Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to add our voice in opposition to the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill. Normally at this point I'd congratulate the member for getting a bill drawn but sadly it wasn't drawn under your name. So congratulations for picking up the work and for acknowledging that in the House.I would like to commend anybody who's just listening to my speech and missed the last one—if they're wanting a really detailed rational outline of some of the problems with this bill listen to the outline of it by the previous speaker Marja Lubeck because I thought it was very articulate and very clear and covered off all the key points about this being a bill with an answer searching for a problem and really potentially adding a lot more confusion and barriers in the way of people getting the support in terms of accessing appropriate rehabilitation services. Access to ACC is something that we need people to have because it helps keep people well and keep people in employment and create a safer society.I do want to point out around that that the member when he spoke on the introduction of this bill mentioned some points he would like to see around the extension of the ACC Act. I would love to have seen a member's bill that did that. That would have actually been something we could have engaged with and supported. So maybe next time around because the Greens want to see an extension of ACC. We recognise that the system at the moment is not working as well as it could be that it's kind of based on 20th century ideas of industrial health and wellbeing that is really out of date and we need to get updated on that. We are seeing more and more stories coming through in terms of the inequity around disability through coverage of ACC and our health system around the lack of treatment and support in relation to birth injuries around psycho-social injury which is deeply gendered as well as the difficulty of getting new diseases on to the schedule because it's just an outdated model of care in terms of the legislation.I also want to acknowledge the member in his speech as well for talking about that point about wanting to see an extension and how he hears those stories coming through from his constituents. I too have an experience that relates to this legislation of a very dear friend of mine who had repetitive strain injury (RSI). It was acknowledged by ACC which was back in the day not necessarily that common and she was given the rehabilitative support to get better and get back to work. There were conditions applied to be able to keep her healthy and safe in her workplace but her manager and her workplace did not keep to those obligations and she got another case of RSI. Then her employer refused to acknowledge that they had any fault in that and did not support her claim for ACC. So she was faced with—and this is a very common situation—taking a legal case to challenge their decision when stress exacerbated that injury and she was not in a position to do that. We do not need any more of that within our system and this legislation would increase that situation right across our workplaces. We don't need that. Our focus needs to be on updating it to be modern not taking it back into more adversarial late 20th century industrial relations practice. The Greens cannot support this bill.