Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to engage in this debate and I'm proud to stand with my fellow meerkats and stand up for workers' rights. They're very cute. I'm confused. People on the other side of the House have been talking about how this is going to simplify things—let's get rid of some red tape—and actually what it is doing is it is making things very very messy. You know I had this whole Let's test these ideas." so I'm very grateful for the member who stood before and made it very very clear that it's the overreach the unnecessary overreach that this legislation will enable. I have spoken before in this House of my love for the great outdoors and for tramping. When I was a teacher I would have accompanied the year 12 trampers around our beautiful maunga and I may have—I haven't thankfully—injured myself at work on a tramping trip. That's fine. It's all really really clear: the review process and the engagement with the employer at that point. What I'm a little confused about is 10 years later when I'm working at another school and I take another tramping trip and I re-injure myself what my previous employer has got to do with helping me to recover with that overreach. Or maybe I'm tramping on the weekend with my children and I re-injure myself so my re-injury doesn't happen in the workplace. It's not a rugby injury but a tramping injury. And again you know my employer years down the track possibly has this overreach and an ability to challenge something that doesn't actually have an implication for them. Me my recovery the costs for that recovery being borne by the system to protect the employer—Hon Michael Woodhouse: By the employers not the system.ANGELA ROBERTS: —to protect the employer. My previous employer doesn't have to pay and I'm just really confused about that overreach. This is not about simplification. This is about unnecessary overreach and it is not the right solution to what is suggested to be a problem. I think some of our previous speakers had been really clear about the unintended consequences—you know the cost and the complexity of this adversarial approach. We've talked about challenging decisions made by ACC. You know the ability to review and be involved and engaged is absolutely appropriate especially when an employer wants to be involved in making sure that rehabilitation—and actually that those accidents don't happen again in the future is absolutely appropriate. But this doesn't enable that. So again it's a bit of overreach in saying that that's the appropriate reasoning for this legislation. The operational capacity and cost has been raised and that is a concern when we know how challenged ACC is in deploying its resources. And the issue of privacy—again you know I move on employers 10 15 years down the track. They don't necessarily have a right to have a really interesting little look into my future engagement around this. So there is confusion. It is not simple. I still haven't heard the argument yet for this to be a useful piece of legislation. One of the other important pieces we need to think about is something that Jan Logie raised. We have a unique system in New Zealand—no-fault—but we can see that we can futureproof it. We have got improvements that we want to make—we've heard it many times in the House—and we should be putting our energy into making those improvements not on taking this flawed solution off to select committee to tinker with it and try and make it work when it isn't actually solving a problem. So for that reason I urge the House to put its energy and its resources into places where it will effect change and will strengthen the protections for not just our workers but our employers. And so I must say that I will be not supporting this bill going to the next stage. Thank you."