Election Access Fund Bill

I move, That the Election Access Fund Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Tēnā koutou e te whānau Haua. Nā koutou anō tēnei Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I greet the House. I greet the Haua family. This is also your House.]

I want to acknowledge the incredible people who are in the gallery today to show their support for this bill, including many of our disabled whānau. Welcome to Parliament, to Our House—this Whare belongs to all of us.

In the final few weeks of 2017’s general election campaign, before it could be known that I would be elected—let alone that we would have a change of Government—former Green MP Mojo Mathers requested that the Election Access Fund Bill be drafted. Mojo was introduced to politics when she took up a role in Canterbury as spokeswoman for clean water. Later, when she was elected to Parliament, Mojo became renowned for her work on animal rights. She became well respected across the House as a compassionate and warm politician, able to collaborate cross party to get things done.

Mojo was also, as it happens, Parliament’s first deaf MP. In conversation, time and again, she’s told me that she never intended to enter this place as a champion for the rights of deaf and disabled people, but by virtue of who Mojo is, who and what she represented, and her life experiences, which are starkly unique and notably underrepresented in a place like this, it’s who she became. My point is that simply by being involved and visible and unapologetic about existing in this space as New Zealand’s first deaf MP, Mojo profoundly and irrevocably changed our Parliament. Mojo, I want to acknowledge your presence in the Chamber today and say thank you.

In her time in Parliament, Mojo achieved real change. Amongst other things, she worked with former Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith to see that the additional costs incurred by her as a deaf MP—for things like a note-taker in select committee and live captioning of question times, so that she had fair access to what was actually being said—were covered by Parliament and not out of her individual office budget, which would have wiped out her MP fund and left her with no funding for MP duties, for costs that other people, other MPs, simply don’t face. That is the principle at the heart of this bill—that the additional hurdles and costs that those with disabilities incur just to participate on an even footing should be shared amongst all of us as a society and not be the sole responsibility of persons with disabilities. That is the definition of equity.

Mojo was a representative with lived experience of a society not designed for her—something that Statistics New Zealand reports is experienced by approximately 1.1 million New Zealanders living with disabilities. But the contributions a person can make to our society extend well beyond the limitations or boxes that we as a society foist on them. People living with disabilities—as indeed all people—have their own values, their own vision of a better society, their own remarkable skills and passions that make them who they are, and it is incumbent on us in this Parliament to ensure that everybody gets a fair shot at participating in our elections, let alone becoming an MP.

This is a pretty succinct piece of legislation, but it has the power to be transformative. Fundamentally, it establishes the Election Access Fund to facilitate the participation of persons with disabilities in general elections. This fund will be administered by the Electoral Commission, a well-respected independent organisation tasked with coordinating our electoral process. The Electoral Commission will create the criteria for which a person with a disability seeking to stand in an election, a non-governmental organisation organising an election education event, or a political party may access this fund and notify it in the Gazette.

The Electoral Commission will be required to consult with, and I quote, “persons and organisations that the commission considers appropriate, prior to creating the criteria or putting out notice.” Payments made by this fund to candidates or parties will not be treated as an electoral donation per the Electoral Act 1993. This will enable, for example, New Zealand Sign Language interpreters at candidate debates, political information distributed in Braille, and coverage of special transport costs incurred by disabilities. The bill also contains a trigger for the review of its own efficacy. Under clause 9, no later than three years after the commencement of this bill the Minister must review, or arrange for the review of, its operation.

In 2008, New Zealand joined dozens of other countries around the world in ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 29 of the convention guarantees that signatory countries will, and I quote, “ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and to be elected” and “promote actively an environment in which persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in the conduct of public affairs, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others,”.

An equitable playing field creates the foundation for a robust and representative democracy. This bill contributes to ensuring that we level that playing field. It targets all levels of democratic engagement from information sharing through to voting and potentially standing as a candidate. Of course, not every person with a disability wants to be a politician; indeed, not every person wants to be a politician. In New Zealand, we do not coerce people to engage in politics, but I believe that all of us in this House believe that it should never be hard to engage with politics, should we want to.

Working in the lead-up to this first reading of this bill, I’ve seen the best side of our democracy. I want to thank the Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, and Ruth Dyson for their ongoing support for the principles laid out in this legislation. I want to thank the Hon Nick Smith and Dr Shane Reti for constructive input and a collaborative spirit. Thank you to the Hon Tracey Martin for your commitment to improving outcomes for disabled peoples. So too, I want to thank David Seymour for his support. I want to acknowledge as well the Clerk’s Office for their immense and incredible mahi, working with my office and throughout Parliamentary Service and systems to ensure that this reading was as accessible as possible.

The fruits of this labour have demonstrated how accessibility is achievable when it is a priority. How about we work to make it a normality? At present, our Parliament is not designed to be a House of Representatives. That’s not a dig at any of the hard-working MPs that make up either side of these benches, but it’s a quick observation of the many little things many of us here take for granted: seemingly little things like not second-guessing the climbing of the stairs to our seats, or seeing the Speaker as they rise to their feet to call order, or hearing and indeed jeering at each other’s speeches.

This bill is not drafted perfectly and it will not be able to address or fix all of the inequities, but it is a crucial and overdue move in the right direction and I look forward to addressing the questions and concerns raised by other members of this House in my final speech in reply.

Whether we identify with it or not, all of us will find ourselves disabled at some point in our lives, whether by our environment or a service that never considered our interaction with it, or as we age and our senses naturally deteriorate, or by way of accident or otherwise. The Election Access Fund Bill is a step towards consciously creating a more equitable, democratic, and empathetic playbook for how we as New Zealanders engage in not just politics but society at large. I commend this bill to the House. Ngā mihi.

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.

[Uses New Zealand Sign Language] Kia ora koutou. I’d like to welcome individuals and groups from the disabled community who are here on the precinct today, and I’d like to acknowledge, in particular, Access Alliance, a coalition of disabled peoples’ organisations who are working hard to increase accessibility legislation and create a more inclusive Aotearoa. I’d also like to acknowledge our Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero, and also I’d like to say, “Kia ora. Thank you.” to former MP Mojo Mathers, who I know has worked so hard to get this piece of legislation started.

I commend the Green Party and member Chlöe Swarbrick for carrying this bill forward into this Parliament. This bill is about furthering the participation of disabled people in our general elections, and we absolutely support this important work. The Government is working to build a truly inclusive society and supporting disabled people to live their lives to their fullest potential. Removing disabling barriers is pivotal to achieving that.

Disabled people make up a large proportion of the New Zealand population. The last disability survey in 2013 found that 24 percent of New Zealanders were identified as disabled. That proportion is higher for Māori at 26 percent. But you would not know that from looking around the House of Representatives. While there have been steady gains over the year in members of Parliament increasingly looking like the people we represent, particularly with more women, Māori, and Pacific people, there has yet to be similar representation for disabled people.

I know it’s not from lack of interest in disabled people wanting to stand. The reality is that New Zealand is still far from being a non-disabling society. Under the New Zealand disability strategy, we are working towards a New Zealand where disabled people have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations, and all of New Zealand works together to make this happen.

A part of this is ensuring that disabled people can exercise their full rights as citizens. Not only is this about including the experiences and voices of the disability community, it’s also about representation and leadership. “Nothing about us without us.” is the slogan that underpins our approach to addressing disability issues. We need more disabled leaders to be involved in policy development and in making decisions about New Zealand’s future.

There is also, currently, a huge range of skills, expertise, and experience in the disability community that is being underutilised. This is our loss.

This bill helps create a pathway for greater inclusion of disabled people in our elections and in leadership roles by proposing a dedicated fund administered by the Electoral Commission to reduce and remove access and communication barriers that presently arise when disabled people seek to participate in general elections.

I applaud an inclusion in the bill of a review of its operation and effectiveness. This will give the Government an opportunity to consider how well the fund is removing barriers to political participation and whether other measures might be needed.

As the Minister for Disability Issues, my goal is that one day we won’t need these targeted supports because there won’t be barriers to participation in society. However, until we have a truly inclusive New Zealand, we need to put these specialist supports in place to make this happen. Our Prime Minister has already shown how we can take these steps to becoming more inclusive by having sign language interpreters at post-Cabinet media briefings.

While the fund proposed in this bill cannot alone solve the problem of our lack of disabled MPs, it is an important part of making New Zealand a non-disabling place. This bill sends a signal that disabled people of all ages can share in aspirations to become members of Parliament and have the honour and privilege to represent communities and to serve in Government.

I look forward to and encourage consideration by the select committee on this bill and, again, I commend the member Chlöe Swarbrick for bringing it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak as the National Party disability spokesperson on this bill, which is a very good bill. I’d like to commend Chlöe and Mojo for having it in front of us today and lead off with the statement that I and we are strong supporters of disabled voters.

I want to talk to the three initiatives within the bill and then actually provide some background, some of which the select committee, hopefully, will be able to fill in. The three funding initiatives within the bill are, first of all, funding for disabled candidates to stand—I sort of envisage sign language interpreters as an example. Yep, that makes sense. Secondly, for not-for-profits to be able to fund meetings, such as meet the candidates. Yep, that makes sense also. And the third is for political parties to be able to access the needs of their members. This may need a bit more work in select committee—not clear that that arm clearly ties to elections. It sits within the election bill and within the title, but we would need just some affirmation that it’s not meaning—or maybe it does—the general needs of disabled people within a party. I’m pretty certain this relates to election requirements, and that would be a good thing.

So if we look at the recent 2017 election, let’s look how disabled voters fared. First of all, the commission had 1,649 fully accessible voting places, and 854 were assisted voting places. As my colleague Nick Smith said, after the election, a survey conducted by the commission showed that 92 percent of disabled voters were happy or very happy with the overall process. The dictation voting—I’ll come to that in the Access 2020 strategy, but it turns out 586 disabled people used the dictation voting system.

Now, the overall cost of the 2017 election was $38,204,000. Of that, the disabled budget for 2017 was $343,826. That is 0.9 percent of the total election budget. I’ll be very interested to see, through select committee, how that compares internationally and how that compares per capita as well. Kind of interesting—of that disabled budget, half of that was actually on trestle tables for the tabletop voting. You might’ve thought it was dictation voting but, no, it was actually the trestle tables.

Now, there are learnings from overseas that we should take into this bill—that we should take into account. More specifically, in 2012, the UK had exactly this sort of fund, called the Access to Elected Office Fund. It ran from 2012 and it was then closed in 2016. The fund was for a grant of between £250 and £40,000 if you were disabled and standing for election across UK Parliaments—even mayoral elections, police, and crime commissioners. It was kind of interesting.

The fund was for disability-related costs. It did not cover general campaigning costs, like leaflets or living costs. What it did cover was transport needs, sign language interpreters, and extra travel and accommodation if you needed a carer. Eligibility for the fund was if you were clearly standing for election and you had a letter from your doctor proving disability. Their criteria also had that you could prove that you were involved or interested in civic, community, or relevant activities and your application was supported by a member of your political party.

I think we should explore why the fund closed down. I actually tried to call the Minister in charge—but wasn’t able to get to him or her—and find out what their learnings were, and I think we should take those learnings on board. Let’s not reinvent the wheel. What was successful? What wasn’t successful?

I’d also note that in the past 18 months, the UN special rapporteur on disabilities told the UK Government, “The UK Government should reopen the [Access to Elected Office] fund”. So, clearly, and not surprisingly, it has UN support.

I was going to talk to the Electoral Commission’s Access 2020 disability strategy, but I think we may keep that for another time. So I’ll just conclude by noting two points. First of all, some of the questions we want to ask are: who will manage the fund? Presumably, the Electoral Commission—we would support that. What is the size of the fund? I mentioned political party access—that third arm to this. Surely, it relates to elections. Eligibility criteria—eligible for what? And what are the learnings from overseas?

Can I also note a petition that was presented in the House just last week from Kim Robinson, a constituent of mine in Whangarei. His petition reads “That the House of Representatives note that 356 people have signed an online petition requesting the House guarantee the right of Deaf or Hard of Hearing voters and candidates to barrier-free elections by 2020 by updating the Electoral Act 1993”. So, clearly, there’s another piece of work making its way through the House as well. I think this should be taken into account, but I’m happy to see this bill in select committee. Thank you.

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the bill to select committee. I want to acknowledge Mojo Mathers. I was here in 2012. I remember the discussion around the funding issue, and how unprepared this Parliament was at that time for Ms Mathers’ requirements.

I remember the caucus meeting that we had, because it was quite an interesting period of time. It was quite contentious. I remember the caucus meeting that we had, and normally we’re not allowed to breach conversations in caucus, but I remember the Rt Hon Winston Peters putting forward a solution and asking caucus whether we would support that solution. Then he went public with that announcement.

I quote from an article talking about—I believe it’s the New Zealand Herald, but it was certainly an article from 15 February 2012—the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “NZ First leader Winston Peters has offered to contribute [their] staff funding towards the cost of [the] electronic note-taking. ‘It is [unbelievable] that the Parliamentary Service insists on a working environment free from discrimination on the basis of disability yet a deaf MP is refused funding to enable her to do her job.’ ” I know that at the end of the day a satisfactory arrangement was reached with the Speaker’s office, and the $30,000, I believe, that was actually requested from Ms Mathers’ budget that New Zealand First offered to help supplement, was not required. So that was a good thing that that was the outcome.

I do draw attention to this particular paragraph in the explanatory note, which does talk to the three legs of the bill: “this bill will establish an Election Access Fund, to be administered by the Electoral Commission.”—so the answer is that it will be administered by the Electoral Commission—“The Fund may be used by any disabled candidate to cover disability-related costs of standing in a general election. These costs … include,”—and it goes on to list a few.

“The Fund may also be used by any not-for-profit body running an election education event”—we would suggest that the Electoral Commission should already be funding fully accessible information, and that there should not be a requirement for a not-for-profit to have to go and do the work that the Electoral Commission is actually charged with, to make sure that all New Zealanders have access to their democracy. So that is a particular point that we would like to discuss at select committee.

“Finally, the Fund may be used by any registered political party to support the access needs of any of their members …”. I draw attention to the fact that New Zealand First was one of the first political parties to select a blind candidate, back in the late 1990s. We, as a party, wrapped our support around our candidate. We had selected that person as the best person to stand in that electorate—I believe it was Manurewa. It was our responsibility to make sure that they understood that they were supported not only figuratively by the party but physically and literally by our party. That was our job. So we have some difficulty with the fact that a political party would then go and seek some other funding, when there is a responsibility for them to provide that support to their candidates—another thing we would want to talk about.

So, in closing, because these are five-minute calls, this is a House of Representatives that has already been acknowledged. Actually, if you can’t look down into this House and see somebody who represents your experiences, your views, and your values, then it’s not working properly. So we support—absolutely support—the intent, but we’d like to have that wider conversation about a requirement, perhaps a template, when candidates are out there campaigning. All stages should have ramps for any candidate that is in a wheelchair. The lecterns are at a level where if you have a candidate in a wheelchair, they would not be seen or they would have to go to one side.

There are small little things, when we just think about our fellow citizens and those with challenges or different needs than some of us. I raise these also as the Minister for Seniors. Seniors sometimes face multiple discrimination, which is ageism as well as accessibility issues. I raise it as the Associate Minister of Education with responsibility for disability and learning support. This is an opportunity for this House to lead the way with a change of attitude towards those of our citizens who have some other challenges than the challenges that I have—because, believe me, I’ve got a few, but they just don’t happen to necessarily be physically obvious. So more power to you.

We hope to have these conversations in select committee. You see we have some concerns, but we don’t think they’re insurmountable, so we look forward to the conversation going forward.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the Election Access Fund Bill. Can I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Chlöe Swarbrick; I look forward to working with her on this bill. Can I also please acknowledge, of course, the presence of Mojo Mathers. It’s a real pleasure to see you back in the House. In my first term here in Parliament, I sat on a select committee with Mojo, and I witnessed—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Which committee, Mark?

I want to acknowledge Ruth Dyson as well. I’m actually going to come to a point really shortly around what we did with captioning. But can I just acknowledge that sitting on the committee with you gave me a true and a real appreciation of the challenges that you faced, and the type of support that you needed to be able to make the contribution that you wanted to on the committee. And it was an important contribution.

I’d just like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, because I know that he was a huge supporter and very sensitive to those needs, and he made sure that that support was provided. So it’s great to see you here today in the House with us. Can I acknowledge Ruth Dyson, because, you know, when I came to Parliament as a new MP, honestly I wasn’t really that aware of the issues that people that have challenges around disabilities had, or what we could do to make their lives easier.

One of the first projects that I really got involved in and got interested in and passionate about was captioning. I was invited by Mojo to a movie night up in Auckland. I met a young lady there—captioning was making a huge difference to her in her life. Then, of course, you started a campaign, and Ruth was a big supporter of that too, in terms of making sure that captioning was even more prevalent, more available here in our own Parliament, and more broadly in New Zealand with that campaign as well. So can I acknowledge both of you for that.

This is a good bill that we are supporting, obviously, at the first reading. We do want to get it into select committee, because we do feel like there’s some very important issues that need to be addressed. I guess probably one of them, primarily, is around the funding and where is that funding going to sit, and who’s going to be responsible for overseeing it, because of course when you’re using taxpayers’ money—New Zealand as a country and a nation, we’re proud of the fact that political parties are responsible for fund-raising themselves and raising their own funds. So we just want to be careful around where that money’s going to sit, who’s going to have oversight on it, and how it’s going to be dispersed.

It’s got to be fair, because, for example, the National Party—we’re a mass membership party, and we have a wide, diverse group of people from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds, so you could argue that you’d have translation services and things like that. If the funding’s going to be attached to or viewed in terms of membership or the size of parties, then it could become disparate very quickly. So I think, in terms of fairness, this is going to be a good debate that can be had on the select committee, in terms of finding out how that’s going to work and how the funding’s actually going to be applied.

But, look, it’s a good bill, and there are definitely going to be things that I want to be debated and discussed around it, but I think the spirit of it’s very good. I look forward to it passing through the select committee process and coming back into the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

It’s an absolute delight to participate in this debate. Can I begin by acknowledging my friend and former colleague Mojo Mathers. I’m delighted that she is here for the reading of this bill. Mojo had a huge impact on our Parliament—continues to do so—and drove many of the changes that have made our Parliament a better place for all New Zealanders. I want to acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick as well. The luck of newbies in getting members’ bills drawn is frustrating for those of us who haven’t had enough drawn. But it’s a fabulous bill for the member to champion. She has seen the support that this Parliament has put behind it, and we don’t often get that—particularly with members’ bills—so that’s a fantastic contribution.

I want to acknowledge the other speakers. Mark Mitchell, Mojo, and I were on a select committee together which did things that maybe had been a little outside the mandate of the committee, but it was the Government Administration Committee and because we covered internal affairs, we felt that we had a mandate to do pretty well anything. During the term before last, we had an inquiry into the accessibility of Parliament. We discovered, even though we sort of knew it at the beginning of the inquiry—and by the end of the inquiry we were absolutely convinced—that our Parliament wasn’t accessible, our democracy wasn’t accessible, and there were a lot of things that needed to be changed so that we could say we actually are a House of Representatives.

There was a long list of actions from that inquiry. As a result, we see and celebrate the fact that we have New Zealand Sign Language interpretation now, as of yesterday, every question time in Parliament. That’s another step forward. We’re not there yet by any means, but I was so pleased to be part of making those recommendations to Parliament, having them accepted, and continuing the progress that we need to make to, as I say, truly be able to call ourselves a House of Representatives.

This bill, the Election Access Fund Bill, is another very significant step in that process. We know, for any person, that standing for a position, whether it’s a community board or a council, or a mayor or a member of Parliament, it costs money. But if you have money, that shouldn’t make you the best candidate. We should have a level playing field as much as possible, so that anybody, any New Zealander, can stand for an elected position. This bill will remove one of the barriers, one of the disabilities that people have, that we can remove, so there’s no barrier.

I think it’s a great step forward. Finance is not the only thing, but once the first step is taken, once we have—as the Hon Tracey Martin pointed out, New Zealand First some years ago had our first blind candidate. I have to say I’ve never voted New Zealand First.

💬 Darroch Ball: Ha, ha!

I know; I know it will come as a shock to you. But he was an outstanding candidate and would have made a fine contribution in our Parliament, had he been elected here. I hope that this bill enables more people like him and like Mojo and like the thousands of other New Zealanders who would enrich the thinking and experience of our Parliament and make our decisions better.

Since MMP was introduced in 1996, we have seen a huge expansion in the representation in our Parliament. If you look at the photos in our corridors, you can see how poor the representation was, despite all those fine Pākehā men—I’m sure they all were. But you can see, as the photos progress, how much broader our representation has been. But we are still lacking in having people with lived experience of disability, as members of Parliament.

It’s just such a delight to see this. I’m going to sub on to the select committee, I’m sure, because I will enjoy the submissions so much. I want many submissions to this bill, so that people can feel the empowerment that it will offer, and so that members of Parliament will understand that we will be a better place as a result of having the better representation that this bill will enable. So thank you, Chlöe Swarbrick; fantastic work. I look forward to the progress of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise with pleasure to speak to the Election Access Fund Bill at its first reading, in the name of Chlöe Swarbrick. I also acknowledge Mojo Mathers, who was the architect of this bill. I think that as a country—as other speakers have mentioned—that has one in four New Zealanders who are disabled, this is a very important and, I would say, overdue piece of legislation.

The bill will establish a contestable fund, to be administered by the Electoral Commission and used by any disabled candidate to cover the disability-related costs of standing in a general election. That is an eminently sensible thing to do. It is something that we need to do. As a House of Representatives, we need to represent all aspects of New Zealand society and all people, and we are the better for it. In debates in this House, if we can understand better the barriers that exist, the problems that occur, and therefore, as legislators, find ways through this minefield, then I think it is a very important element of informing and making our debates and therefore our legislation so much better and better informed.

National has always been very confident about wanting to support people with disabilities, and I commend the Hon Nicky Wagner, as a former Minister for Disability Issues, who with her Enabling Good Lives I think has done some tremendous things—a vision and a set of principles for transforming the cross-agency disability support system so that, therefore, people with disabilities have greater choice and control over their supports and their own lives. I think it says it all: Enabling Good Lives. This is part of that—not only a good life but also a significant and meaningful one in terms of a contribution that people with disabilities can make to lawmaking in New Zealand.

National fully supports increasing access to electoral processes for disabled people because we want them to have that strong voice. We are of course, as other speakers on this side of the House have indicated, somewhat uneasy and not inclined to support State funding for political parties. We’re very much of the view that political parties should be able to attract their own support. By helping them and financing them, it takes away some of what we consider perhaps the grassroots momentum that propels people into this place and under the political banners. So I think that will be something that we will examine very closely if this bill gets through to select committee, and we are supporting it to do so.

I guess the main provisions to go through that—with clause 6, enabling the Electoral Commission to establish a contestable fund. It is very interesting to tease out what elements of that contestable fund are accessible and available, and where you draw the line. I think by discussing the broad range of prospects and possibilities, it’s also perhaps important to discuss what the parameters might be. Would the Electoral Commission, for example, at some point feel it might be appropriate to assist in childcare facilities or transport mechanisms for getting people into political meetings or into places where they might be standing for political life? I guess these are the kinds of things—overcoming disability-related barriers is one thing, but where do those limits come in?

Clause 7 of the bill requires the commission to determine that criteria for eligibility, and that includes the individuals standing as candidates. I think that anybody—and we all in this House have stood as candidates. We know it’s a gruelling, rigorous, and robust process, and I think that people with disabilities need and deserve to have some assistance to get them to where they need to be, to mount a realistic challenge to be considered as a candidate. Non-profits organising election education events is also, I think, a very good thing. But it will be interesting to tease it out at select committee.

Clause 8—grants not being counted as a donation—I think that probably does need to be explicit. Clause 9, requiring the Minister—and we’re assuming here it’s the Minister of Justice, although it has been suggested by its sponsoring member to go to the Governance and Administration Committee, and there may be more developments on that this afternoon. But if it was the Minister of Justice—to periodically review the Act to consider the fund’s impact on participation and access, and whether any other changes are needed, and whether it has to come back into primary legislation before the House or if there are other mechanisms and other devices for ensuring that disabled people have proper access to this House of Representatives. Therefore, I support the progress of this bill through to select committee. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Who’s taking the next call?

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, well, I’ll take it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): OK; I call Chris Bishop.

Thank you very much. I thought there was going to be a Government member standing up, but it appears not. I’m not quite sure why that it is. But I’m looking forward to making this contribution, so I’ll make it.

I want to acknowledge Miss Swarbrick for bringing this bill forward, which of course—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Chris.

She’s saying thank you; I don’t quite know why—and of course former member Mojo Mathers. It’s great to see you here in the Chamber, Mojo. I also want to acknowledge the contributions made by members so far, particularly the Hon Ruth Dyson, who I think is going to sub into the committee. It’s not clear whether or not it’s going to be the Justice Committee or the Governance and Administration Committee, but I’m sure that Miss Dyson will sub in where she’ll make a very worthy contribution. It’s great to see the passion, actually, from members, particularly Mark Mitchell on our side of the House, for these issues.

I hope it actually does go to the Justice Committee, not only because I’m a member of that committee. I think it would be more appropriate because we’re about to kick off the review of the 2017 general election, and one of the issues we’ll be considering in that review is the accessibility of election-related materials, how easy it was to vote, and whether or not the dictation services that the Electoral Commission started rolling out in the last few elections have been adequate. That’s intimately tied up with what this bill’s trying to accomplish, so I think it’d be helpful to consider the bill at the same time.

Look, I think the intent of this bill is extremely worthy, and we need to do all we can to support increasing access for people with disabilities to participate and enjoy the electoral process. That’s their right, guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that’s actually the right thing to do both from a moral point of view but also just from a democratic mandate point of view, which, of course, is why we’re all in this place.

I do want to sound a note of caution, though, which is that the traditional view of the National Party—although not necessarily, I think, of the Labour Party—is that parties should fund themselves; that we don’t support State funding of political parties for both principle and pragmatic reasons, which I won’t go into in this speech. But we hold quite firm to the idea that parties should fund-raise from their members and their supporters to run things like policy discussion meetings and to run things like branch AGMs and meetings where you talk about what you’re going to do in the next election, and how you’re going to campaign, and things like that.

All that should be funded from party supporters, and I sound a cautionary note about some of the things that this bill starts to talk about, which is that the contestable fund administered by the commission, funded by taxpayers, will be allowed to be accessed by people to allow them to participate within the party. So we are heading towards, essentially, State funding of political parties, but State funding for a particular group within political parties. It may be that that’s justified, and I think there are very strong arguments as to why that would be the case for people with disabilities, but you could equally mount strong arguments for people from different backgrounds who also find it difficult to access the democratic process. Members on this side of the House, in particular, have talked in their contributions about some of the groups that you could mount arguments for, and I think we’re going to have to tease that out at select committee. That’s one of the reasons why the National Party is supporting this bill to committee—to tease that out.

I think things like funding to cover the cost of standing in a general election with disability-related costs—I think that’s probably far more justifiable when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money. Likewise, funding for not-for-profit groups, which is one of the other purposes of the contestable fund—funding for not-for-profit groups to run education-related events. That’s actually quite in line with what the commission does already.

I was one who was opposed to the Electoral Commission funding the Vote Compass tools. I personally think that went too far, and I think that was funded in the 2014 election. But getting out the vote is of paramount importance, obviously, in a democracy, because the greater the percentage of the population that registers and then turns up to the polling booth, the more legitimate this place is—the more legitimate all of our mandates are to be here representing the people in this Parliament. So funding for groups to run events and to run seminars and things—we support that—

I apologise to the member. Sorry, your time has expired.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Election Access Fund Bill, and I’d like to acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick for bringing yet another great member’s bill to this House. I’d also like to acknowledge Mojo Mathers here today and all the work that she has done over the years to bring this piece of legislation to this House today. I acknowledge those in the gallery today as well, and their participation in hearing the first reading of this bill.

This bill is about furthering the participation of people in New Zealand society, and that’s a good thing for this House to be supporting. I’m proud to be part of a group that will be supporting this bill further to select committee, enabling people to live full lives and take full advantage of the opportunities that are available to us as New Zealanders. It is important that all those things are made equally available to everybody.

Specifically, this bill looks at enabling people with a disability to be a candidate in the general election, with the establishment of an Election Access Fund. The fund will be administered by the electoral body, by the Electoral Commission, and, specifically, it will enable any disabled candidate to cover disability-related costs of standing in a general election, in terms of having an interpreter or having access to being able to do that.

Can I just say, and pause at this time, that the importance of inclusion, and people having the ability to participate—I would just like to stop and acknowledge for a moment a champion within my own area by the name of Michael Grigg. Mike Grigg passed away this year, sadly. He was a tireless champion for those people with any disability to be fully included and have the ability to participate in New Zealand. He fought strong—with the Hutt City Council, with Government, with anyone who would take him on—to enable people to have rights. He was a frequent visitor to my office and I learnt a lot about the importance of inclusion from him.

So this Government is working to build a more inclusive New Zealand, and, by doing that, it’s important to look at all the areas where there can be improvements to how that works. In terms of employment: with equal opportunities in hiring practices—that is incredibly important—in education: ensuring that children coming through our education system have full access to learning sign language—students as well as teachers—in health: ensuring that the support and the implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy is fully implemented; and also through our housing projects that are going on right now to make sure that we are building houses that are accessible, and that those homes meet the needs of people.

In terms of my own experience, in terms of my own learning about the importance of this area, I’d have to say it was participating twice in a TriAbility Triathlon in Wainuiōmata, where able-bodied competitors competed alongside those people with disabilities. What it taught me was the importance for people who don’t have disabilities to be included in those areas so that we learn—so that we understand and learn the importance of everybody having access. Through having an electoral fund that would set up the ability for people to be included—I see that in a similar way: that by working together and by being side by side in our daily work, that enables a greater understanding by all New Zealanders of some of the difficulties that those with disabilities face on a daily basis.

I look forward to this bill coming to the Governance and Administration Committee, as I sit on that committee as deputy chair. I look forward to hearing all of the submissions, and how we can improve what we do right now. It is up to the community to come and talk to us and tell us how this bill can make the most of what it offers now. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I commend this bill to the House.

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 ₤4,500, which cost around ₤244,000 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.