Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. It's my pleasure to add to colleagues from both sides of the House in support of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill and here in the second reading there are sensible changes which have been identified during the National-led Government term. These changes were in the pipeline and here we find ourselves late in the afternoon before the House rises and very close to the House rising. The main changes ensure fairness for those who are injured near retirement age and streamline the complaints process to remove confusion—a couple of technical but really important points none the less.So under the previous National-led Government we know that the ACC scheme turned around its performance delivering better service and we know that it's now essentially fully funded that there's enough money to cover the ongoing cost of claims and that levies should be able to come down even further. We've got a world-leading no-fault scheme and of that we can be proud.I want to just touch on what the two broad objectives are and the reason I want to do that is because I too sat on the Education and Workforce Committee and heard the personal submissions. I want to just touch on those submitters who came and talked to things that were out of scope and I'll say why I want to raise that and it's in a heartfelt sense. The bill has the two broad objectives: to ensure that ACC continues to provide cover and entitlements that are appropriate and consistent and sustainable and ensure that we improve the Act and ensure that it's effective and efficient with best regulatory practice.Now it's not intended—and this came in the departmental report—that the words effective and efficient" be read in a wider context. They were and I think that's what set off some really good and heartfelt—in fact heart-rending—submitters to come before us in the select committee and it was my first experience of seeing people cry. So that was quite hard for all of us sitting around the table from both sides of the House. The tissue box came out in several instances and they do deserve recognition because I think that for them getting things off their chest was the right thing to do and it was tough for us because we knew that we couldn't do anything about it within the confines of this bill. There were actually 25 submissions on the bill and 13 of them were outside the scope of the bill so you can see the level of emotion that was set off I think quite simply by the term "ACC"—in came the submissions.One particular one was a submitter suggesting that there be provision for additional support for the permanently injured single people that have little or no assets and who are about to reach retirement age. It's related to the cut-off point between weekly compensation and superannuation and the submitter suggested that ACC continue to pay weekly compensation to this group. Here is what she said—and I think she deserves some Hansard: "I'm a single person renting a small home in a rural area with no other means of support and few assets. I suffer from permanent injury sustained … I work part-time however I am unable to achieve the hours required to reach full-time employment. Once I reach retirement age I will be required to move from Weekly Compensation to Superannuation. As a consequence I will be unable to afford to rent the home I am in (and it would be unlikely I could find a cheaper one) or support myself. I will still have to work part-time for the rest of my life even if my Weekly Compensation is maintained."We support this bill. Madam Assistant Speaker thank you."