Goff Phil: Veterans’ Support Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Veterans’ Support Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19303. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I rise to speak in support of Part 2. It is a relatively small part but it is nevertheless reasonably important. It talks about the obligations that are placed on VANZ—that is Veterans Affairs New Zealand—and the rights that it accords to the veterans. I think it is important that we codify the rights that veterans are entitled to and that we do place those obligations on the department.Often old people generally but in particular vets feel that because of their age they do not count for anything they are not listened to and they are not treated with respect. Some of that is perhaps a little unfair on Veterans Affairs but it is certainly a feeling that the veterans themselves have.In Part 2 we set out a code of veterans’ and other claimants’ rights. It specifies what Veterans Affairs should do. That refers back actually to clause 14A of the bill. Veterans Affairs has such responsibilities imposed on it as having to “perform its functions and exercise its powers on reasonable grounds and in a timely manner”. The difficulty with any sort of code like that is that it is relatively subjective in how it is set out but it does at least give those who are trying to exercise their rights something to refer to. It requires under clause 14B that Veterans Affairs keeps veterans up to date on the progress of their claim and gives notice of its decision. Again that would seem a relatively straightforward and proper thing for it to do. Also under clause 14C Veterans Affairs must tell the claimants about their review rights—that they have the right to apply for a review of any of the decisions made by Veterans Affairs on the claim—and it must do so at a time appropriate to enable the claimant to exercise their rights. They are relatively straightforward but nevertheless important rights that are set out in the legislation.Part 2 also requires under clause 26 that the person who drafts the code of rights is the Chief of Defence Force and he must do that—or theoretically she must do that—as soon as is practicable after the provision comes into force. The Chief of Defence Force has to consult with a group that is established by the Minister of Defence. This clause sets out that that group must include the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association and other groups representing veterans and claimants. I think it is important that the veterans themselves are involved in this process of drawing up the code of rights. It means that the people who are affected by this legislation and by the code do have an input into it.The final decision rests with the Minister under clause 27 and the Minister must decide whether or not to approve that particular code. Presumably the Minister can send it back to the Chief of Defence Force if he feels that the code is not sufficiently full or comprehensive enough to cover the areas that need that coverage. The Minister must then after he has approved the code present the code to this House within 12 sitting days of Parliament to ensure that the House sees what is in the code and the Minister must arrange for the approval of the code to be notified in the newspapers. That is pretty much that clause.There is not a lot that is controversial about Part 2. As I said before the Labour Opposition is fully supportive of the main areas of this bill which are designed to promote the interests and to respect the interests of the veterans and the service that they have provided to this country.