Dunne Peter: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4926] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It is a noble and proper thing that any nation recognises the contribution of those who give service in its defence. The notion of war pensions is one that has a resonance when one looks around this Chamber and sees the plaques that commemorate the various battlefields on which New Zealanders have given service over a long period of time. Although I was not around at the end of World War II I have seen the newsreels I have read the newspapers and I have heard the statements that echoed those of Lloyd George in an earlier time about a land fit for heroes to live in and all the opportunities that were promised the returning veterans about the nation they would be a part of rebuilding. Now 60 years later when we look at the state of our war pensions administration it pulls us up very quickly that that rhetoric has not often been matched by the way the law has been applied. 
I am delighted to support this bill because it tidies up a number of issues that have been left to languish for far too long. I find it extraordinary for instance that only by this bill are we transferring provisions for veterans’ pensions to the War Pensions Act—which was passed in the year I was born. It has been part of a transitional piece of legislation since 1990. 
Rodney Hide 
: When you were born! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No that is some time after I was born. I was just about to start school! But veterans might well be forgiven for wondering what priority was attached to their well-being and what gratitude to their contribution by the historically haphazard way in which the law has been applied. There will be some who will say that those events occurred a long time ago—even though there are still New Zealand military personnel involved in conflict situations—that the notion of “veteran” really is something that belongs to a bygone era. I challenge anyone who holds that view to spend even a modicum of time with people who have served and suffered not just themselves but through the loss of comrades in conflict; or any of the other deprivations that go hand in hand with that situation. They would quickly be disabused of the notion that the concept of a veteran is something that belongs to the past. It is a mark of pride for many veterans that they are treated differently and it is important that this bill preserves that distinction even if the monetary value of the pension payable to them does not differ significantly from national superannuation. It is the point of separation that is the important distinction. By continuing to treat them under the title “war pensioner” we continue to recognise their achievement. That is why this bill is important because it ensures that on into the 21st century as perhaps the numbers of veterans thin that recognition does not dim. United Future is pleased to support this bill. 
I conclude with some reference to the comments made by the speaker who preceded me. I was intrigued by his comments that perhaps we should in effect pay a premium to war veterans who attain the age of eligibility for national superannuation. The cynic in me suggests that that is an easy promise to make because the numbers are in a sense reducing—though I am not suggesting that that was the member’s attitude. It is a far more substantial issue than that and one that merits serious consideration. It is not a question of a two-tier arrangement but more a question of saying that given what those people have been through given all the other stresses and strains they have endured in the years subsequent to their service is there a little more we can do? We have already had inquiries into various allegations that exposure to certain toxic chemicals or nuclear explosions or the like have had a detrimental impact on the health of not just those who were allegedly exposed but also their descendants. Many will claim that other less-specific conditions and problems are a lasting by-product of their service. It may well be therefore that something along the lines that the member has suggested has merit. That proposal is not part of this legislation but I think it is something that perhaps this House maybe on a bipartisan basis might want to give some consideration to. 
In that respect can I step way outside this bill—because again it has some relevance to the issue—and simply acknowledge the work that the member who preceded me has done to protect the employment of volunteers who give their time for military engagement. I hope that issue can be resolved fairly shortly because those people might be the servants of today but they are the veterans of tomorrow and they also deserve recognition. I am happy to indicate United Future’s support for the third reading of this bill.