Veterans’ Support Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVeterans’ Support Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19296. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Veterans’ Support BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 29 May.Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I want to pick up the theme of what I was saying about the Veterans’ Support Bill and the fact that although Labour is strongly supporting this bill very clearly the omission from this bill of recommendations made by the Law Commission and supported by the Returned and Services’ Association weaken the bill are penny-pinching and do no credit at all to this Government in honouring the service of our veterans.Yesterday I attended the funeral of one of my constituents. She was 99½ years old. She was due to turn 100 in January of next year. Her name was Audrey Stevens. A few years back I had attended the funeral of her husband Ivan. Audrey and Ivan were married in 1940. Three weeks after they were married he sailed for Europe with the 24th Battalion and he was not to return again for more than 5 years. Ivan like my father-in-law was captured in Crete.Audrey received a telegram. It said that Ivan was missing in action presumed killed. She had the appalling trauma of thinking that her husband whom she had just married had been killed and then later she was informed that he was a prisoner of war. Ivan never talked about his experiences as a prisoner of war as was the case with so many of those people including my father-in-law who were captured and held by the Germans for many many years. They simply did not want to talk about it. It was deeply traumatising.When Ivan came back from Europe he and Audrey were effectively strangers. Imagine marrying somebody and not seeing them for 5 years. It was not just the length of time that he was away; it was the trauma that he had endured and in those days there was no counselling for our vets—no counselling at all. For the rest of his life Ivan suffered from the conditions that he had endured at war and as a prisoner.Is there anything that can persuade this Government that it is now time to be generous with our veterans rather than penny-pinching over whether or not there might be a lump-sum payment available to those veterans on their death? The Minister of Veterans’ Affairs said to me in an earlier reading in the House that it is no good having the lump-sum payment because that would be for the benefit of the families and not the veterans. I want Minister Woodhouse to contemplate what Audrey had to endure all of those years because of the service that her husband had given this country at war.The inscription on the wall over there right in front of me—Crete—is what it was about. That family suffered. That family sacrificed so much and all I am asking of this Minister is that he honours the recommendation of the Law Commission which was set up independently to advise first the Labour Government that introduced this process and then the National Government. The Law Commission said to give these veterans every one of them a veterans pension and make it on the same terms as for those who are currently eligible for the veterans pension.The Minister has been persuaded that his first position was unsustainable—that the veterans pension went to those with 52 percent disability. Why 52 percent? That is absolutely arbitrary. There is no justification for it. He has given the community services card. He has said that the pension would not be suspended if a person is in hospital but he has penny-pinched by saying there will be no lump-sum payment on death. I asked the Minister this question in the estimates debate: what would it cost? Do you know what it would cost? It would cost $7.5 million this year dropping by about $1 million every 2 years. Is that too much to ask for?This Government spends countless billions of dollars every year and we are asking for a tiny amount of money in line with what the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association has asked for and what the Law Commission recommended. Why will this Government not honour the vets in the way that we are asking?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):This Veterans’ Support Bill is a bill that has been long in its gestation. Its genesis goes back to—and Phil Goff will be able to help me with this—about 2006 I think.Hon Phil Goff: 2006 under the Labour Government.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It was 2006 and as Phil Goff points out under the Labour Government. That is true. Rick Barker who was the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs at the time asked the Law Commission to carry out a comprehensive review of the War Pensions Act which of course came into being as far back as 1954. That review of the original legislation was a very long time coming. Then the review itself took a long period of time and that was appropriate because there were a lot of opinions that needed to be canvassed there were a lot of people who needed to be spoken to and there was a huge range of issues that needed to be dealt with. The Law Commission eventually came back to Parliament after the current Government had been elected with a comprehensive report and then the Government sat on that report for a very very long time indeed. Frankly veterans and their families started to despair that progress would ever be made on this legislation.We went through the whole term of the last Parliament without any progress being made and here we are right at the end of this Government’s final term—the second term of Parliament under this Government—and we are only just now at the point where this legislation has been progressed far enough that it may well indeed be passed finally into law just in the very last breaths of this second term. It is over 8 years on from when the original instruction was given by the then Minister of Veterans’ Affairs the Hon Rick Barker to embark on this process. We knew it was one that was always going to take a long time because there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with but it simply did not need to take this long to get to this point.The question that is at the front of our minds over on this side of the Chamber in this part Part 1 is the question around the veterans pension. Through Phil Goff’s advocacy I am really pleased to see that the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Michael Woodhouse eventually saw reason and saw fit to propose the changes to the legislation—or most of them—that Phil Goff was proposing around a universal application of the veterans pension. This is something that does not cost Governments a large amount of money. It is unusual in that as time goes on the cost to the Government actually decreases. Usually when you introduce a new entitlement or a new policy the costs actually tend to go up over time. The costs for this policy actually reduce over time.It is a small way of recognising the contribution that our veterans have made around the world to our safety our security our peace and our place—not just that of the veterans themselves but their families as well. As Phil Goff rightly pointed out the impact of serving overseas particularly on those veterans who served in full-scale combat in a full-scale war that a generation ago took people away from their family for years—not just for 6 months at a time in a rotation but for years and years and years—is a significant contribution to our nation that has been made by the veterans themselves and their families.It was a shock really that it took as much advocacy from the Opposition spokesperson as was required to get the Government to see fit to apply the veterans pension universally to all veterans. What the Minister has not seen fit to do yet is allow a lump-sum payment to be handed out as well. That is the final component of this issue that Labour would like to see put in place. We implore the Government to take that last step. It has come a way—I was going to say a long way but it was never a long way to get from where it was to what Labour has been proposing. It was never a long way. The Government has taken most of the steps required. It just needs to take one final step so that we as a nation can properly acknowledge the contribution of veterans and their families to ensuring that we have security and safety here in our country and that we are contributing to peace and security around the world. New Zealand has for a long time had a very good reputation as a keeper of peace and as a pursuer of peace both in a diplomatic fashion and where necessary by deploying our military.Until recent times we of course had our forces serving overseas in three different locations on multiple rotations and that is something that is well acknowledged by the international community. We should justifiably be proud of that and we should be proud of our veterans who carry those tasks out on our behalf. It is not a huge ask for us as a nation to recognise those efforts through the changes that are being made throughout this legislation particularly in Part 1—in particular around providing a veterans pension and for lump-sum payments that certainly in some cases may be of direct benefit to the families rather than to the veterans themselves. But as Phil Goff has outlined plenty of military families have made a significant sacrifice themselves as well as the person who was actually in uniform and serving offshore on behalf of the nation.There are a number of parts to this legislation and there are a number of aspects that we on this side of the Chamber do want to consider. We believe that given the long gestation of this legislation and the comprehensive nature of it it does deserve a comprehensive consideration here at the Committee stage of this legislation. So I look forward to future contributions.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):I have spoken on the Veterans’ Support Bill before and I firstly just want to compliment Phil Goff on the work he has done on this because he has progressed it from a point where we had very limited benefits for servicemen who had served our country abroad. Through his lobbying and intensive action on this bill he has made some real differences and that will bring about some real differences for many of our veterans. As we all know we ask our service people to go off and serve our country and to put themselves in harm’s way. We respect them for doing that and we honour them for doing that but that honour is not just in the form of medals and parades etc. It is also about the way we treat people in terms of the abilities and the type of support we can get in behind them in terms of financial support and recognition. This is what this bill is really all about. It is about making sure that the proper recognition is given to our service people for the work and the service that they have undertaken for us.It was in 2006 when Rick Barker first looked at putting forward this bill. It was about 8 years ago. It has taken a long time for this to come to the fore. We would like to see it out of the way under this Parliament. We certainly support the bill but we are asking for more modifications. In some of our initial Supplementary Order Papers that were put forward we asked the Government to change the 52 percent disability impairment that was in place. That really was about the ludicrous way in which people had to prove that somehow they were 52 percent impaired. I mean why 52 percent as opposed to 51 percent or 55 percent? I do not know but it was a ludicrous situation that they were in. That was changed and I thank the Government for coming to its senses and accepting that. One of the other things that it has accepted is allowing veterans to have automatic entitlement to a community services card. Once again it is a small issue perhaps for many of the people who are looking at this bill but it is a very big issue for those service people and it acknowledges the effort and the contribution they have made to New Zealand. The bill also enables the continued payment of a pension while the service person is in hospital for more than 13 weeks. Again there was recognition and a change occurred.These are all changes that happened to the 1954 Act which had not been looked at really since 1954 and which the Hon Rick Barker decided in 2006 was well overdue for attention. He went about that change in a responsible way. He got the Law Commission in and asked it in 2008 to make a full inquiry and investigation into what was there and in place and that is what the Law Commission did. It came back in 2010. Well here we are in 2014 4 years after the Law Commission put forward its very learned and very sensible recommendations. They were not radical; they were simply bringing us up to date. Four years on from there we are still debating this as part of this piece of legislation.So our Supplementary Order Papers asked for those changes in line with what the Law Commission had recommended. The one thing that was not agreed to by this Government was the lump-sum payment on death. For some curious reason the Government believed that that was not going to go to the benefit of the service person and therefore we should not have that paid as part of that person’s entitlement. But as Phil Goff just mentioned in his remarks before it was not just one person who in many ways did the service did the time for New Zealand; it was also their loved ones. It was their wives or it was their husbands who had been at home looking after kids trying to make do without one of those parents. It was for the mothers and fathers and the sons and daughters who would have missed out as a result of that person serving our country. It seems to me that this is an incredibly small contribution that we can make to these people and to those people who had been left behind who also made a sacrifice on behalf of New Zealand.The cost is infinitesimally small when we look at it in the bigger picture—that is it will cost about $11 million according to Veterans Affairs New Zealand for the 2014-15 year and it will fall steadily until it gets to about $8.4 million. That is not a lot of money. Unfortunately some of those veterans are in the last years of their lives—they are old now—which means that the number of those veterans who are around will fall and therefore the cost will fall. At some point in the future—20 or 30 years’ time from now—some of our people who have been serving in Timor-Leste Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands will become eligible for that lump-sum payment but that will be some time well down the track. But what it does do is acknowledge fully as per the recommendations of the Law Commission the service of our people and their families—and I stress “and their families” because their families have suffered as well. It recognises that they have made that sacrifice and can be properly acknowledged and compensated for it. It means that a widow whose husband has died is able to meet the costs of a decent funeral and it will enable her to transition and make her life a bit more comfortable as a result of receiving that lump-sum payment.These are not big things; they are just simply what we should do as a decent and fair nation in terms of acknowledging and getting behind and supporting those people who go out and choose to serve our country. They do that put themselves in harm’s way come back possibly wounded or scarred psychologically and have to pick up the pieces and move on with their lives. Those are the costs that we are asking them and their families to bear. All we are saying is that perhaps those families deserve some recognition of their costs and we should get in behind them. Thank you very much.MOANA MACKEY (Labour):I am very pleased to be able to stand and take a call in support of the Veterans’ Support Bill and the amendment being put forward by my colleague the Hon Phil Goff. This may seem like a small piece of legislation but it is in fact a very important piece of legislation.On a personal level I am very proud of the military involvement and contribution of members of my own family. My grandfather from Ruatōria served in the navy in World War II in the Pacific. He was mentioned in dispatches for managing to dispose of a grenade that landed on board. He used to like telling the story. My nana used to say that the real version probably involved a hell of a lot more panic and swearing than the version we were told. But I am very proud of my papa’s involvement in the navy in the Pacific.On the other side of my family my grandfather served in the army in Italy. He was actually photographed when he was marching out in Auckland to leave for Italy. What he did not know was that his photo was used as the recruitment poster for World War II in New Zealand which was very ironic given that he was a committed pacifist. When he got home he was quite shocked to learn that his photograph had been used. But he served time in an Italian prisoner of war camp over there and that had an impact on him on his return. Even though he died when I was 6 years old—so I was very young—I know that there was a great impact on my family and on my grandparents from having their men leave and serve overseas.My grandmother actually served with the Wrens up in Auckland. She was mapping all the different shipping movements in the Pacific. On an even more personal level my great-grandfather was a medic at Gallipoli. I was incredibly fortunate to be part of a Speaker’s delegation that involved Gallipoli on Anzac Day. To stand at Chunuk Bair and to look at the trenches and to see what my great-grandfather saw when he came ashore at Gallipoli and the huge challenge that lay before them was deeply moving. I felt incredibly privileged as his great-granddaughter to be able to stand there honouring and commemorating his commitment and the commitment of his colleagues to our country on what was a tragic day but a day that forged a nation. So I come from a family that has had a long contribution to the military in New Zealand of which I am deeply proud.I also want to pay tribute to another great chief from the Eastern Bay of Plenty. On 17 April Doug Belsham passed away. Doug Belsham will be known to a number of my colleagues for being a very passionate letter writer and someone who would come along to any event we were holding and talk to my colleagues about many of the issues facing veterans in New Zealand. He was the Eastern Bay RSA welfare officer for many many years. I think it would be a conservative estimate to say that he helped many hundreds and hundreds of people. Although he was based in Whakatāne he actually supported veterans ex-service people and their families right throughout New Zealand and even some who were living in Australia.What always struck me about Doug in our many many long conversations was his incredible grasp of the detail of policy and legislation relating to veterans and to ex - service people his unmoveable commitment to ensuring that access to entitlements and assistance was not eroded and his phenomenal memory which allowed him to recall details of pension claims going back more than 20 years. He was a renowned historian of military and political matters and he is greatly missed.I was actually in touch with Doug in the months before his passing regarding the Veterans’ Support Bill which we are debating today. This is a bill that came out of a Law Commission review but the Government has unfortunately ignored a key recommendation of that review as well as many of the submissions of veterans and the New Zealand RSA. That Law Commission review as my colleagues have said was set up by the last Labour Government. It recommended that all war veterans put in harm’s way in an overseas deployment should be eligible for a veterans pension. The pension is in place of rather than on top of New Zealand superannuation and it confers some small but important benefits on our veterans such as a lump-sum payment on death a community services card and the continuation of the pension if hospitalised.Most returned service personnel who want to go on to the veterans pension do not do so because of the benefits but because they see it as their country honouring their service. However our veterans are eligible for this pension only if they are considered significantly disabled or more specifically have 52 percent or higher impairment. For many years veterans have been asking that this requirement be dropped. This was a position that was endorsed by the New Zealand RSA. Unfortunately this recommendation has been ignored. The Government has said that the recommendation shall not progress “at this point in time”. Well that is all very well and good but time is not on the side of World War II Korean Malayan and Viet Nam veterans. Time is not on their side. As the years pass their numbers are rapidly declining. The decision not to support this recommendation fails to answer the fundamental question of why it should be necessary to be significantly disabled to qualify for a veterans pension.This year we commemorate the centenary of the start of World War I. There will be many sincere expressions of gratitude for the service of our veterans. Surely we can do more to acknowledge the centenary and our veterans in a tangible way by extending their eligibility for a veterans pension. That is why Labour is moving an amendment in the Committee stage to remove the disability requirement. We are hopeful that the National Government will see the enormous symbolism in this small gesture reverse its position and support the change. The cost of doing so is small—$11 million this year declining to $8 million in 3 years’ time. The message it would send however is not small. It is an incredibly important one.Labour has said we will adopt the Law Commission’s recommendation to ensure all war veterans are eligible for a veterans pension. The RSA National President Don McIver says that it would be “a real indication that the proud and dedicated service of our veterans potentially with their lives having been put in harm’s way is recognised as warranting special acknowledgement beyond that provided to New Zealand citizens generally by way of superannuation”. A Labour Government would do the right thing for our veterans.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):As we have said before on the Veterans’ Support Bill this bill is strongly supported by Labour. Why would Labour not support this when back in 2007 I worked very hard with the then Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Rick Barker to introduce a scheme that would update and modernise the War Pensions Act 1954? That was part of a process of negotiation that I had as Minister of Defence along with Rick Barker as Minister of Veterans’ Affairs with the then president of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association John Campbell and the chair of the Ex-Vietnam Services Association Chris Mullane. What we did at that time was work out a process that was designed to achieve the best possible replacement of the 1954 Act. That replacement we thought would be best worked through after an extensive period of consultation by a group that was outside the political process. We gave that task to the Law Commission. The Law Commission did do its work incredibly thoroughly and I would have thought that there was no room for political debate around this—that what we would do is put in place the critical recommendations of the Law Commission.Part of the objective of this legislation was to be more generous to our war veterans. But for reasons that this Government has still not explained adequately it decided to cut costs by cutting benefits to the veterans. First of all the Minister said that he was not going to allow all veterans who had served on overseas deployments in operational areas to get the veterans pension. You would get that only if you were 52 percent disabled and try as I did in the Social Services Committee to find whether there was any rationale behind why a person had to be 52 percent disabled to get a veterans pension no explanation was forthcoming. The officials had worked hard on this legislation. They could not give an explanation. The National members of the Social Services Committee sitting over there could not give an explanation either. I brought in Supplementary Order Paper 441 which would have changed that. The Minister backed down at that point because he knew his position was absolutely unsupportable and he agreed that the veterans pension would apply to all of those who had operational service.Along with that there are these small benefits. You get the community services card automatically and you keep your pension if you are hospitalised for more than 13 weeks. But in an extraordinary display of penny-pinching the Minister said: “But we are not going to give those veterans a lump-sum payment on death to cover the funeral costs”—it is a small amount at $5700—“unless they are still 52 percent disabled.” I asked the Minister why. Outside of this Chamber I sought to get agreement from the Minister. First of all he said that this would just help the families. Unapologetically I say that the families of the veterans deserve that support and every veteran would say that. The veterans are not naive about that. Then the Minister said that the cost was too great. I asked the question in the select committee on the estimates and the cost is $7.3 million in the first year dropping by $1 million every 2 years.This Government in the foreign affairs estimates is going to spend $13 million on a conference next month in Samoa—$13 million—but somehow we cannot afford to give $7 million to honour the veterans who put their lives at risk who sacrificed for their country who worked for their country. We cannot afford it. We can give Rio Tinto $30 million to keep Bluff going for another year or two but we cannot give our veterans $7.3 million. That excuse simply does not wash. I asked the Minister what was happening with veterans’ affairs expenditure. You know it is down $23 million over the last 5 years. It has been cut by $23 million. Over the next 4 years it will be cut by another $22 million. The money is there now so let some person just one person on the National benches stand up and explain why we are rejecting what the veterans ask for why we are rejecting what the RSA asks for and why we are rejecting what the Law Commission recommended.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 441 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question that the amendments be agreed to.Hon Phil Goff: Are you sure the Māori Party are opposed? They said they were going to support it.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member has been around a while and he knows that that is entirely out of order. The members casting votes know the consequences of misleading the House. No member should interrupt a vote for any purpose.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was trying to be helpful to the whip—just to check out that he had read his instructions right—because my understanding from the Māori Party was that it would be supporting the amendments. I would rather sort it out now than have the whip come back and explain to the House afterwards that he got it wrong.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There is a process and it is not to interject and the member is admonished for that.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National):I am reading from what I believe to be the instructions but I hear the point that the member is making. Maybe there is an opportunity just for me to double-check that but it is my understanding that I am recording the vote correctly and I seek—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me just now score what the process is. The member who is casting the vote should do so on the instruction he has. If he gets an instruction that he has voted in error of what the intention was it is the course of this House by leave to correct the vote. That is the way it works. So we will now ask the Clerk to continue. He should call the last vote again.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 452 in the name of Andrew Williams to Part 1 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Code of Veterans’ and Other Claimants’ RightsHon 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.MELISSA LEE (National):E te Heamana tēnā koe. Koutou ngā rangatira o te Whare nei tēnā koutou i runga i te reo karanga e whakanui ana i Te Reo Māori. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou kia ora anō tātou katoa.[Greetings to you Mr Chairman and to you collectively esteemed ones of this House upon the call to celebrate the Māori language. So acknowledgments salutations and greetings once again to all of us.]Hopefully my pronunciation is actually OK to celebrate Te Reo language week. This is my first opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Veterans’ Support Bill. I would like to start by sending my condolences to the Vinten family. Des Vinten is the president of the New Zealand Korea Veterans Association. His wife Helen has passed away and today was her funeral. I was lucky enough to be part of the family and friends who were in Lower Hutt today for her funeral. I send the family my love and my sincere condolences.I think everybody knows that I hold the Korean veterans very dear to my heart. Being the only Korean-born member of Parliament I have always said that I owe my life to the veterans because who knows what would have actually happened if the Korean War did not end the way it did? For 3 years Korea was devastated with the bloodiest war. Korean veterans the K-force answered the call of the United Nations to assist the Korean Peninsula. The South Koreans are for ever grateful. I do not know how the North Koreans actually feel about the Korean veterans—I have not talked to one of them—but the South Koreans are definitely grateful for their service their very long service.It is winter and I forgot to wear socks today. I am wearing high heels. My feet were freezing when I went to the church service. It reminded me of the talk at the veterans association. They talked about the nasty winter they went to fight in. Their boots split open. New Zealand’s winter is nowhere near as cold as the one that they faced in Korea. They fought for my former nation. I take this opportunity to say thank you to all Korean veterans—the New Zealand Korea Veterans Association; the K-force veterans—who served there.This bill will make sure that we can better meet the needs of the older veterans who require assistance to stay in their own homes and also meet the needs of veterans on modern-day deployment who need rehabilitation and assistance to return to work. Earlier Mr Phil Goff talked about this bill not providing the veterans pension to all of those servicemen. I would like to just correct him. Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs means that all of the veterans do get the veterans pension. The only difference is the lump-sum payment. It still requires the attachment of the disablement criteria which now sits at 52 percent.The Veterans’ Support Bill still contains many of the provisions in the current Act. The service eligibility criteria remains the same and all the veterans currently covered under the 1954 Act will have coverage under the new law. Health care treatments for accepted conditions will continue to be funded no veteran will have their entitlements reduced and thousands will actually benefit from increased care and support. To me that is a good thing.This National-led Government is committed to honouring the servicemen and women the service that veterans have given to our country and the people who have actually served in overseas deployments. We owe them a great debt. Service in defence of our nation for freedom and democracy around the world needs appropriate recognition in legislation. The Veterans’ Support Bill delivers on our election promise. This Government has committed $60 million for a package to support this new legislation. Part of this package saw the war disablement pension and the surviving spouse pension increase by 5 percent last year on top of inflation. We are supporting an amendment to the bill that will extend eligibility for the veterans pension to all veterans over the age of 65.I think it was my learned colleague to my right Mike Sabin who said in an earlier speech in this debate—I think it was the first reading—that our veterans our servicemen and women do not go to war or deployment overseas thinking that they are going to come back and get a lump sum. They actually do go into service for their country because they feel that it is the right thing to do. They are duty-bound—honour-bound. I was reading one of the books about the Korean War and I read something that some of those men wrote. They went there on an adventure. They did not go to war because they felt that they were going to get a bigger pay at the end of it; they went for adventure. They felt that they were joining their friends in comradery in overseas nations that required their service. Korea was one of them. There are plenty of examples of their service displayed on our walls. New Zealanders have gone to many many wars and they have served our people and the people overseas. Their service is recognised in this bill.This bill will increase the number of New Zealanders eligible for the veterans pension by nearly 17000—from 8600 currently to more than 25000. That is 19900 veterans and about 5000 spouses. Importantly it also means that thousands more veterans will benefit from any future changes provided to those on a veterans pension. We understand the importance to veterans of the recognition of their service and that being paid a veterans pension gives them the distinction from others who did not actually serve—namely New Zealand superannuation. The lump-sum payment on death will continue to be paid to all of those servicemen and women who meet the current threshold as is provided for in the bill as drafted.The legislation provides for two schemes of entitlement. Scheme one starts on 1 October this year and applies to all veterans with service from the Second World War through to the Viet Nam War. Scheme two starts on 1 October 2015 and applies to personnel with service post - 1 April 1974 when ACC was introduced. It will be closely aligned with ACC entitlements as recommended by the Law Commission.The Government is committed to improving veterans support and this is reflected in the bill as reported back by our Social Services Committee. Submissions questioned the 55 percent threshold and whether that was in fact appropriate and I know that Mr Goff talked about that in terms of the appropriate level of whole-person impairment. I personally had difficulty trying to gather the way that Veterans Affairs New Zealand calculated the level of disablement as well because when the total was calculated it ended up becoming more than 100 percent.So the way we have done it now in terms of the percentage is that it goes up to 100 percent and they now have to be 52 percent disabled to be entitled to the lump-sum payment—the extra payment apart from the veterans pension. This is much clearer than it was previously when disablements were lumped together added together and often ended up becoming more than 100 percent. I do not know if anybody is 100 percent disabled—I would have thought that meant you are actually not alive. The select committee established that 52 percent whole-person impairment was the most equivalent threshold and in order not to disadvantage veterans the threshold will be moved from 55 percent to 52 percent. To further ensure that no veterans are disadvantaged by this provision the bill has been amended to provide that a veteran or other claimant who currently meets the threshold for entitlement under the 1954 Act will continue to do so if they claim under this bill.We have put a lot of work into this bill. I see that the advisers are here. They have helped us through the long process that the select committee went through. We have had many submissions from our veteran community as well and we have had discussions with the Opposition. We are very happy to have arrived at where we are. It would be a fantastic thing if we could provide more money for our veterans. It would be a fantastic thing if we could provide all the support that we possibly could. We have to be fair and we have to be fiscally balanced but we have to be supportive of our veterans.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Veterans’ Support Bill. I just want to read clause 25: “The purpose of the Code is to meet the reasonable expectations of veterans and claimants (including the highest practicable standard of service and fairness) …” and I think that is a really good statement. It is about the highest standard of service and fairness. These individuals—men and women—gave us their highest standard of service. They went away to a variety of conflicts to stand for us on those fields of battle.I want to acknowledge my grandfathers. Both of them served in World War II but in different ways. My mother’s father went to Egypt and also Italy and served with the New Zealand Engineers and my father’s father was the second officer in charge at the Featherston prisoner of war camp during the particular period of the Featherston riot. So both men saw very different service for their country but they went none the less.Some might say that those servicemen went for adventure. Some really went because we asked them to. We asked them as a nation to go and stand against an evil that we believed needed to be stopped and they were among many. They expect and should expect the highest-practicable standard of service and fairness from their country when they come home. They go on to try to lead normal lives some of them after terrible ordeals in the field on our behalf.I also want to remark on how good it is that we as a nation have moved on as many nations have. Unlike the way that we thought as a nation in 1960s when we had some of our servicemen take off their uniforms and get back into civvy clothing and go home quietly late at night and without any recognition we now recognise that these men and these women serve and carry out orders because we have asked them to do so. We acknowledge their service and hold the decision makers to account for these conflicts as opposed to some of the scenes that we had in the 1960s and the 1970s after Korea and Malaya and so on.I also just want to take this moment to acknowledge Sol Te Whata who passed away on Sunday. Sol was a member of the 28th Māori Battalion in A Company. He passed away on Sunday morning in the Hokianga and his tangi will be on Thursday. Our thoughts are will him. He was one of two of the last surviving members of the Māori Battalion in the north. He lived to a ripe old age. He had three wives I believe so he was certainly a man with spirit. He was a man who gave for his country and then came back and continued to participate in his community and with his family and who lived his life to the full. So our thoughts go to him to those who served with him who are no longer with us and to those who served with him who are still with us and who deserve our care.That is what this bill is about. It is about making sure that those who served—both the gentlemen who are of a passing generation and the new veterans who are coming because the world will never be a 100 percent peaceful place. That is something that we might wish for but every now and then men and women of our nation are going to have to stand up for us and go into conflict whether to protect others or whether to actually create a line in the sand that says: “No more. This is wrong. We are here on behalf of the New Zealand people to say stop or we will actually enforce international law.”So this is just a quick call to again reinforce New Zealand First’s support for this bill and express our disappointment that it has taken so long. We believe it is timely. We believe that the burden of proof with regard to medical claims and so on and so forth should not be on the veterans. If medical records have been lost then it is not for them to have to try to convince a bureaucrat in an office somewhere that the illness that they now suffer from has come out of their service from when they served their country.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):I just want to pick up on a couple of points that were made in the contributions by National members and one is that men did not go to war to get a pension. Of course they did not and really that is denigrating what they went to war for. They did not go to war necessarily for a sense of adventure either. They may have wanted that but most men went to war because they believed that it was the right thing to do. They went to war because they felt a sense of duty—a sense of what was right and what was wrong. They may have gone from a sense of patriotism—that they were standing up and doing the right thing for their country. To try to say somehow that we should not increase our pensions because people did not go to war to pick up a pension is I think just ridiculous.This part of the Veterans’ Support Bill Part 2 is only a short part but it is still an important part. It is the part that actually sets out the purpose of the code. The code is set out in Part 2. It sets out the rights and obligations in the code. It indicates that the code will be put together in a draft form by the persons nominated by the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs. They will work on that and then the approval of the draft code will be done by the Minister after that. A notice will be put in the Gazette to approve the code and the Minister must present the code to this House within 12 sitting days of it going through. In many ways the code sets the sort of underlying architecture of what we are talking about today. It is a solid basis on which the rest of the bill will be supported hence the reason it is in Part 2—it is in there. I will not go on any further than that other than to say that the obligations and the rights to respect that code are also there in Part 2. Provisions for any amendments that need to be made and how they are meant to be made are set out in clause 30.But just coming back—I could not let that one go by—to why our soldiers go off to war. They go off and they serve New Zealand well. They do it for a variety of reasons but they certainly do not have—I mean it is ridiculous to think that a 19-year-old has the possibility of earning a pension in their mind when they go off to war. What we on this side certainly do believe is that anybody who does serve their country in that way deserves the veterans pension and also deserves the lump-sum payment—their family deserves the lump-sum payment. But this Government is scrimping on that last recommendation by the Law Commission a very eminent body. It took 2 years and an enormous amount of consultation in order to look at this. It is supported by the Returned and Services’ Association right across New Zealand. The association supports this as well. It is time that this Government gets with the pace and actually realises that this is a small amount of money—it is $7 million or $8 million at most. It is time that the Government gets with it and gets in behind it and gives our people and those people who serve New Zealand so well the financial recognition that they deserve.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Mike—oh no. We have not had a Green. Catherine Delahunty.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):I rise to take a short call. I am sure there will be space for others to do so as well at this Committee stage on the Veterans’ Support Bill. I want to speak about the real cost of the health issues associated with some veterans and about experiences that I have had both those in my partner’s family with his father and with the Viet Nam veterans whom I travelled this country with on a tour called People Poisoned Daily.We cannot underestimate the real cost of the trauma of war. I personally do not believe anyone comes back without being traumatised. I do not believe that killing or being killed and witnessing people being killed can do anything except damage and create trauma which has to be addressed at some level—as well as all of the other more noble sentiments. When I see the psychological pain that gets carried and passed on down the generations I think there is a really great need for the resources to support veterans to recover from some of that trauma. I am thinking of people who went to Afghanistan and were extremely traumatised in ways that you would not even imagine from participating in what was supposedly not even really our war.However the one I want to focus on is the Viet Nam veterans and the experience that they had because it relates to this bill and the costs—the real health costs. One of the members Melissa Lee talked about whether you can be 100 percent disabled. When people are exposed to agent orange which is dioxin they can indeed be alive but 100 percent disabled—not only themselves but their children and grandchildren. So we are talking about intergenerational poisonous effects from a chemical that was manufactured in some places in this country and used to destroy the population of Viet Nam and to destroy the jungle. It is a defoliant and it is a toxic chlorinated persistent chemical but it also affected the bodies of our veterans. For whatever reason they went to Viet Nam—and I was not a supporter and I still am not—they did not expect that they would be poisoned and their families would be poisoned and their children would be poisoned and their wives’ lives would be affected and that they would be compromised by exposure to a defoliant.When we travelled the country with the People Poisoned Daily tour the veterans told us their stories. These stories are not pretty stories. They are stories of a multiplicity of effects that are difficult to diagnose let alone fix. So it is not a matter of just identifying a health issue and getting the funds to pay to fix it. Dioxin poisoning cannot be fixed and it has intergenerational effects such as birth defects and heart conditions in the children and the grandchildren. The exposure to dioxin that those soldiers experienced has been passed on through the generations. I have met the people who have been affected. So it is not just about the soldiers. One of the reasons we were touring was that the soldiers were sick of trying to tell people that it was not just them; they wanted their children and grandchildren acknowledged as well.There is a lot of rhetoric about war in this Chamber and a lot of rhetoric about service but actually the reality is that people who come back damaged like that are entitled to be looked after and we have to be listening a lot harder to them. So I was very concerned when I heard their stories about how little support they actually had. I was very very concerned to see the effects that that dioxin poisoning had on these people and on their families—the real price of throwing poisons around in a war zone. When you see the phosphorous bombs that are falling on Gaza today and tonight and the cluster bombs that were used in Afghanistan and the uranium that was used in Iraq the endless use of chemicals we have to realise that we are creating a cost for these people not only the soldiers but the citizens of those countries who live with the permanent effects. We should apologise to the Viet Namese people for that if nothing else. And we should protect these veterans with these long-term consequences. Their children and their grandchildren are going to need help because they have been poisoned by one of the worst chemicals ever used on this planet. It is still used in other forms but no longer called agent orange and no longer used in quite the same way. We have found new ways to include toxic chemicals in war. We have found new ways to poison and destroy people and create cancer because the—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call Mike Sabin. [Interruption]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.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):I seek leave for Parts 3 4 and 5 to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.Parts 3 4 and 5Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I think it makes sense to talk about the three parts together. Part 3 sets out scheme one which deals with the veterans who served before April 1974 plus those who served in Viet Nam at Qui Nhon as support for the medical team and Squadron 41 up to 1975. Part 4 deals with scheme two which deals with veterans since that time. The reason for separating that out is the introduction of accident compensation in April 1974. The whole emphasis in respect of those who have served since 1974-75 is on rehabilitation getting the person back to the position they were in before they sustained the injury that led them to require that support. Part 5 deals with elements that are common to both scheme one and scheme two.But I just want to comment on the discussion that we have had. It is not what we agree on which is most of this bill that concerns me; it is where we disagree. Where we disagree is that somehow we think that you can set up a Law Commission to independently analyse and then ignore its recommendations about how we should treat our veterans. There ought to be a good reason if we depart from those recommendations. But there is no good reason why we should depart from its recommendation relating to the payment of all of the benefits that go with the veterans pension. What effectively we have had happen here is that the Law Commission supported by the veterans supported by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association recommended that veterans should get a level of benefit because they have served our country. What this National Government has done is cut the amount of money that the Law Commission and the RSA both recommended should go to our veterans. This is about cutting support for our veterans. Do you know what amount it is about? It is about a miserable $7.4 million. That is what it would take to give our veterans the full entitlement that the RSA and the Law Commission said they should have.This is penny-pinching. This is miserable. This is mean. In the 100 years since the First World War as we mark that centenary this Government marks itself out as being so miserable that it is going to take $7.4 million away from the veterans whom the Law Commission the RSA and the veterans believe they are entitled to. I have not heard one valid argument in this whole debate from National to justify doing that—$7.4 million. You know the Government is spending twice that amount of money on one conference the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States in Samoa next month. Are our veterans less important than that? The Government is spending $30 million on Rio Tinto a foreign multinational. Are our veterans who sacrificed for our country less important than the money that the Government is prepared to put into a foreign multinational company? The Government spends $150 million in legal fees on hocking off our assets which many of our veterans like my father-in-law came back from the war to build up. They worked on the hydro dams at Mangakino and Aratiatia. There is $150 million in legal fees to lawyers to hock off the assets that we New Zealanders own but the Government cannot spend $7.4 million to give our veterans what the Law Commission said after due consultation after careful analysis our veterans were entitled to.The Veterans’ Support Bill in this form cuts the entitlements that our veterans should have got if the recommendations of the Law Commission and the RSA were followed. I have not heard a single argument to justify why we should be penny-pinching from our veterans as we commemorate in this centenary year all of those who have died all of those who have given service and all of those who have sacrificed for our country. I think that is pathetic.In terms of the parts in front of us we have first of all scheme one which will deal with those veterans who served prior to 1974-75. Basically what we have tried to do in this part of the bill is preserve the entitlements that those older veterans from the Second World War from Korea from Malaya from Malaysia and from Viet Nam are entitled to. Those entitlements are good entitlements. I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who would deny our veterans the right to those entitlements—entitlements such as travel costs associated with treatment and long-term hospital care a disablement pension that people get in addition to their veterans pension taking into account the level of disablement that they have suffered weekly income compensation retirement lump sum entitlements for spouses and bursaries for children. I think all of those are important entitlements. I think some of them are quite reasonable entitlements. I do not think they are more generous than what other veterans in similar countries like Canada Australia the United States and the United Kingdom are getting but they are entitlements that should be there. We stand by maintaining those entitlements and lifting them above the level that they were once set at.In terms of the second part which relates to the post - Viet Nam War veterans that is designed to take into account the changes that were brought about by the accident compensation scheme. Before we had the accident compensation scheme the pension for veterans effectively was compensation for those who had suffered accidents. Now we need to ensure that there is a complementarity between the accident compensation payments and those received by war veterans—not just a complementarity but to ensure there is a margin over and above those entitlements that we give to war veterans. There should be that margin because these are people who have suffered their injuries in the service of their country. There is a top-up to preserve the additional support provided to veterans under the 1954 Act over and above that available to other New Zealanders and it will ensure that all scheme two veterans receive the same amount of compensation whether or not their accident compensation claim was accepted. I think that is important. I think it is important that we have moved to focus on rehabilitation and restoration to pre-injury capability to the maximum extent possible. The assistance provided to veterans is about incentivising wellness and using rehabilitation as a way of leading to other assistance that might be available.I think one of the important changes that is made in scheme two is in relation to the lump-sum payment rate. That will be set at the equivalent payable under the accident compensation scheme plus an additional 20 percent. I think it is also important that those who are terminally ill can get a lump-sum payment brought forward as a way of acknowledging that their terminal illness is in most instances related to the service that they have given. A veteran who is entitled to a disablement pension can elect to suspend payment of that pension for a period of up to 12 months and receive a lump-sum payment equivalent to the aggregate of the pension payable at the maximum rate for the 12-month period. That was a change that was made in the select committee. I think it is an appropriate change. I think the concept of this legislation based on the Law Commission recommendation of having a scheme that maintains the entitlement for our older veterans and brings our new veterans into a space where there is a focus on rehabilitation is the right approach.So if it is good for this Committee to follow the recommendations of the Law Commission in the fundamentals of this scheme why is it that National insists on departing from the recommendations of the Law Commission in terms of cutting the benefits that are available to people who have served? It is frankly unacceptable to this side of the Chamber and I had hoped that it would be unacceptable to the Māori Party that our veterans would be denied that lump-sum payment—$5700—to enable the family to meet the funeral costs of the veterans. I understand that the amendment I had moved was supported by the Māori Party. Mr Flavell will speak for himself but I understand that—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman—just to finish off. I will be only 1 minute. I understand—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will decide that. The Hon Phil Goff.Hon PHIL GOFF: A very good decision Mr Chairman. I understand that pressure was put on the Māori Party members by National that if they were not to support the Government’s position on this bill then the bill would not proceed—certainly during the life of this Parliament. If that is the case then that is quite unacceptable. I regret the fact that the Māori Party is no longer supporting what the RSA and the veterans have asked for and the Law Commission recommended but Mr Flavell will no doubt comment on why there has been a change of heart on behalf of the Māori Party. If they had not changed their view then the votes would have been equally 61-61 and we would have I think negotiated a reasonable solution for the veterans.Tim Macindoe: We don’t have 122 members.Hon PHIL GOFF: Well the calculation—and the whip can confirm it—was that it would have been a tied vote if the Māori Party had supported Labour on this. [Interruption] Sixty-sixty—OK. It is like 20/20 vision—60-60. It is regrettable that the Government has used its position to prevent a fair deal being reached for veterans.I have got just this one challenge and it might go to Mr Flavell it might go to the National Party members or it might go to Mr Dunne. It is a simple question. Why is it that the recommendations of the Law Commission to be a little more generous to veterans have been dropped by this Government when the cost was small the cost was affordable and the case that could be made for the veterans gaining entitlement to that small extra benefit was clear and overwhelmingly supported by the veterans? Why is it that in 2014 100 years out from the start of the Great War we could not have given that little bit of extra to the veterans. Words are cheap. It would have been much better if we could have backed up our expressions of gratitude and thanks to our veterans by giving them something a small something that would have made a difference for them and their families. That question is hanging there waiting for a member of the Government or a party supporting the Government to answer why it was not affordable to implement the recommendation of the Law Commission.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā tātau katoa i tēnei rā otirā i tēnei wiki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Hei tīmatanga kōrero māku me whaiwhai haere au i te kōrero a te Hōnore Phil Goff. Ko te ngākau otirā ki ngā whakaaro o te Pāti Māori e mea ana me tautoko i tēnei hunga i haere ki te pakanga ki te tohe mō te painga o tēnei whenua. Arā anō ngā tohu kei ngā pakitara o tēnei Whare Pāremata. Ko ētahi kua haere ki te mura o te ahi ko ētahi i hoki mai ko ētahi kāre i hoki mai. Ko te hunga i hoki mai ko ētahi i hoki māuiui mai ā nō reira me tautoko ka tika. Ēngari i roto i tēnei Whare arā anō ngā uauatanga i ētahi wā mō te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te pōti. Nō reira kua riro māku tēnei wāhanga o te Pāti Māori e whakamārama ake ā i tēnei pō.[Greetings to us all today and indeed in this the week of the Māori language. As a means of beginning my address I will follow the tenor of the sentiments expressed by the Hon Phil Goff. The heart and indeed the thoughts of the Māori Party is saying that we must support this group who went to war and who were persistent for the benefit of this country. There are other symbols on the walls of this House of Parliament that reflect this. Some went to the battle front some returned and some did not. Of those who came back some were sick and so it is only right that they be supported. But in this House there are other difficulties at times relating to the manner of this voting thing. So this aspect of the Māori Party will be left for me to explain carefully this evening.]Mr Chairperson I wish to take a couple of calls I hope at your behest to be able to explain the Māori Party position in respect of the Veterans’ Support Bill. As I said in Māori there is no doubt in our minds that it is appropriate to support those who put their lives on the line for our country and do the best that we can.In our caucus we had some vigorous debate in respect of the Hon Phil Goff’s amendment and Supplementary Order Paper 441. It was very vigorous because of course we are talking about people’s lives servicemen’s lives and indeed I suppose what happens to them after they pass away as well. In that regard we were in a position to be able to support this bill to be able to allow it so that veterans could in fact gain while we are in Parliament. Who knows what happens after the end of this election. We were of the view that it was far better to make some gains now than not to allow this bill to move through the various readings. We chose accordingly to enter into negotiations with the Government and the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs over points that we believed would advance the bill in its original form to something that we believed would have far bigger coverage.So in the time that I have got I want to outline some of those gains. There are about eight of them or so that I want to put on the record of this House. Firstly the removal of the 52 percent disability criterion which used to be 70 percent means that from our perspective a greater number of veterans will receive the pension.From our perspective currently around 6800 veterans receive it and we say that this will increase according to the information that we have by about 16700 to 25300 veterans. That is 6000 now going to 25000. We suggest that is a major and significant gain a far wider spread to bring in a far greater catch of those who put their lives on the line. That is the first point.The second point is that a greater number of veterans will have formal recognition that they are war veterans receiving a war veterans pension. This has been a point of contention for them and under the amendments—at least the negotiations we had—they will have that recognition.The third point is that the veterans pension is paid at the same rate as superannuation and is increased annually in line with this and veterans will automatically get the community services card which is currently income tested. Income testing will no longer be applied so therefore again that is a major benefit from our perspective.The fourth point is that veterans have protection for long-term hospital stays after 13 weeks. Currently the pension is reduced to $40 after 13 weeks in hospital. Fifthly we are also asking for a review of the Act—and I think this comes to the heart of Mr Goff’s discussion—and associated levels of support to be written into the bill and this has been agreed to. The period of time we are talking about is to allow it to run for 2 years and then have a review to assess the points that the Hon Phil Goff has made and indeed how the bill is going.As the sixth point Veterans Affairs New Zealand is proposing to rewrite its standard operation procedures to direct case managers to proactively advise families of recently deceased veterans of their existence advice and eligibility requirements and assistance to apply for the Ministry of Social Development funeral grant which is up to about $2000. Although this is currently available the uptake by veterans from our understanding has been relatively minimal. Personally I think that this should be a standard operating practice anyway but there we are.These changes will come into effect on 1 October 2014—obviously not far away—and therefore veterans will be able to take up the benefits of the changes and amendments in the bill. We are seeking on top of that formal recognition for the Malaya Afghan and Syrian veterans and their service and will be progressing this through the Hon Jonathan Coleman’s office.Just to wrap up currently veterans will be eligible for a lump-sum payment on death although the 52 percent impairment criterion is applied. However under the review we will aim to have this removed. If the Māori Party did not support this bill—and here is the point—we would suggest that over 1600 veterans would miss out on the ability to receive a pension and the other gains that we have previously mentioned. We saw this simply as an opportunity that could be not missed out. We did in fact have at the very heart of our submissions and our thoughts the many veterans who are hanging out on taking up the opportunities that come from this bill and indeed to ensure that we captured as many people as possible into the net to allow them to access the benefits that come from this bill.Under those circumstances although this is the path that you have already outlined and my discussion has been to cover a fair part of the bill these are the reasons that we as the Māori Party are supportive of the bill. We are pleased with the amendments that we have been able to negotiate with the Minister such that it will in fact go exactly the way we want.Sure there is always more to be done—there is always more to be done—there is always more that can be offered up but the 2-year review period would allow for that to be assessed at the time. In the meantime as of 1 October as I said the benefits will be able to roll out to those veterans who will be hanging out on these sorts of amendments. Ka nui te mihi.JAN LOGIE (Green):Thank you Mr Chair for the call in this Committee stage of the Veterans’ Support Bill. I want to pick up on some of the points that have just been made by Māori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell around negotiation and how hard the Māori Party has had to work to get the concessions from this Government. What a shame that is I think because the evidence that the Social Services Committee heard was pretty compelling and I think that a lot of the advice that the officials gave us actually supported the full extension of these provisions. The feeling I had was that the Government members on the committee were also at least in their hearts supportive of the full extension of these entitlements.So the fact that the Māori Party has apparently had to negotiate so hard to be able to get some gains—to get us almost there but not quite there—to me just leaves the question of why. Why could this Government not go all the way? Why hold out on the one point around the funeral payments on death? I just do not understand it when we have heard that it is only about $7.4 million. I do not understand why that is a point to hold out on in negotiation when most of the people in this Chamber—and in their hearts everyone on the select committee—supported it. I do not understand why the Government is holding out.The point was made that it is not really about the money. One of the arguments brought up by this Government was that it should have been done before. That seems very weak to me. I just want to make the point that in the regulatory impact statement we actually read that 28 percent of our war veterans will pass away in the next 5 years and that will be most of the World War II veterans. This is probably our last opportunity to deliver for those families that full recognition and this entitlement. I just cannot understand why this Government is holding out on that point when it is such a relatively small amount of money. I think it has been mentioned in this Committee that it is 0.00001 percent of total Government spending that it is holding on to. Is it out of meanness? Is it out of political pride not to have caved in to what was seen to then be an Opposition request rather than the fact that it was the Law Commission that recommended it and that it was backed up by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association?This is not really about politics. This should not be about politics and I cannot understand how it has become about politics because it is about a just recognition. Although I am on the record around being a pacifist and not wanting to glorify war that for me is all the more reason to be able to offer whatever support we can to our war veterans who have been sent into these horrific environments who have had to do things that none of us would ever want to do and who have seen things that we would never want to see. They have been harmed whether it was physically or emotionally and their families have also often borne the cost. We heard very moving testimonies through the select committee process from veterans as well as the children of veterans who talked about growing up in households where the war was relived in their living rooms.If as a country we cannot afford the cost of acknowledging the harm that Governments have done by sending people then that is a very clear reason not to send people. If we cannot afford to compensate them for that then we should not be doing that. I am not going to spend very much longer on this because it has been 7 years since this was sent to the Law Commission and we definitely need to update the War Pensions Act 1954. We need to do that as quickly as possible and by the end of this Parliament.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I listened very carefully to the explanation by Māori Party members as to why they have flip-flopped on their support for the amendment in my name Supplementary Order Paper 441 to this Veterans’ Support Bill. They had given me that undertaking to support it. I have to tell the Māori Party members that they have been duped. They have been totally hoodwinked—Dr Rajen Prasad: Again.Hon PHIL GOFF: —again by what this Government said. Let me use the first example that Te Ururoa Flavell used as to why they supported the bill. He said that they have reduced the level of disablement you need for funeral expenses from 70 percent to 52 percent. Anyone who sat on that Social Services Committee—and everyone on the backbench over there was on that committee—knows that that is absolutely wrong. Seventy percent of the old system is simply equivalent to 52 percent of the new system. It will not bring in one extra person for a lump-sum entitlement yet that member from the Māori Party comes in and says “Look what we’ve got. We’ve lowered the entitlement ratio.” It is exactly—exactly—the same. They are being duped. They have been duped.Then we get this other hoary old excuse that we will have a review in 2 years. Do you know what National said about the Law Commission recommendation? It said that it would not bring this in at this time. Do you know what veterans around the country told me? They said: “Bloody typical. They will wait until we are all dead and then they will give us the entitlement.” That is what our veterans think.I have got in my hand the regulatory impact statement that goes with this bill. What does it say? It says that the veteran population as a whole will decline by 28 percent over the next 5 years—delay delay delay until nobody is eligible. This morning we heard the sad news that a member of A Company of the 28th Māori Battalion died yesterday. Do you know how many veterans we have left in A Company from the 28th Māori Battalion? [Interruption] No there is just one—just one—left. Surely at this time we can make the gesture of saying to our veterans—there is a handful left from the Second World War—that we respect you we respect what you did and a very small gesture of appreciation is that we will meet your funeral costs on death to relieve your family of that obligation.This really is a disgrace. They will review it in 2 years. It is $7.4 million. That is all it is. Te Ururoa Flavell said: “Oh but they’re lifting the requirement of losing the pension after 13 weeks in hospital.” I asked what the cost was. It was so small that the answer is here in black and white. It says the amount is “negligible”. It probably does not even make five figures. They have given Te Ururoa Flavell the equivalent of beads and blankets—it is worth nothing. It is $7.4 million.Alfred Ngaro: Oh you’re better than that.Hon PHIL GOFF: I ask Alfred Ngaro why it is that his Government cannot afford $7.4 million in the first year declining by $1 million every 2 years to honour our veterans.Mike Sabin: It’s not about that. It’s a privacy decision.Hon PHIL GOFF: I want to thank Mike Sabin for his earlier compliment but if we follow his logic—that we cannot give it now because they did not get it before—we would not be changing anything in this Veterans’ Support Bill. If we were not to give something new to veterans today we would not have changed the Act at all. We have changed the Act because we believe that veterans deserve more—$7.4 million more.You know what the Government gave to Rio Tinto would have paid the cost of giving this to the veterans for at least 4 years—over 4 years; probably 5 years because the cost is declining. But somehow Rio Tinto is more important to this crony capitalist National Government than honouring our veterans—honouring our veterans not because the Labour Party said it should have been done but because the independent group set up to analyse what was going to the veterans said this is a change we should make and because our veterans said this is a change we should make. Every one of those members in the back row over there heard veteran after veteran come in and ask for just this gesture. You know words are cheap.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Parts 3 4 and 5 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 3 4 and 5 as amended agreed to.Part 6 Veteran’s pensionIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):Part 6 is in fact the part of the Veterans’ Support Bill that deals with the issue of veterans pensions and lump-sum payments. This is the matter that has been canvassed by members for much of the evening particularly by the Hon Phil Goff who has amendments that he has proposed to this part of the legislation.It is a pretty simple thing that in the Labour Opposition we wanted to follow the desires of the RSA and other veterans’ groups to ensure that all veterans would be entitled to a veterans pension and that it would be something that was universally available to everybody who has served our country overseas in conflict or peacekeeping situations. It is fair to say that it was not a big ask of the Government. It is anticipated to cost $7.4 million a year and that is actually the anticipated cost for the first year only. It is an unusual provision in that as time goes on the costs actually reduce. Usually when you introduce a new provision like this the out-years are more expensive than the initial year. This is the exact opposite so it is not a difficult thing for the Government to adopt.In fact after a lot of advocacy from the Hon Phil Goff the Government finally relented—almost. It almost relented entirely and supported everything that Phil Goff asked for except for one thing and that is the provision for lump-sum payments. The argument that the Government is using is that it will not be the veterans themselves who benefit from lump-sum payments but their families. We on this side of the Chamber say that veterans’ families have made a significant sacrifice themselves—a different type of sacrifice from a veteran who actually goes and serves and sees conflict and faces battle alongside their comrades; true. It is a different type of sacrifice but it is nevertheless a significant sacrifice for a family to have one of their own often the breadwinner go overseas and come home with all the impacts of seeing conflict. We particularly think about our older veterans who served in the Second World War in Korea in Viet Nam and in Malaya who saw—just as our recent veterans in Afghanistan and East Timor and the Solomons did—very real conflict and very real danger and things that were traumatic and that obviously put their lives at risk.We simply want to acknowledge their sacrifice and also the sacrifice of their families in sending a loved one overseas and giving up their time with them but also sometimes having to be there more often than not for that family member when they come back home again. So we think it is absolutely appropriate that both veterans and their families should have the opportunity to be acknowledged.We agree with the comment made by Melissa Lee I think that nobody goes overseas to serve our nation because they expect to get a pension out of it. That is not the reason they go. Of course it is not the reason that they go but it is a way in which we can acknowledge the sacrifice that they have made. I think Melissa Lee talked about a spirit of adventure. Well sometimes people did go with a spirit of adventure and then found that it was something a lot more than that when they actually got into the conflict zone.I think what actually drove most of our veterans to participate and to serve our nation was a sense that what they were doing was absolutely right. It was what their nation had called on them to do. They were doing it because they believed that it was in our country’s interests and they believed that it was in the interests of the people who lived in the nations that they went to and served in and absolutely in the case of the Korean conflict. I have been to Korea myself on a parliamentary delegation and there is no doubt that the people of Korea absolutely appreciate the work and the sacrifice that was put in by New Zealand veterans over there. They did it because they believed in our security in our region’s security and in supporting ultimately peace in our region and around the world by confronting aggressive actions from other nations.That is why they do it; we appreciate that but there is still nothing wrong with us as a nation saying we want to acknowledge that with some additional support that goes to those people who serve us and to their families as well. It really is now at the point of absolutely penny-pinching that the Government has refused to take this final step.Hon Ruth Dyson: How much would it be?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: How much would it be? It is $7.4 million annually. That is what they have agreed to and the lump-sum payments would add—Hon Phil Goff: That’s what the lump-sum payment is.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is what the lump-sum payment is; it is the value of the lump-sum payment. So it is really a tiny tiny amount of money in the scheme of Government expenditure and it kind of feels like the Government just does not want to do the whole thing that the Opposition has asked it to do. That is basically what it comes down to. It was not the Government’s idea. It was the Opposition’s idea; it was Phil Goff’s idea. The Government does not want to do it because it was Labour that proposed it. The Government has come some of the way but not the whole way. That is a shame. It is simply a shame.I know that when we go and visit RSAs around our electorates and around the country and when we talk to other veterans’ groups this is on their minds. It is what they talk about and it is the first thing that they talk to us about. It would have been a simple thing for the Government to agree to and it is just a shame that it has not been prepared to do that. But on this side of the Chamber we will continue to fight for those veterans and they can be assured that should there be the inevitable change that is coming in September this year there will be a better deal for veterans under a Labour-led Government.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):I just want to take a quick call on Part 6 of the Veterans’ Support Bill because this is the critical point of difference. There is an enormous tome of a new piece of legislation here 99 percent of which we agree with. It is the 1 percent that we do not agree with. Before I touch on that I want to just make reference to Te Ururoa Flavell’s contribution a bit earlier. He made the big play that in his caucus they argued for a long time about this. Well for God’s sake if you are going to do it get the facts right. Get the facts in front of you so you are actually able to argue about what is real rather than what you are told. What he has done is to do himself a huge disservice because not only has he argued about the wrong things but he is standing up there and stating facts that are simply not right and is basing his decision not to support this lump-sum payment on that.This is about an expenditure of $7.4 million—$7.4 million so that on the death of our veterans their families can receive a lump-sum payment of just $5700. If anybody has had to prepare for a funeral you will know that that will cover the costs of only an ordinary funeral. This is not extravagant but it is a gesture to the families who have put up with so much while their loved ones—normally their fathers or their sons or whatever—have been offshore and serving. This is $5700 per veteran an annual cost of $7.4 million.When you go back and you look at some of the expenditure that this Government has committed this country to you see that it has given $30 million to Rio Tinto. It has given $30 million to Rio Tinto. It has given $150 million to a bunch of fat-cat lawyers to sell off our assets—$150 million. That could have taken us through for the next 15 or 20 years at that rate. You ask yourself whether our veterans are worth that. Of course they are—of course they are. This is wrong. It is penny-pinching. It is just simply not good enough when the Government has come to the table on the other issues that we disagreed on just a few weeks ago but it has left this out. We know that the RSAs support this. They support the lump-sum payment. They tell us that when we go around and speak to them. We know that this is what the Law Commission recommended. It is not what Labour recommended; it is what the Law Commission recommended. We believe that both the Law Commission and the Returned and Services’ Association are absolutely right—absolutely right. This is a very small amount of money that will go an enormously long way particularly for those World War II veterans who are diminishing week by week.I just hope that the Government—I doubt that it will but nevertheless I hope—sees fit to pass this as it has the other aspects of this bill. As I say 99 percent of this bill we agree on but that 1 percent is important. That 1 percent is important and it will go a long way for the families of those veterans who serve us so well overseas. Thank you.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Last month together with the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs I had the privilege of attending two ceremonies: the 63rd anniversary of the Battle of Crete and the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Monte Cassino. The true privilege of attending those two occasions was to talk to the several dozen veterans at each event; to talk to the men who had fought on Crete who had fought at Cassino and to be able to acknowledge to their faces our debt to that generation. Most of them are now at least 90—one or two of them had reached 100 years. As I sat at those commemoration ceremonies I considered the lucky generation that we in this House represent. We are the generation that did not have to follow in our fathers’ and our grandfathers’ footsteps and serve in great wars overseas.The story of my family is very similar to many families in this House. I was very much influenced by my grandmother. She lost her elder brother in 1917 in the Great War. Even more tragically she lost her youngest son my dad’s younger brother aged 19 in the Solomon Islands in 1944. I think of what that generation went through and I think of the debt that we owe to those people. So when we mark the centenary year of the start of the Great War in 1914 whatever we can do within reason for our veterans we should do. It is decent. It is common sense. It honours and respects them. Honour and respect can be in the words we say but more important it can be in the small gestures that we can make.I have not invented the Supplementary Order Paper that stands in my name but I am asking the Committee to support it. Supplementary Order Paper 441 does something very simple. In one clause it restores the lump-sum payment on death to all of those who are eligible for the veterans pension. It is a gesture. It is what the Law Commission asked for. That is the logic of it. The Law Commission did the hard yards. It consulted with thousands of New Zealanders. It took 2 years over its work. I do not condemn it for taking 2 years; it did it thoroughly. Nobody says that this group of people did their job other than properly and thoroughly and came up with considered recommendations. So when we reject a recommendation of the Law Commission surely there has to be a good reason for that.I have been participating in this debate for 3 hours. I have asked time and again for the National Party to put one speaker up—one speaker; just one speaker—and give us a reason why we should be rejecting the recommendation of the Law Commission and why we should be throwing this in the face of the New Zealand RSA and the veterans when they asked us for it. Surely we owe them an explanation as to why we are denying them it.I hear from the National members when they think that it is appropriate to take a call that it is the expense. Well I want to talk about the element of expense as it relates to veterans’ affairs of New Zealand. I have in my hand the written answers to the estimates questions for the Budget Vote Veterans’ Affairs for 2014-15. What do I find? Between 2011 and 2012 there was a cut of $8 million in expenditure on veterans’ services and payments. Between 2012 and 2013 there was another cut of $9 million. In 2013 and 2014 it was a cut of $7 million. This year the Budget represents a further reduction of $11 million. In each of those years the cut to Veterans Affairs New Zealand would by itself have paid for what the Law Commission is asking for. It is not asking you to invent new money; it is asking you to slow down the cuts that you are making in payments to veterans and services to veterans so that it can give those veterans whom we honour sincerely and gratefully the payment that the Law Commission asked for and the RSA pleaded for.The money was already there. Each and every year the National Government has been able to cut the payment to services for veterans by more than what we are asking for in my Supplementary Order Paper. Do not tell me that we cannot afford it. The evidence is there. You would just have to reduce the cuts that you have made each year for 5 years to Vote Veterans Affairs to pay for this. I know from talking to some of my colleagues on that side of the Committee that they would dearly like to support this Supplementary Order Paper. I am not going to name them; that is unfair. I know they would like to do that because it is the right thing to do and they recognise it is the right thing to do. I have talked to the Minister outside of the Chamber and said “For God’s sake let’s have a consensus here in this Committee so that we can do the right thing for our veterans.” I do not want the politics of this; I want to do the right thing for our veterans—what the Law Commission said we should do what the RSA and General Don McIver have asked for us to do what those veterans whom we meet every week or every month in our RSAs say is the decent thing to do.I have been round more RSAs than I would care to number and I deeply respect the service that those people have given us the last of the World War II veterans the Korean War veterans whom Melissa Lee spoke quite movingly about and our Viet Nam veterans whom we failed to honour when they returned from Viet Nam. Is it too much to ask this Committee to do the right thing by our veterans? It is affordable. It is justifiable. It has been recommended to this House by the body that we set up to review the Act. For heaven’s sake why will the National Government not do the right thing?I tell the Māori Party which has switched its vote to support a mean cut to the veterans to think again because every reason that Te Ururoa Flavell gave us was evidence that he had been duped in his discussions with the National Government. If the Māori Party goes down screaming at this election this will be yet one more example of why when the crunch point comes it has not been able to stand up for the rights of its own people. Why has the Māori Party sold out? Well Te Ururoa Flavell said that the Government said that it will not progress this bill unless the Māori Party does sell out. That is equivalent to blackmail. That is unacceptable. It is not acceptable to do that.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: This Opposition—Labour the Greens and New Zealand First—are facilitating the passage of this bill so it can pass before the rising of the 50th Parliament. We are doing the right thing by our veterans. We are simply asking reciprocally for the National Government to do the right thing by supporting this amendment. If each member on that side of the Chamber fails to support that amendment they are effectively saying that they do not put value on our veterans not because I am saying that that payment should be made but because the official inquiry that was set up to recommend to the Government made that recommendation and because the RSA has asked for it. In their hearts so many of the National members of Parliament on the backbench know that it is the right thing to do.I heard the former Speaker of this House in his valedictory go out saying that he had a deep regret that he had voted against the Crimes Amendment Bill in regard to homosexual law reform. I hope there is no member of this current Parliament that goes out of Parliament saying: “God I wish I’d done the right thing by our veterans.” It is not a matter of expense; it is a matter of respect. I ask the National Government and each member of the National Government to show that respect to our veterans.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to the proposed amendment set out in in Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 161(1) be agreed to:replace “section 148(1)” with “section 147A”.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 6 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Could I just remind members that votes are taken in silence please. The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 441 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 148 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 452 in the name of Andrew Williams to clause 148 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 441 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 149 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 452 in the name of Andrew Williams to Part 6 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 5; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 6 as amended agreed to.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I seek leave for Parts 7 8 and 9 and the title and commencement to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There are also schedules 1 to 4. Do you include those as well? [Interruption] Leave is sought for Parts 7 8 and 9 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Parts 7 to 9 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Parts 7 8 and 9 schedules 1 2 and 4 and clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 7 to 9 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Land Transport Amendment Bill with amendment and the Veterans’ Support Bill with amendment.Report adopted.