Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I too would like to offer my congratulations to the member Melissa Lee for getting this bill drawn and for starting this discussion. I do want to acknowledge that I think the member's intent with this bill is positive and good and I think having the debate is useful. The Green Party however can't support it—Hon Members: What?JAN LOGIE: We won't support it. You're right—of course we could but we haven't been persuaded by the evidence. I do want to reflect on some of the discussions that I've heard and the assumption that people who would be covered by this legislation who have had an accident and who are not entitled to superannuation are de facto in need and that they're a vulnerable group.Actually we don't know that. We don't have the evidence that they're not entitled to superannuation from an overseas scheme and we know that probably many of the New Zealanders coming back will be. We also know that people coming in as recent migrants are required to show as part of their visa conditions for gaining entry into New Zealand the ability to support themselves in the event of unemployment or the inability to be in work. So actually we haven't had the case made that there is hardship here. It sounds persuasive as if people are falling between a gap but actually we don't know that.What this does in the way the legislation is set out is that it's saying that people who are not entitled to ACC or superannuation because of that age and residency threshold would be entitled to either weekly compensation for an extended period of time or the New Zealand superannuation rate whichever is less which is in effect giving people access to New Zealand superannuation if they've had an injury and they don't otherwise meet our criteria for accessing New Zealand superannuation.That's quite a big debate. We know the social contract that exists around New Zealand superannuation is something that a lot of thought has gone into in this country. There's been reticence from previous Governments including the previous National Government to reopen the debate about shifting that social contract of who is entitled to superannuation or the age at which people should be entitled. The Green Party doesn't believe that that debate should happen through this member's bill in this way—that if you want to challenge the access to entitlement to New Zealand superannuation then that's a big discussion for us as a country and isn't one we believe to be dealt with in this narrow way.I do also just want to remind people listening where there is that sense that maybe there are people who may be in crisis and without support that they will still access treatment and rehabilitation services from ACC for as long as they need them. None of that is being cut off through our settings as they exist at the moment. Also the perception that it cuts off exactly at 65 is inaccurate. At the moment if somebody suffers an injury close to the age of 65 there is provision to get weekly compensation for up to about two years after the event of that injury even after the age of 65. So the perception that at 65 it's all over and there's no support is really a very inaccurate portrayal of the situation. There is support for people beyond that point. Most of the people in this situation will have their own means and there is baseline support through our Work and Income system as well. Let's not reopen the debate on entitlements in the social contract of superannuation when we don't have evidence that there is even a group of people suffering.