Sabin Mike: Veterans’ Support Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Veterans’ Support Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19309. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):The member Catherine Delahunty is a little perplexed I feel. I just want to acknowledge a few members on the Social Services Committee—in particular the Hon Phil Goff. I do not throw too many bouquets across the other side of the Chamber but on this occasion I will because I think that right throughout Mr Goff has articulated a very very strong argument and an argument that holds a lot of weight.I think that the committee actually tangled with a number of issues because of what we are dealing with here in the Veterans’ Support Bill. I mean although we are talking about millions of dollars veterans pensions and what have you the point is quite clear that no one can put a dollar figure on what our veterans contribute to the country in the sacrifices that they make personally with their families with their communities and so forth. This is not just about the Great War but it is also about the peacekeeping roles of the modern soldiers sailors and airmen—am I supposed to use some sort of generic gender format there? I am not sure. I am looking across at Major Rebecca Thornley for guidance but she is not helping me out at this stage so I will stumble on. I do not think that there is a dollar value that can be put on that and I think that everyone across Parliament when dealing with this in the select committee actually acknowledged that.I guess that where I differ from Mr Goff is in terms of the idea of zeroing out essentially the disability component of it. [Interruption] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am trying to have a pretty valid discussion here and the Green members were just—it seems that they have now calmed down so I will carry on.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I was just discussing an issue pertinent to the bill with the Minister and my attention was diverted. If there is an issue the member should raise a point of order and then we will deal with it but let us proceed.MIKE SABIN: Indeed Mr Chair. Thank you very much. So the issue where I guess I differ from Mr Goff is in terms of the disability component. The 70 percent requirement became 52 percent which is essentially parity between the old system and the new system. What that requirement essentially acknowledges is that where someone has a degree of disability—and it comes in many and varied shapes and forms and it is quite a complex equation in terms of measuring that—that disability will be recognised on death with a lump-sum payment.The issue that I have with saying: “Right well it is only a few million dollars. Why trifle with this? Shouldn’t we zero that out and have everyone get that lump-sum payment?” is that for so long many have been in the position where they were not eligible for that and they did not get that. It should not be just a matter of timing that means that that should change. Perhaps that discussion should have been had some time ago—a long time ago—and then it could probably hold a little more water. So to me it is not really about the value but it is also about actually recognising those who were recognised as veterans under the scheme as it previously was as much as it is about recognising those who will be subject to this bill.My father is a former naval man—a sailor—and so is my uncle. He joined the navy as a seaman as a boy I think and that is actually how I came to be because my father ended up marrying my uncle Lou—that is where my mother came into the equation and here I am. Here I am.Hon Simon Bridges: Your father married your uncle?MIKE SABIN: Yes—no. So—Hon Simon Bridges: What! You can’t have a baby like that.MIKE SABIN: Ha ha! My uncle—Hon Members: It’s a miracle.MIKE SABIN: It is a miracle I know—I am. I am often puzzled myself how I came to be but my uncle’s sister is my mother indeed. So many a story has been told—David Shearer: This is one of those Northland stories I know.MIKE SABIN: Oh hold on—hold on. Let me draw it back. I also joined the navy and that is where it got really confusing. I am not sure who I married at that time. [Bell rung] Mr Chair I have got to keep going with this.So I also joined the navy and spent a couple of very passionate years in the navy. I was passionate about service to the country and the role that all servicemen and women play in what is quite a different arena from what it was—certainly from what it was when we look back on the great wars and on some of the major sacrifices and challenges that were faced by our servicemen and women at that stage. What it gave me was a great appreciation I guess of the meaning of military service and I think that David Shearer has certainly pointed that out. Although he takes issue with it no one goes to war or joins a military service thinking about what will be at the end of that if they do end up in a confrontation and if they do end up serving their country in that manner.It is fair to say that from my experience as an active serviceman and from having talked to many veterans since none of the passion that they hold and the sincerity that they have about serving their country is really reflected in any way in a dollar value. What they do want to have reflected is the importance of their role in serving and upholding what they believe is important to their family their country their nation and the world that they live in.I do not think it is possible to actually land in a place that would actively reflect that and actually in many senses I do not believe that veterans expect that but the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 480 essentially enables all veterans’ service to be recognised at the age of 65 so that all veterans and their spouses would receive the veterans pension at that time. By maintaining what was the status quo in terms of the equation of disability it means that what was under the previous legislation essentially migrates through into the new legislation. I think that is fair on both the modern-day veteran and also those who have passed. I think it is important to understand as I have mentioned that it should not just be the case that because there are only a few veterans or we are talking about a reduction in that overall disability cost the disability equation should be zeroed out. That is my view but I do accept that the Hon Phil Goff raises good arguments as to why that should not be the case. I think that the fact of the matter is that it is hard to put a dollar value on that.Lastly I just want to acknowledge Major Rebecca Thornley and the other officials advising the committee. They provided the committee with very very sound advice and guidance on what is for a number of us a very sensitive issue on a whole lot of levels. There is no one in this House who does not take this matter of getting the balance right very very seriously. So I just want to commend the work of the officials and members across Parliament on this. Although we do not agree on everything—and I guess that is the nature of politics to some extent—I personally think that the bill is landing in a pretty good place and it does recognise and reflect the significant investment in our veterans community. It is a dollar value investment in some senses but the important thing is that this Parliament recognises the service that veterans give well beyond that. Lest we forget that members in this Chamber are surrounded by memorials that reflect exactly that service. So I will leave it there before I get myself too much more complicated. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.