O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Very prescient of you Mr Speaker but pleased that you're right. I'm pleased to take a call on the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill. I'm disappointed that the Minister's not choosing to send it to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—we'd have loved it—but actually respect the work that you're leading on this. I thank the good grace if I might say Minister acknowledging the important work that has been done in the past around the Veterans' Support Act but indeed acknowledging that an error has been made. That's an unfortunate reflection on Parliament but equally these things happen and again in good grace we're looking to move this bill forward. As the Minister and other speakers have noted the error is in effect the ability of a Minister first and foremost to decide what is a deployment or not. It's too narrow. Secondly retrospectivity is effectively not present. My understanding is that Ministers including the current Minister have attempted to look at this particularly previous deployments. So obviously as I said this Act came into force in 2014 and there was an opportunity post-then to look back and to make a series of decisions on deployments. I can imagine the likes of the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands to East Timor and the like deciding what was and what was not an act of service. In doing so advice—from what I can understand—has come forward to say actually well in effect the current Act as it's worded stops retrospectivity but it is also too narrow. Obviously what comes out of that is that members of our defence forces those who have served—and I assume probably in some of the wider areas too outside of the Defence Force—ultimately cannot get recognition in terms of the entitlements that they are entitled to. I'd been interested to know—it'll probably have to come through the select committee—whether it affects medals and recognition as well. It probably doesn't under Veterans' Affairs; the Minister's nodding that it doesn't so that's good to clear that up. So fundamentally two factors at play here: retrospectivity and the scope of what defines a deployment on behalf of a particular person. So obviously this Act very small as it is looks to fix that. It looks to enable the Minister to legally and rightly look back and make changes as necessary. I'd expect if this is supported by the House and the feeling at the moment of course is that it will be—this the side of the House supports it—then it will get to select committee. I don't anticipate—again not my select committee—a lot of issues being raised. From my own engagement with veterans they seem—well they would be relatively happy. I mean fundamentally this is going to provide more entitlements for those who have rightly served the Realm. Again I think it's unfortunate that we've ended up with this situation. These things are not ideal but I think it behoves the House to act appropriately. So on the last point that I'd make I think the Minister has indicated at the start of his speech that this will be a sped-up or a truncated process. I have certainly railed Ministers in the House many a time against that; in fact I've railed in this House against retrospective legislation. But as all great philosophers know—and I'm certainly not one of them so I'm going to be taking from others—the exception sometimes can prove the rule and I think this is one of the occasions that if there is accord across the House on the nature of what's being done which is very clear very transparent and thirdly in the service of those who serve the Realm then that is a positive step forward. So I'll leave it there as a courtesy for the next person who wishes to get ready to make a stand but Minister thank you. We look forward to progressing it through the House.