SpeechJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. In this contribution I rise to ask some questions and have some discussion about the decision to have a defined list of birth injuries while again acknowledging the significant progress that was made in the Education and Workforce Committee to ensure that the list covers the intent as articulated by the Minister of all birth injuries being covered. But we had quite a lot of discussion about this as an approach as opposed to one of the recommendations that birth be included within the definition of accident" within section 25 of the Act so that there be a general cover for all birth injuries and that the exclusions would still be covered around babies—which I disagree with and I'll talk about that later—but also the boundaries around mental health—which again I disagree with but would have enabled that but had a general cover. Points were raised by submitters and I particularly want to point to the submission of Dr Simon Connell and Dr Dawn Duncan who are legal academics at the University of Otago who have a particular focus around the ACC scheme so they have extensive experience of analysing how the system is working and how the law could deliver on the intent of the scheme. Their recommendation was for that change of definition in section 25. They saw that there was no principled reason for excluding birth injuries from the scheme on that broad basis and had a concern that the specified list approach is creating a novel approach to birth injuries inconsistent with every other provision within the legislation. So we've got gradual process which is treated as something that's separate. But even for gradual process there is a provision in the Act—so that's a specified list for gradual process—that enables the case to be made for things that are not on that list that are gradual processes. So their very strong argument which was supported by the Human Rights Commission and a number of submitters was that there should be general cover not a specified list and that a specified list brings us into more definitional debates more problems over delay in diagnosis as well as diagnostic debates. We heard somebody speaking from their own experience of trying to access ACC and I think the words they had were that from their personal experience the consequential diagnostic barrier is inequitable and the evidence shows us that for Māori in particular in terms of there being discrimination in the system in terms of diagnosis and being referred for support. So when we go for a list-based approach we risk amplifying that existing problem in the system.It also increases the administrative costs. I do want to point to some of the research that's telling us that the total annual cost of administration and rationing tools across ACC at the moment is estimated to be between $1.5 billion and $3 billion. It's a huge proportion of the scheme. And that's Warren Forster's research that was recently published. So a huge proportion of the scheme is going into these assessment and rationing processes. My concern is that by a defined list approach without a general provision clause we risk increasing the cost to ACC. That was actually a point raised by—slightly tangentially—the New Zealand Public Service Association Inc. where they said in their submission that they're "concerned … our members working at ACC and their colleagues may not be properly resourced to implement changes resulting from the amendments." because it is going to be really onerous. We want this cover but general provision with internal appropriately co-designed general provisions the Greens believe would have been a better approach.Another point I want to make that was raised consistently through the submissions is that this is a very Eurocentric and deficit-based approach to ensuring—[Time expired]"