Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker. Veterans have served our country; our country must serve veterans. I would like to acknowledge the words of the Minister in thanking our veterans former but also current New Zealand Defence Force personnel and those who have served in Her Majesty's forces. I use those words quite deliberately for reasons that I will return to in due course. I acknowledge the Minister for his advocacy in this space as well as his own service and all members across the House who have supported the work that is represented in this bill. National supports this bill because it does support many of our veterans and their families. It does not provide additional support for all veterans. That much I do want to acknowledge and again that's a point to which I will return shortly in the context of submissions that were made at the select committee hearings. I do want to acknowledge the value of the bill to the extent that its scope has seen it introduced to this House and therefore capable of consideration and indeed amendment by us. As the Minister has mentioned it implements a number of the recommendations made in the independent review that flowed from the passage of the Veterans' Support Act 2014 often referred to as the Paterson report. The more straightforward and easily legislated aspects of that have been addressed in this bill. Other changes recommended by the Paterson report have been able to be implemented administratively—that is to say without the need for legislation. There is also another category of course of changes that have been recommended by Professor Paterson and the Minister has highlighted the fact that that is ongoing work that I would agree with him should be the subject of the focus of a future Government.In so far as the current bill goes however I do want to acknowledge the particular detail that it provides around providing support for veterans themselves their families—even the scope of what it means to be the family of a veteran that is extended and expanded as well—support mechanisms available at the end of a veteran's life and removing provisions of the Veterans' Support Act that could operate in a way that could be seen to be unfair. I acknowledge those very worthwhile changes and I commend to anyone interested in reading the detail of those further not only the bill itself of course but also the general policy statement within the departmental disclosure report with particular ways in which the access to services are being effected.At the select committee we had a process that was relatively short in time but that reflected no shortage of attention or consideration by the committee but rather and in fact to the contrary a commitment by all involved to move rapidly so that we'd be able to pass this legislation prior to the House rising in advance of the upcoming election. The select committee process which was ably chaired by Gareth Hughes whose impending retirement I acknowledge featured a large amount of advice and feedback provided to us as members of this House from those who wish to see amendments made to the way that we regard the subject of veterans affairs in this country. The bill does amend the veteran definition within the parent legislation as we call it but only in ways that are relatively limited. That means that veterans who made contributions to the select committee—in a number of different fields we have had to say as a select committee in our report back to the House that we were unable to make such changes; it was not within the scope of the bill. But I do want to acknowledge as part of the select committee process that we heard a number of those. I'll categorise them in a number of different ways briefly if I may.One is the distinction between so-called scheme 1 and scheme 2 veterans according to whether service was given prior to 1 April 1974 or after that date and therefore the applicability of the ACC regime. There was a difference too between deployments that qualified as operational services as compared with others that looked ostensibly quite similar within the New Zealand Defence Force. And I acknowledge by way of example not exhaustively but the submissions made in relation to HMNZS Blackpool and also by the South East Asian Veterans Associations. You have made very compelling points that have been noted and understood along with others as I say.Other points that were raised before us at the select committee were the deployments that were recognised by allied nations' militaries but not by our own subsequently in relation to veteran definition; also illness injury and other conditions as a result of service that were not incurred as a single incident that could be described as an accident or indeed in a qualifying operational service context. Other distinctions such as that between the Merchant Navy during World War II and the navy proper as it might be regarded but I don't wish to make that distinction in any disrespectful way—and I acknowledge the case of Mr J.S." Juliet Sierra. I haven't been authorised to provide his full name. And so too the case of those who have signed on the dotted line have attested their willingness to serve our country and indeed the fact that they have served the country albeit not necessarily in an operational context. And in that regard I wish to acknowledge Mr "F.L." Foxtrot Lima for 52 years' worth of service in the Royal New Zealand Navy notwithstanding that he does not qualify for veterans' support in the sense that that is available under legislation at the moment. And of course there is the vexed question of medallic recognition. The overall theme of these categories of feedback would be the desire for consistency and a rational treatment of those who have served this country and therefore those whom this country must now serve. I will conclude my remarks at this the second reading by acknowledging again outside of the scope of the bill but as acknowledged in our select committee report that ongoing work is required in this area. The select committee was at pains to highlight in its report that these issues had been raised. And I would also commend to those who are interested in policy in this space that the recent exercise described as mission feedback led by Minister Ron Mark has provided an opportunity for people to contribute to this. And of course ahead of an upcoming election there'll be an opportunity for Kiwis to talk to different political parties about their view of what should be done in that space. Notwithstanding that it's totally appropriate that in this House we adopt a bipartisan approach to the legislation. And on that note and with no further ado I do wish to acknowledge and confirm that the National Party will of course be supporting this legislation."