The Justice Committee is where we have responsibility for doing the review of the 2017 election. We regularly have engagement with the Electoral Commission. We've got other electoral bills. We think that would be more appropriate and I'd ask the member to consider whether the Justice Committee would be the more appropriate committee. It's my intention to move an amendment to the mover's motion to ensure that's where it goes.Again I compliment the mover of the bill Mojo Mathers and the work that has gone into this bill. National supports the concept. We will want to scrutinise the bill further as I have indicated but it is a further step along the road of ensuring this Parliament and our democracy is as inclusive as it possibly can be.