Logie Jan; O'Connor GregJAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would have to say though I've agreed with some things in pretty much every speech—it's been kind of interesting to me. Like I do support this bill and part of what I am hearing from a lot of the parties who are unsure about it is the sense about The data's already there; you don't need a bill to do that." A lot of the conversation about the data and the disparities seems to be about the entry to the scheme in its first instance and barriers to that. We do have quite a bit of information about that though there is a lot more research to be done in those areas I would say as well.But what the bill does is it goes further than that and actually requires reporting to Parliament on those disparities and "the level of access to the accident compensation scheme in that financial year by Māori and identified population groups"; and any disparities the corporation identifies in access to the scheme and any barriers that they identify that affect Māori or any population groups; and "the causes of or factors contributing to those disparities and barriers as identified by the Corporation." We had discussion within the Education and Workforce Committee because there was a suggestion that the bill should be more specific about access that it's actually access to all parts of the scheme and that we have the expectation that ACC will be reporting on that. I have not seen that public information—I've found it very hard to get and what I hear from people trying to access the scheme is that they find that information really hard to get. So I believe that annual reporting to this House with that information is a valuable first step.However I do agree with the points that I've heard from National as well about the sense of "Just reporting? Come on we need some action." and quite a few submitters also raised that where they wanted this bill to require ACC to report on what actions they would take to remove the disparities. The point was raised by officials that ACC won't be responsible for all of the barriers that are in the way of people accessing schemes; some of it will be the health system in terms of referring people to ACC—like the woman who's sprained her ankle and is just dealing with it who maybe went to her doctor and did her doctor refer her and get that covered by ACC or not. But that's pretty easily covered by the framing in the bill in terms of it can be ACC working with other agencies. Part of their actions could be advocating for those other agencies to take action and that is part of their role as an agency within a part of our rehabilitation and health and compensation system. I argue as many submitters did that that would have strengthened this bill significantly.Also like the member from ACT while I don't have a problem that Māori are specified in this bill and in fact through the committee we strengthened it where initially it was "Māori and other identified population groups" which just had Māori as—just forgetting that we actually have a Treaty relationship between the Crown and Māori that actually means there's a responsibility legally for the Crown to ensure access for Māori to the scheme. So the committee changed the language to "Māori and identified population groups" recognising that there's a different status between Māori and women LGBTQIA+ Pasifika young old disabled. However a lot of submitters wanted those groups specified in a non-exhaustive list so that it could be added to over time. The Greens also supported that. I don't mind not seeing women in there; I don't feel it's any slight on me personally not to have women listed when Māori are. But I just think having that consistency for a few years into the future would have helped us all have comfort in the intentions of the scheme being realised across those groups—and for it to be specified to be intersectional analysis because we know that Pasifika women exist not just Pasifika people here and women here and actually we need the analysis to include that kind of nuance and information.Ideally we would have liked to have seen a Te Tiriti clause in this bill acknowledging again that ACC is part of our health system. We've acknowledged through our health reforms that there is an obligation on the Crown in terms of Te Tiriti and ACC is part of that system; it's just inconsistent that we don't have it in this legislation. I understand from the Minister that there is intention to be working with iwi to develop that in the future; would also point back though that this was raised through the maternal birth injuries legislation as well—of submitters calling for a Te Tiriti clause at that point—and it would have been great to have seen more progress made on that because it is pretty fundamental.I do want to also just speak briefly which I haven't managed to previously—and noting our very specific and wholehearted support for the change of when people can access their minimum rate of weekly compensation which is 80 percent of the minimum wage which is still a struggle for a lot of people just to have that cut when they've been existing on minimum wage. But that's a separate issue. But under current legislative settings people can't access that until their sixth week after incapacity and this moves it to the second week. That will help out people really significantly. However again this is a pretty minor change. We've been hearing the call—like the people I speak to out in the communities including lawyers and people struggling to access the system—that there are real issues in terms of people feeling as if they're battling a culture of disentitlement where the information about how to access the scheme is not readily or transparently available. The systems are overly onerous and provide massive barriers for people getting the assistance that they need and it can take years. Initially not having needed ACC except for anything embarrassingly beyond a jandal injury—I know I am one of those people with those embarrassing claims; however a jandal injury it was truly—I thought that you got your claim accepted and then that was sorted around rehabilitation if you needed to be off work or if there were other situations in terms of loss of potential earnings. I'd naively thought that that was all just one thing—that if you went to ACC and they accepted your claim then all of that was just kind of worked out. I had no idea that they are three separate processes with multiple assessments and requirements for medical information many times for each of those systems in different cases. I just don't think that serves us or our communities and there is work to be done to transform the system and to ensure equity.I do need to touch briefly on the point that's been made around women's access and how it's because they're not being injured the inference was by a previous speaker. Well actually the most common injuries that women suffer in their workplaces are around bullying and harassment and burnout; they are not covered by this scheme but have lifelong consequences in terms of people's earning potential something that should be covered by this legislation but isn't because it was written 50 years ago when women-dominated professions possibly weren't even imagined at that point in our history. We need to be doing this work and this is a timid but effective first step.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m."