Goff Phil: Veterans’ Support Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Veterans’ Support Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19311. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I think it makes sense to talk about the three parts together. Part 3 sets out scheme one which deals with the veterans who served before April 1974 plus those who served in Viet Nam at Qui Nhon as support for the medical team and Squadron 41 up to 1975. Part 4 deals with scheme two which deals with veterans since that time. The reason for separating that out is the introduction of accident compensation in April 1974. The whole emphasis in respect of those who have served since 1974-75 is on rehabilitation getting the person back to the position they were in before they sustained the injury that led them to require that support. Part 5 deals with elements that are common to both scheme one and scheme two.But I just want to comment on the discussion that we have had. It is not what we agree on which is most of this bill that concerns me; it is where we disagree. Where we disagree is that somehow we think that you can set up a Law Commission to independently analyse and then ignore its recommendations about how we should treat our veterans. There ought to be a good reason if we depart from those recommendations. But there is no good reason why we should depart from its recommendation relating to the payment of all of the benefits that go with the veterans pension. What effectively we have had happen here is that the Law Commission supported by the veterans supported by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association recommended that veterans should get a level of benefit because they have served our country. What this National Government has done is cut the amount of money that the Law Commission and the RSA both recommended should go to our veterans. This is about cutting support for our veterans. Do you know what amount it is about? It is about a miserable $7.4 million. That is what it would take to give our veterans the full entitlement that the RSA and the Law Commission said they should have.This is penny-pinching. This is miserable. This is mean. In the 100 years since the First World War as we mark that centenary this Government marks itself out as being so miserable that it is going to take $7.4 million away from the veterans whom the Law Commission the RSA and the veterans believe they are entitled to. I have not heard one valid argument in this whole debate from National to justify doing that—$7.4 million. You know the Government is spending twice that amount of money on one conference the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States in Samoa next month. Are our veterans less important than that? The Government is spending $30 million on Rio Tinto a foreign multinational. Are our veterans who sacrificed for our country less important than the money that the Government is prepared to put into a foreign multinational company? The Government spends $150 million in legal fees on hocking off our assets which many of our veterans like my father-in-law came back from the war to build up. They worked on the hydro dams at Mangakino and Aratiatia. There is $150 million in legal fees to lawyers to hock off the assets that we New Zealanders own but the Government cannot spend $7.4 million to give our veterans what the Law Commission said after due consultation after careful analysis our veterans were entitled to.The Veterans’ Support Bill in this form cuts the entitlements that our veterans should have got if the recommendations of the Law Commission and the RSA were followed. I have not heard a single argument to justify why we should be penny-pinching from our veterans as we commemorate in this centenary year all of those who have died all of those who have given service and all of those who have sacrificed for our country. I think that is pathetic.In terms of the parts in front of us we have first of all scheme one which will deal with those veterans who served prior to 1974-75. Basically what we have tried to do in this part of the bill is preserve the entitlements that those older veterans from the Second World War from Korea from Malaya from Malaysia and from Viet Nam are entitled to. Those entitlements are good entitlements. I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who would deny our veterans the right to those entitlements—entitlements such as travel costs associated with treatment and long-term hospital care a disablement pension that people get in addition to their veterans pension taking into account the level of disablement that they have suffered weekly income compensation retirement lump sum entitlements for spouses and bursaries for children. I think all of those are important entitlements. I think some of them are quite reasonable entitlements. I do not think they are more generous than what other veterans in similar countries like Canada Australia the United States and the United Kingdom are getting but they are entitlements that should be there. We stand by maintaining those entitlements and lifting them above the level that they were once set at.In terms of the second part which relates to the post - Viet Nam War veterans that is designed to take into account the changes that were brought about by the accident compensation scheme. Before we had the accident compensation scheme the pension for veterans effectively was compensation for those who had suffered accidents. Now we need to ensure that there is a complementarity between the accident compensation payments and those received by war veterans—not just a complementarity but to ensure there is a margin over and above those entitlements that we give to war veterans. There should be that margin because these are people who have suffered their injuries in the service of their country. There is a top-up to preserve the additional support provided to veterans under the 1954 Act over and above that available to other New Zealanders and it will ensure that all scheme two veterans receive the same amount of compensation whether or not their accident compensation claim was accepted. I think that is important. I think it is important that we have moved to focus on rehabilitation and restoration to pre-injury capability to the maximum extent possible. The assistance provided to veterans is about incentivising wellness and using rehabilitation as a way of leading to other assistance that might be available.I think one of the important changes that is made in scheme two is in relation to the lump-sum payment rate. That will be set at the equivalent payable under the accident compensation scheme plus an additional 20 percent. I think it is also important that those who are terminally ill can get a lump-sum payment brought forward as a way of acknowledging that their terminal illness is in most instances related to the service that they have given. A veteran who is entitled to a disablement pension can elect to suspend payment of that pension for a period of up to 12 months and receive a lump-sum payment equivalent to the aggregate of the pension payable at the maximum rate for the 12-month period. That was a change that was made in the select committee. I think it is an appropriate change. I think the concept of this legislation based on the Law Commission recommendation of having a scheme that maintains the entitlement for our older veterans and brings our new veterans into a space where there is a focus on rehabilitation is the right approach.So if it is good for this Committee to follow the recommendations of the Law Commission in the fundamentals of this scheme why is it that National insists on departing from the recommendations of the Law Commission in terms of cutting the benefits that are available to people who have served? It is frankly unacceptable to this side of the Chamber and I had hoped that it would be unacceptable to the Māori Party that our veterans would be denied that lump-sum payment—$5700—to enable the family to meet the funeral costs of the veterans. I understand that the amendment I had moved was supported by the Māori Party. Mr Flavell will speak for himself but I understand that—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman—just to finish off. I will be only 1 minute. I understand—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will decide that. The Hon Phil Goff.Hon PHIL GOFF: A very good decision Mr Chairman. I understand that pressure was put on the Māori Party members by National that if they were not to support the Government’s position on this bill then the bill would not proceed—certainly during the life of this Parliament. If that is the case then that is quite unacceptable. I regret the fact that the Māori Party is no longer supporting what the RSA and the veterans have asked for and the Law Commission recommended but Mr Flavell will no doubt comment on why there has been a change of heart on behalf of the Māori Party. If they had not changed their view then the votes would have been equally 61-61 and we would have I think negotiated a reasonable solution for the veterans.Tim Macindoe: We don’t have 122 members.Hon PHIL GOFF: Well the calculation—and the whip can confirm it—was that it would have been a tied vote if the Māori Party had supported Labour on this. [Interruption] Sixty-sixty—OK. It is like 20/20 vision—60-60. It is regrettable that the Government has used its position to prevent a fair deal being reached for veterans.I have got just this one challenge and it might go to Mr Flavell it might go to the National Party members or it might go to Mr Dunne. It is a simple question. Why is it that the recommendations of the Law Commission to be a little more generous to veterans have been dropped by this Government when the cost was small the cost was affordable and the case that could be made for the veterans gaining entitlement to that small extra benefit was clear and overwhelmingly supported by the veterans? Why is it that in 2014 100 years out from the start of the Great War we could not have given that little bit of extra to the veterans. Words are cheap. It would have been much better if we could have backed up our expressions of gratitude and thanks to our veterans by giving them something a small something that would have made a difference for them and their families. That question is hanging there waiting for a member of the Government or a party supporting the Government to answer why it was not affordable to implement the recommendation of the Law Commission.