Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to begin really my contribution to the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill by just I guess commenting on the fact that colleagues from both sides of the House today have given such heartfelt and poignant speeches about both the amendment but also—[Interruption] DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we just have—sitting please? Thank you. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —about the broader contributions that our servicemen and women make to New Zealand and indeed contributions around the world. I just want to say that I unfortunately haven't had the privilege of growing up in a family where my parents have served but I have met many current servicemen and women who are deployed overseas and working here in New Zealand as well. I guess over the course of various select committee meetings where we've considered different bills and had former veterans come in to tell us about their experiences it's evident the amount of trauma that many have gone through and the support that many require when they come back from having served both injuries that are physical but also injuries that are long-lasting and cannot be seen—the PTSD that the Hon Alfred Ngaro spoke about earlier in his speech as well. So I too as speakers before me have done want to thank them for their service to our nation. I also want to thank the officials who went through quite a few different scenarios that were brought up at select committee. Maureen Pugh has mentioned in her speech a point that she brought up which was really good and it was around additional people I guess—so journalists for example who've been on deployments and whether they would come into the ambit of this bill as well. They were very patient in the way they took us through the changes that were made the submissions that were made to the select committee as well and explained why there were no recommendations for amendments. I'll get to that in a minute but just getting back to the bill which is a technical bill—it aims to correct a drafting error in section 9 of the Veterans' Support Act 2014. I say it's a technical bill but it's actually also quite an emotional one as we've canvassed previously. Now there was a flaw that was identified relating to that particular section of the Veterans' Support Act 2014. Section 9 which is the section that we are considering today in terms of the amendment empowers the Minister of Defence to declare deployments of New Zealand Defence Force personnel that meet certain specified criteria to be qualifying operational service. The reason that's important is because for veterans who have come back and who have been injured or become ill as a result of their service they're only eligible for support if they've come from qualifying operational service and so that's why that tweak is really important. The previous Act that the 2014 Veterans' Support Act replaced—that was the War Pensions Act from 1954—was quite limited in the deployments that could be considered qualifying operational service as far as I understand. But the 2014 new Act broadened that criteria and it included quite a few different types of deployments. Now we were told at select committee by officials that if this change wasn't made—so that's the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill the change to section 9—it could mean that previous—and I think the Minister mentioned there were 14 retrospective declarations that were made that cover multiple missions various geographical areas and that the declarations there affect about 675 veterans. Now officials at select committee did tell us that if this particular amendment doesn't pass that could mean legal challenges to the support that those veterans received and none of us I believe—I don't believe any of us in this House want to see that happen. That's why there is urgency when it comes to passing this bill. It's to ensure that we give some certainty to veterans who've already received the support that they are entitled to. It was the policy intent of the Veterans' Support Act 2014 for those veterans to receive the support that they have the entitlements that they have but it's just because of a drafting error that that could actually come into legal challenge. So that's why there's a huge amount of camaraderie in a sense across the House in recognition of the service that our veterans have provided. I just want to thank the Minister Ron Mark at this point as well for laying out in his speech the process that was undertaken to get to that point of agreement across the House. I think it was very beautifully laid out and it's actually really important because those who may be watching through Parliament TV generally get to see only the most adversarial parts of the House and I think it's incredibly important that people realise that actually there's a lot of working together across the House to finesse bills and make sure that legislation that this House passes that has such an impact on people's lives is the best piece of legislation that can be passed. So I thank you Minister. I thank the Minister for his contribution and for the clarity with which he laid that out as well and also of course all members the Minister former Ministers and members across the House who worked collegially to get to this point as well. I just want to touch in the time that I have remaining on one of the recommendations that came out of a submission that we spent a fair bit of time on at the select committee to discuss. So out of the four submissions that were received on this bill three expressed outright support for it. There was one submission that brought up an issue and wanted the bill to be extended to allow Ministers to declare any service that took place before 1974 as qualifying operational service. Now that was considered. Officials went away came back with advice and clarified for members that actually there's nothing in the bill or the amendment as it stands—or actually in fact the Veterans' Support Act 2014—that restricts a defence Minister's ability to retrospectively declare deployments that took place before 1974. So while that was a really good submission we did get clarity that there's nothing to preclude that from already happening and therefore there was no change needed based on that submission. Can I also take this opportunity to thank those who submitted. It is always heartening to see I guess the democratic process being followed or being taken up as people submit to bills that they have a passion for and that was no different in this case as well. So I think the point has been made that this is a tweak this is a drafting error. While it is quite technical and it's quite small in a sense it is significant because it has bearing on the lives of already 675 veterans and their families but also many more potentially if this change was not to be made. So I just want to say that this is an excellent bill. I commend everyone who's played a part in getting us to this point today and commend this bill to the House.