Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. First of all congratulations to the Minister. This is quite an exciting moment I think to have positive progressive ACC legislation in the House—it's the first time in my living memory—and specifically making provisions that start making inroads into addressing the really entrenched sexism within the legislation that means I think quite often in terms of the work of ACC the financial costs that accrue to men versus women was about a billion dollars difference in that in favour of men which is just extraordinary. Where a rugby injury gets cover and our love and our support and then the most important job in the world where injury arises of giving birth pretty much nothing except struggle this legislation starts us in addressing that. I'll speak to some of the specifics a bit later in my speech but I also want to speak to the fact that making this change will help women and birth parents be able to access support and that is to the benefit of all of us in our society: our children our families and all of us.It also I think helps address some of the shame and the stigma and the silence around these injuries as well. I recently had a Facebook message from somebody who was talking about how they gave birth 9½ months ago and have had abdominal pain and urinary incontinence every single day since and thought that was just what happens. We had had no public discussion that had connected to her that actually this is something you can go to the doctor about this is something you can get treatment for. That is a sign of a societal problem in itself that I hope this discussion will start addressing because we need to remove the shame and the stigma and ensure the supports are in place.I will speak to the some of the things—that the Greens are so stoked that this is on the table and that there are things we would like to see change through the select committee and I will speak to some of those. We see in the regulatory impact statement there was a decision to cover a specified list of obstetric injuries caused to birthing parents and our concern over that is that it doesn't necessarily cover all birthing injuries and even in that definition of physical injuries. And there was another option that was considered to define the fetus as a force external to the body so that all injuries caused by the fetus to the birthing parent during labour and delivery would be considered accidents under the ACC Act and that would have ensured that at least all physical injuries to the birthing parent were comprehensively covered. Unfortunately—and this is where it kind of sticks in my stomach a bit—the decision was made not to go with that option because it risked a broader interpretation to also include injuries to the birthing parent throughout the pregnancy and the child. Oh—I'm sorry it was not chosen because of potential cost reasons. And that to us if we're looking at making sure that this works for all of our families then actually that's what we need to put first.I also would just say that for the Greens we wanted to see—as the 40000-plus people who signed our petition in a very short period of time wanted to see—all injury including trauma not necessarily connected to a physical injury because there are birthing parents who experience trauma through a difficult labour even if there isn't a physical injury and we want to make sure that they get that support at the time they need it in the most easily accessible way. We also would like to see the injuries to the baby covered. We know that there are lifelong injuries that are incurred through the loss of oxygen during the birth process and it does not make sense to us in the Greens that we can cover the injuries in other contexts and not recognise that first injury because it absolutely is an injury.So those are the areas we are absolutely looking forward to exploring through the select committee process in relation to birth injury. But I say all of that and we wouldn't be able to explore any of those things if we didn't have this legislation and if it wasn't on the table and if those so many thousands of people hadn't signed those petitions and Anusha Bradley hadn't done some great investigative journalism—and I want to shout out and acknowledge her as well for her work.So now I'd like to speak to the other part of the bill which are the winding back of five changes made by Nick Smith in 2010. I'd like to speak to these. These may not be the headline parts of this legislation but they are important and we the Greens would also like to see these go further because I think Labour has made a commitment to unwinding those changes and they're not doing it in this legislation and the Green Party believes they should.The first is changing the onus of proof for gradual process and that is great but not re-establishing the Ministerial Advisory Panel on work-related gradual process disease or infection will limit the impact of this change and mean that many people with gradual process injuries diseases or infections will still either have to battle ACC for cover or just lose out. Words of Hazel Armstrong an ACC lawyer known to many in this House: Yes it's a first step. You might get another 200 people through but it's not the big game changer needed in New Zealand."Then there's the requiring occupational assessors to consider pre-incapacity earnings. Also positive but this legislation doesn't roll back the change of definition of vocational independence from 35 hours to 30 hours per week or the decrease that we saw in weekly compensation or the increase of time from two to five weeks before weekly compensation is raised to the statutory minimum or even the abatement of holiday pay from compensation. So it's kind of such a miserly little measure.And then there's the reducing of the requirement for 6 percent hearing loss to 5 percent hearing loss. The legislation previously did not have a percentage. We don't have a percentage of the number of bones in your body that you need to break before you can get support and I'm told by experts who know a lot more than me that actually the percentage doesn't have meaning around functional hearing loss that there will be people who will require hearing aids to be able to function effectively in their workplace or in their life who may only have 3 percent hearing loss or less. So this doesn't make sense to me at all.Then there is the fact that the Government is ensuring dependants of a claimant with a terminal illness covered by ACC who chooses assisted death under the End of Life Choice Act can access legal entitlements. I think that's great. But it does kind of for me bring into stark contrast the fact that the Government has chosen not to bring back the entitlement for people with self-inflicted personal injuries or suicide or who are in prison. At the heart of an effective and powerful ACC that we want to see is the no-fault cover and support so I don't—and I would be interested to see through this process whether we can get back that concept of no-fault cover to restore the power and the greatness of ACC that so many of us have been so proud of and looked at other jurisdictions that have to go through courts to battle to get their entitlements. We want that back and it doesn't feel like we've got it at the moment so there is a huge amount of work to do.Then finally I just want to again note the significance of this day for women. It's a bloody good day in this House for women and I really commend the Minister for being receptive being proactive and getting some—Nicola Grigg: Stuff.JAN LOGIE: —stuff—thank you some stuff done finally in ACC. It is well overdue and we are very much looking forward to these conversations."