Goff Phil: Veterans’ Support Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Veterans’ Support Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Just before I start on this Veterans’ Support Bill I acknowledge the work of a senior researcher for Labour Bridget Service who helped on this bill and who is leaving after many years of hard work on behalf of our MPs here. Thank you Bridget for the work that you have done on our behalf.I want to come now to the bill and say that I respond with amazement to Nathan Guy’s statement that it was important to get feedback from the veterans and to meet the veterans’ needs. We sat through those submissions and we heard—unlike the Acting Minister—what the veterans said and what the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association said about the inadequacy of some parts of this bill.I reject the Minister’s statement that there are no grounds for removing the requirement that before a person is eligible for a veterans pension they have to be significantly disabled. What the RSA told the Social Services Committee and what the veterans have told the select committee and what New Zealanders would support is this: if you are a New Zealander eligible for New Zealand superannuation and you have served your country in an overseas deployment gazetted by the Minister and recognised by the Chief of Defence Force as having put yourself in harm’s way then surely that is the appropriate threshold for a person to be eligible for a veterans pension. That was recommended by the Law Commission. That was asked for by the New Zealand RSA. That is what the families of the veterans who sacrificed so much thought was appropriate and the National Government ignored those views those requests and those pleadings.I have here a letter from the RSA. It is signed by the national president Lieutenant General Don McIver a man who is much respected in this House. He said that it was very disappointing that the Social Services Committee decided not to progress the removal of the requirement of serious impairment before you are eligible for a veterans pension. He said it is particularly disappointing to those veterans who have served their country with loyalty and with honour but it is also disappointing to the RSA membership as a whole.He raises the question in this letter—and it has gone to various members of this House—that during the Law Commission’s processes and the Law Commission review that led to this legislation the commission strongly recommended that the threshold of serious impairment be removed. He said: “Neither we nor the commission were able to find out why it should be necessary to be significantly disabled to qualify for the veterans pension.” He says that the 52 percent significant disability figure is entirely arbitrary. He asked officials time and again at the select committee what the grounds were for saying that before a person can get a veterans pension they must have 52 percent of total disability. No answer was given except that that was historically the case. There was no rationale; it was entirely arbitrary.The other thing the RSA points out is something that I concur with strongly. It points out that although the Government gave no explanation for its decision it declined the submission saying: “Not progressed at this point of time.” Not progressed at this point of time. We are talking about 16700 elderly veterans many of whom left their families and served this country for years overseas putting themselves at harm’s risk and who are dying in their droves at the moment because they are in their 80s and 90s. “Not progressed at this point of time.” is a cynical answer from a Government that knows time is not on the side of our veterans.We are not asking for a lot. Nobody gets the veterans pension first of all until they have reached the age of superannuation. That is 65 at the present time. You do not get the veterans pension on top of superannuation; you get it instead of superannuation. So the costs are actually quite small. The relatively small benefits are a gesture of gratitude by us to those who put their lives in the firing line on behalf of their country. It is about getting a community services card. It is about if you are in hospital for more than 13 weeks being able to retain your pension rather than losing it and it is about a lump sum payment on death. Yes the Minister is right. That lump sum payment will usually go to the widow. But surely the widow is entitled to something in recognition of what she gave up while her husband or partner was serving this country for long years during the Second World War.This year 2014 is a special year. It is a special year because we commemorate the centenary of 100000 New Zealanders going to serve in the First World War of whom one in five died and six out of 10 were either killed or injured. Twenty years later our parents’ generation went to serve in the Second World War and another 12000 lost their lives. The people came back after years of serving their country and many of them were scarred inside and often scarred physically as well. Why is it so much to ask this Government that instead of just rhetoric about our gratitude to the veterans we actually give them something tangible? There are 16700 of them at the moment and do you know what it is going to cost? I asked Veterans Affairs so I have the official figures. In the first year it will cost $11.1 million. That is 2014-15. By 2017-18 in 3 years’ time that will be down to $8 million—just $8 million—because of the level of the passing on of the World War II and the Korean War veterans.What I am saying—and I have been totally upfront in the select committee as members will attest and to the Minister—is that there is a gap in this bill. There is a gap that the Law Commission which did all of the hard yards on this bill recommended should be closed. There is a gap in this bill which the RSA with its wisdom and its right to represent the interests of veterans said “Please fix this.” The Government has not because it says that it will cost too much. On one hand there will be $60 million spent over 5 years. On the other hand just $11 million dropping to $8 million a year is required to fill that gap to enable the people who have returned as veterans to have the pride of saying: “I am not just a superannuitant; I am a war veteran.” That is what they want it for. They are not actually even particularly interested in these small financial benefits. They want to have the pride of saying: “I have served my country.” What better way of saying that than to say: “I am in receipt of a veterans pension. This is how my country has recognised what I have done on behalf of my nation.” That is what we are asking for.In the Committee of the whole House I will be moving an amendment through a Supplementary Order Paper to pick up the Law Commission’s recommendation to pick up what those veterans have asked us so sincerely for and to pick up what the RSA says is a major gap in this legislation.I have one other comment and it is to the Minister of Defence. We know that morale and attrition rates have reached a record low in the case of morale and a record high in the case of attrition. We know that when the Auditor-General reported on this she said that is because this Government is perceived by the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force to have broken the social contract between Government and the services. They have no union and they cannot negotiate their conditions.I want to say to the Minister of Defence—and I say it sincerely—that the best way we can tell our current serving members of the New Zealand Defence Force that we honour their commitment and service is to pass something that recognises that we see our commitment extending into their retirement years. The best way we can deal with the problems of recruitment and retention is to send that message to our serving soldiers today. It will not cost us much for another 30 years. Most of those who have served in Timor-Leste the Solomons Afghanistan and Bosnia will not be retiring for 30 years.But this year—the centenary of our joining the First World War—is surely the appropriate time to say to our veterans that we honour them not simply with our rhetoric but that we honour them with a practical measure that they have asked for and we can easily deliver and that is affordable and justified. I commend my Supplementary Order Paper to the House in the Committee of the whole House.