O'Connor Greg; Salesa JennyDEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.ACCIDENT COMPENSATION (MATERNAL BIRTH INJURY AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I remind members that it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. Members we come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 17 and Schedules 1 and 2 Amendments to the principal Act". The question is that Part 1 stand part.JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought everyone would be fighting for a call on this; it's such an exciting day. I was taken by surprise. But I do hope there will be some good discussion in the Chamber today on this bill.I've got several points and I've got quite a few Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in on this bill and I think there's space for some really good discussion and interrogation of some of the detail. But up front I want to be very clear that the Greens are supporting this bill and absolutely 100 percent see this bill as progress towards gender equality and support for whānau to be able to thrive in our society and to redress some very longstanding mostly unspoken and possibly officially unnoticed sexism within the infrastructure of ACC. So it is a good day. However there are some good points to interrogate in this.The first point I want to speak to is the SOP in my name SOP 247 which would make the bill apply retrospectively so that people with birth injuries before the commencement date will still be able to get cover. The reason I wanted to start with that as a contribution was an acknowledgment of the 807 written submissions to the committee of the over 900 people that wrote to the Green Party to share their experiences of birth injuries which we then passed on to the Minister Carmel Sepuloni. Many of these stories—as the media story which I think prompted this law change in some part—are just so so grim and deeply personal where people expose themselves not literally but in conversation and in detail for the benefit of others. And it does not sit with me or the Green Party that they go to that effort—many of these women and their families are still carrying these injuries—and that they will get nothing in return for raising the call. It will only be the women in the future past the commencement of this bill.We heard from parents unable to sit up because of abdominal separation after the birth and from parents with post-traumatic stress disorder who have been unable to get support—even the one that really struck with me a woman in her 70s who 40 years on from giving birth is still in pain because she's never been able to receive adequate treatment or support. I see members shaking their heads and it was deeply moving. And I know the Minister has responded in a very personal and human way to these stories and I do want to bring them into this Chamber because it is really important we ground ourselves in what this is actually about.One woman at the select committee told us about how while giving birth she received a third degree tear and this means she tore vertically from her vagina into her outer rectum muscle. Her baby at the time of her submission was 18 months old and she was still not healed. She has incontinence issues; a 38-year-old woman who can no longer play sports and has an extremely active child who she has trouble picking up. I just don't think anybody can hear those stories and not feel like we have to do something about this that this is not OK. I recognise that this bill is about making it OK for women and their whānau in the future but these women are still carrying these injuries untreated right now. And I know the argument that legislation should not be retrospective but that's actually for when there are penalties. We heard a very eloquent submission from Eliza Prestige Oldfield talking about how the retrospectivity in legislation guidelines says that if there's a benefit is the first reason; that in those legislation design guidelines they have a list of valid reasons for retrospectivity. And at the top of that list is if there is a benefit being accrued from the retrospectivity. I don't think anybody could argue that ensuring treatment cover and support for these whānau would be a benefit.So if it's not actually about the retrospectivity then the only other reason really is cost and cost saving. I want to point to the Human Rights Commission's submission that reminds us all of our human rights obligations internationally. I quote from their submission "State obligations to human rights are subject to progressive realization which requires that States use "maximum available resources" to fulfil women's health rights immediately or to use all resources at its disposal to do so as a matter of priority. When we see the balance sheet of ACC I am strongly of the view that we cannot make an argument that the money is not there to do this. I am strongly of the view that actually when we know women's health and wellbeing and the wellbeing of their families and when we also know the impact of those first years of life across an entire person's life actually not making and putting the money towards this time and these families the consequence is so much greater than the cost. There are many more contributions I'd like to make but just on this point I would love to hear the Minister's response to this."