Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well thank you Madam Speaker. It's my great pleasure actually to speak on the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2). While I won't be on the select committee that considers this bill I was the Minister of Veterans' Affairs when the Veterans' Support Act was passed in 2014. So I do have a very deep understanding of some of the complexities of legislation of this type where we want to make sure we have good black-letter law that supports our veterans.I recall actually in my first reading speech when that bill was introduced in July 2013 looking around this House at the recognition of the many theatres of conflict that are memorials to not only the considerable sacrifice of New Zealanders over 160 170 years but actually the burden of responsibility that this place has in making decisions that send our soldiers and Defence Force personnel into conflict. I was delighted to note that we have added three more insignia to that in the last few years: Afghanistan Timor-Leste and missions in support of peace. And that latter one particularly is both an appropriate recognition but also part of the conundrum that the Minister has—not a conundrum but a challenge—in recognising things that are not traditional conflicts in the older definition of the War Pensions Act. And that to a large degree we have addressed not only through the 2014 Act but the legislation that was recently passed to provide clarification of that although I note that in the Ron Paterson report that has informed this bill that we are giving effect to the question of eligible service was outside the scope of that.I think that is an ongoing body of work that is very important to recognise that so many of our Defence Force personnel are put into situations that can have negative effects on their health not only at that time but for many many years or decades to come not the least of which is the mental health and the post-traumatic stress disorder that we know so much more about—not only when the 2014 bill was passed actually but I think there was a much lesser understanding when I was Minister of how widespread that particular condition is.Now I'm not always in the habit of disagreeing with my colleagues but I am going to in a nuanced way give a slightly different message to that of my colleagues Mr van de Molen and Ms Loheni. Agnes Loheni indicated something of a disappointment that it's taken so long for the recommendations of the Paterson report to come into this House in the form of a bill. I understand that sentiment but I'm a little perhaps more empathetic with the Minister given how long it took to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission report which was started in 2007 under the Clark Labour-led Government. Recommendations came back to the Key Government in 2010 and it wasn't until I think July 2013 that I was able to bring a bill to the House. There were 130-odd recommendations. This is giving effect to a good number of the 62 recommendations of Professor Paterson whom I know well from my time in the health sector—a very very good and sensible fellow—but actually the reason I'm perhaps a little less critical of the time taken by the Minister is because taking a recommendation and building a bill are two quite different things and it is a very very complex process.The other issue is I also understand the shortened report back and have some sympathy for it as Mr van de Molen says but I worry that this is far too short and I will speak more about that when we consider the motion on the report back and indeed I can indicate to the House that I will be tabling an amendment to that motion one that I have raised with both the Minister of Veterans' Affairs and the Leader of the House that I believe is necessary to give the select committee the most time to consider this bill and to still have it passed before the House rises for the 2020 election. But I'll elaborate on that when that motion is raised. I do though want to acknowledge the Minister and Veterans' Affairs and the other people who have been involved in translating what are very sensible recommendations into what I think is a sensible bill. I think it would be naive to think it's perfect in all respects and I worry about a very shortened select committee process with a bill so important but also that can—the devil is definitely in the detail. I will as I say elaborate on that at the appropriate time but I do join colleagues across the House in commending it.