Lees-Galloway Iain: Veterans’ Support Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Veterans’ Support Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19318. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):Part 6 is in fact the part of the Veterans’ Support Bill that deals with the issue of veterans pensions and lump-sum payments. This is the matter that has been canvassed by members for much of the evening particularly by the Hon Phil Goff who has amendments that he has proposed to this part of the legislation.It is a pretty simple thing that in the Labour Opposition we wanted to follow the desires of the RSA and other veterans’ groups to ensure that all veterans would be entitled to a veterans pension and that it would be something that was universally available to everybody who has served our country overseas in conflict or peacekeeping situations. It is fair to say that it was not a big ask of the Government. It is anticipated to cost $7.4 million a year and that is actually the anticipated cost for the first year only. It is an unusual provision in that as time goes on the costs actually reduce. Usually when you introduce a new provision like this the out-years are more expensive than the initial year. This is the exact opposite so it is not a difficult thing for the Government to adopt.In fact after a lot of advocacy from the Hon Phil Goff the Government finally relented—almost. It almost relented entirely and supported everything that Phil Goff asked for except for one thing and that is the provision for lump-sum payments. The argument that the Government is using is that it will not be the veterans themselves who benefit from lump-sum payments but their families. We on this side of the Chamber say that veterans’ families have made a significant sacrifice themselves—a different type of sacrifice from a veteran who actually goes and serves and sees conflict and faces battle alongside their comrades; true. It is a different type of sacrifice but it is nevertheless a significant sacrifice for a family to have one of their own often the breadwinner go overseas and come home with all the impacts of seeing conflict. We particularly think about our older veterans who served in the Second World War in Korea in Viet Nam and in Malaya who saw—just as our recent veterans in Afghanistan and East Timor and the Solomons did—very real conflict and very real danger and things that were traumatic and that obviously put their lives at risk.We simply want to acknowledge their sacrifice and also the sacrifice of their families in sending a loved one overseas and giving up their time with them but also sometimes having to be there more often than not for that family member when they come back home again. So we think it is absolutely appropriate that both veterans and their families should have the opportunity to be acknowledged.We agree with the comment made by Melissa Lee I think that nobody goes overseas to serve our nation because they expect to get a pension out of it. That is not the reason they go. Of course it is not the reason that they go but it is a way in which we can acknowledge the sacrifice that they have made. I think Melissa Lee talked about a spirit of adventure. Well sometimes people did go with a spirit of adventure and then found that it was something a lot more than that when they actually got into the conflict zone.I think what actually drove most of our veterans to participate and to serve our nation was a sense that what they were doing was absolutely right. It was what their nation had called on them to do. They were doing it because they believed that it was in our country’s interests and they believed that it was in the interests of the people who lived in the nations that they went to and served in and absolutely in the case of the Korean conflict. I have been to Korea myself on a parliamentary delegation and there is no doubt that the people of Korea absolutely appreciate the work and the sacrifice that was put in by New Zealand veterans over there. They did it because they believed in our security in our region’s security and in supporting ultimately peace in our region and around the world by confronting aggressive actions from other nations.That is why they do it; we appreciate that but there is still nothing wrong with us as a nation saying we want to acknowledge that with some additional support that goes to those people who serve us and to their families as well. It really is now at the point of absolutely penny-pinching that the Government has refused to take this final step.Hon Ruth Dyson: How much would it be?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: How much would it be? It is $7.4 million annually. That is what they have agreed to and the lump-sum payments would add—Hon Phil Goff: That’s what the lump-sum payment is.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is what the lump-sum payment is; it is the value of the lump-sum payment. So it is really a tiny tiny amount of money in the scheme of Government expenditure and it kind of feels like the Government just does not want to do the whole thing that the Opposition has asked it to do. That is basically what it comes down to. It was not the Government’s idea. It was the Opposition’s idea; it was Phil Goff’s idea. The Government does not want to do it because it was Labour that proposed it. The Government has come some of the way but not the whole way. That is a shame. It is simply a shame.I know that when we go and visit RSAs around our electorates and around the country and when we talk to other veterans’ groups this is on their minds. It is what they talk about and it is the first thing that they talk to us about. It would have been a simple thing for the Government to agree to and it is just a shame that it has not been prepared to do that. But on this side of the Chamber we will continue to fight for those veterans and they can be assured that should there be the inevitable change that is coming in September this year there will be a better deal for veterans under a Labour-led Government.