Guy Nathan: Veterans’ Support Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGuy Nathan: Veterans’ Support Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NATHAN GUY (Acting Minister for Veterans’ Affairs): I move That the Veterans’ Support Bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Michael Woodhouse I would firstly like to thank the Social Services Committee for its hard work in examining the bill. It has carefully reviewed the bill to ensure that it is a fitting replacement and provides adequate support for not only our current veterans but also our future veterans. Service in defence of our nation and for freedom and democracy around the world is a sacrifice that needs appropriate recognition in legislation. I would also like to thank veterans for their feedback on the bill.The bill received a number of submissions which were carefully considered by the committee. Although submitters focused on various issues responses indicated an underlying support for the new legislation. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Would members leaving the Chamber please show some respect to the member trying to address the House.Hon NATHAN GUY: It was also important to get feedback from the veterans affected by this legislation and the submissions received showed for the main part that we have drafted legislation that meets veterans’ needs.The bill replaces the War Pensions Act 1954 and originates from the 2010 report of the Law Commission that followed an extensive review of the war pensions scheme. The 1954 Act was found by the Law Commission to be outdated unwieldy and no longer fitting the needs of the veterans it was intended to support. The Law Commission made a large number of recommendations the vast majority of which were accepted by this Government. The bill continues and enhances the previous entitlements under the old Act and it retains the key principles of benevolence. Service eligibility criteria will remain the same and all deployments currently covered will be covered under the new legislation.The bill contains two schemes and it introduces several new entitlements. Scheme one will cover veterans who served from the Second World War through to and including the Viet Nam War. Their entitlements will continue to be based on those available under the 1954 Act. Scheme two will cover those who served in a recognised war or in emergencies since 1 April 1974. The entitlements will be closely aligned with those available under ACC but with an additional top-up that recognises the special nature of military service. The bill will also include a more modernised approach to rehabilitation. Submissions confirmed general support for these proposals. In addition submitters recommended changes to some key areas. It is pleasing to see that where appropriate the committee has recommended that changes be made to the bill to reflect these.One of the key changes made by the committee is to the threshold for the veterans pension. Submissions questioned whether 55 percent was the appropriate level of whole-person impairment to use as a threshold for the veterans pension and other entitlements noting that it did not appear to be the equivalent of the threshold currently used in the 1954 Act. The information that was provided to the committee established that 52 percent whole-person impairment was in fact the most equivalent threshold and in order to not disadvantage veterans the threshold will be moved from 55 percent to 52 percent. To further ensure that no veterans are disadvantaged by this provision the bill has been amended to provide that a veteran or other claimant who currently meets the threshold for entitlement under the 1954 Act will continue to do so if they claim under this bill.I note that a minority on the committee suggested that the disablement threshold for veterans pension eligibility should change from 54 percent on the new scale all the way to zero. In 2012 the Government announced a new $60 million package over 5 years to improve the support and recognition given to veterans who have served New Zealand and it agreed to adopt in full or in part 132 of the Law Commission’s 170 uncosted recommendations. The decision was made by Cabinet at the time not to discard the impairment threshold for veterans pension but to retain the status quo.The war disablement pension and veterans pension represent forms of compensation from the Government for those who have suffered injury or impairment as a result of their military service and for their families. Removing a level of disablement as a requirement in order to receive a veterans pension and access its associated benefits would be a significant departure from the current rationale which has existed since the veterans pension was first introduced. It would cost more than $40 million over the first 4 years alone with most of this cost coming directly from the lump-sum payment that is triggered by the death of a veteran. This bill is about supporting our veterans. Removing the disablement threshold would have a significant cost but would do little to increase the support offered to veterans during their lifetime. As it fundamentally changes the rationale behind the veterans pension and does not represent well-targeted spending we do not support this move.Another area of change is to the decision-making provisions and the points of reference for deciding claims. Underlying the rewrite of the 1954 Act was a desire not only to modernise the legislation but to make it more accessible for both veterans and administrators to understand and use. The evidential provisions underlying eligibility for entitlements in the bill are fundamental and they received scrutiny in many of the public submissions. There was very broad support for the use of the Australian statements of principle as the main reference point for deciding claims. The statements of principle are comprehensive soundly based in medical terms and introduce a much-needed element of certainty to the process.The bill also needed to modernise the legal and evidential tests for establishing entitlement and these were the subject of many submissions. It became clear that more work was needed to reduce legal jargon and ensure that the provisions are clearer easier to understand and fully aligned with the benevolence principle in decision making. The committee made several changes to the bill as a result of these submissions. As a result I am confident that the decision-making and legal provisions of the bill will serve the decision-making process well in the future. In summary the Government is committed to improving veterans’ support and this is reflected in this very important bill as reported back by the committee. I commend this bill to the House.