Veterans’ Support Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVeterans’ Support Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Veterans’ Support BillSecond ReadingHon NATHAN GUY (Acting Minister for Veterans’ Affairs): I move That the Veterans’ Support Bill be now read a second time. On behalf of the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Michael Woodhouse I would firstly like to thank the Social Services Committee for its hard work in examining the bill. It has carefully reviewed the bill to ensure that it is a fitting replacement and provides adequate support for not only our current veterans but also our future veterans. Service in defence of our nation and for freedom and democracy around the world is a sacrifice that needs appropriate recognition in legislation. I would also like to thank veterans for their feedback on the bill.The bill received a number of submissions which were carefully considered by the committee. Although submitters focused on various issues responses indicated an underlying support for the new legislation. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Would members leaving the Chamber please show some respect to the member trying to address the House.Hon NATHAN GUY: It was also important to get feedback from the veterans affected by this legislation and the submissions received showed for the main part that we have drafted legislation that meets veterans’ needs.The bill replaces the War Pensions Act 1954 and originates from the 2010 report of the Law Commission that followed an extensive review of the war pensions scheme. The 1954 Act was found by the Law Commission to be outdated unwieldy and no longer fitting the needs of the veterans it was intended to support. The Law Commission made a large number of recommendations the vast majority of which were accepted by this Government. The bill continues and enhances the previous entitlements under the old Act and it retains the key principles of benevolence. Service eligibility criteria will remain the same and all deployments currently covered will be covered under the new legislation.The bill contains two schemes and it introduces several new entitlements. Scheme one will cover veterans who served from the Second World War through to and including the Viet Nam War. Their entitlements will continue to be based on those available under the 1954 Act. Scheme two will cover those who served in a recognised war or in emergencies since 1 April 1974. The entitlements will be closely aligned with those available under ACC but with an additional top-up that recognises the special nature of military service. The bill will also include a more modernised approach to rehabilitation. Submissions confirmed general support for these proposals. In addition submitters recommended changes to some key areas. It is pleasing to see that where appropriate the committee has recommended that changes be made to the bill to reflect these.One of the key changes made by the committee is to the threshold for the veterans pension. Submissions questioned whether 55 percent was the appropriate level of whole-person impairment to use as a threshold for the veterans pension and other entitlements noting that it did not appear to be the equivalent of the threshold currently used in the 1954 Act. The information that was provided to the committee established that 52 percent whole-person impairment was in fact the most equivalent threshold and in order to not 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.I note that a minority on the committee suggested that the disablement threshold for veterans pension eligibility should change from 54 percent on the new scale all the way to zero. In 2012 the Government announced a new $60 million package over 5 years to improve the support and recognition given to veterans who have served New Zealand and it agreed to adopt in full or in part 132 of the Law Commission’s 170 uncosted recommendations. The decision was made by Cabinet at the time not to discard the impairment threshold for veterans pension but to retain the status quo.The war disablement pension and veterans pension represent forms of compensation from the Government for those who have suffered injury or impairment as a result of their military service and for their families. Removing a level of disablement as a requirement in order to receive a veterans pension and access its associated benefits would be a significant departure from the current rationale which has existed since the veterans pension was first introduced. It would cost more than $40 million over the first 4 years alone with most of this cost coming directly from the lump-sum payment that is triggered by the death of a veteran. This bill is about supporting our veterans. Removing the disablement threshold would have a significant cost but would do little to increase the support offered to veterans during their lifetime. As it fundamentally changes the rationale behind the veterans pension and does not represent well-targeted spending we do not support this move.Another area of change is to the decision-making provisions and the points of reference for deciding claims. Underlying the rewrite of the 1954 Act was a desire not only to modernise the legislation but to make it more accessible for both veterans and administrators to understand and use. The evidential provisions underlying eligibility for entitlements in the bill are fundamental and they received scrutiny in many of the public submissions. There was very broad support for the use of the Australian statements of principle as the main reference point for deciding claims. The statements of principle are comprehensive soundly based in medical terms and introduce a much-needed element of certainty to the process.The bill also needed to modernise the legal and evidential tests for establishing entitlement and these were the subject of many submissions. It became clear that more work was needed to reduce legal jargon and ensure that the provisions are clearer easier to understand and fully aligned with the benevolence principle in decision making. The committee made several changes to the bill as a result of these submissions. As a result I am confident that the decision-making and legal provisions of the bill will serve the decision-making process well in the future. In summary the Government is committed to improving veterans’ support and this is reflected in this very important bill as reported back by the committee. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Just before I start on this Veterans’ Support Bill I acknowledge the work of a senior researcher for Labour Bridget Service who helped on this bill and who is leaving after many years of hard work on behalf of our MPs here. Thank you Bridget for the work that you have done on our behalf.I want to come now to the bill and say that I respond with amazement to Nathan Guy’s statement that it was important to get feedback from the veterans and to meet the veterans’ needs. We sat through those submissions and we heard—unlike the Acting Minister—what the veterans said and what the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association said about the inadequacy of some parts of this bill.I reject the Minister’s statement that there are no grounds for removing the requirement that before a person is eligible for a veterans pension they have to be significantly disabled. What the RSA told the Social Services Committee and what the veterans have told the select committee and what New Zealanders would support is this: if you are a New Zealander eligible for New Zealand superannuation and you have served your country in an overseas deployment gazetted by the Minister and recognised by the Chief of Defence Force as having put yourself in harm’s way then surely that is the appropriate threshold for a person to be eligible for a veterans pension. That was recommended by the Law Commission. That was asked for by the New Zealand RSA. That is what the families of the veterans who sacrificed so much thought was appropriate and the National Government ignored those views those requests and those pleadings.I have here a letter from the RSA. It is signed by the national president Lieutenant General Don McIver a man who is much respected in this House. He said that it was very disappointing that the Social Services Committee decided not to progress the removal of the requirement of serious impairment before you are eligible for a veterans pension. He said it is particularly disappointing to those veterans who have served their country with loyalty and with honour but it is also disappointing to the RSA membership as a whole.He raises the question in this letter—and it has gone to various members of this House—that during the Law Commission’s processes and the Law Commission review that led to this legislation the commission strongly recommended that the threshold of serious impairment be removed. He said: “Neither we nor the commission were able to find out why it should be necessary to be significantly disabled to qualify for the veterans pension.” He says that the 52 percent significant disability figure is entirely arbitrary. He asked officials time and again at the select committee what the grounds were for saying that before a person can get a veterans pension they must have 52 percent of total disability. No answer was given except that that was historically the case. There was no rationale; it was entirely arbitrary.The other thing the RSA points out is something that I concur with strongly. It points out that although the Government gave no explanation for its decision it declined the submission saying: “Not progressed at this point of time.” Not progressed at this point of time. We are talking about 16700 elderly veterans many of whom left their families and served this country for years overseas putting themselves at harm’s risk and who are dying in their droves at the moment because they are in their 80s and 90s. “Not progressed at this point of time.” is a cynical answer from a Government that knows time is not on the side of our veterans.We are not asking for a lot. Nobody gets the veterans pension first of all until they have reached the age of superannuation. That is 65 at the present time. You do not get the veterans pension on top of superannuation; you get it instead of superannuation. So the costs are actually quite small. The relatively small benefits are a gesture of gratitude by us to those who put their lives in the firing line on behalf of their country. It is about getting a community services card. It is about if you are in hospital for more than 13 weeks being able to retain your pension rather than losing it and it is about a lump sum payment on death. Yes the Minister is right. That lump sum payment will usually go to the widow. But surely the widow is entitled to something in recognition of what she gave up while her husband or partner was serving this country for long years during the Second World War.This year 2014 is a special year. It is a special year because we commemorate the centenary of 100000 New Zealanders going to serve in the First World War of whom one in five died and six out of 10 were either killed or injured. Twenty years later our parents’ generation went to serve in the Second World War and another 12000 lost their lives. The people came back after years of serving their country and many of them were scarred inside and often scarred physically as well. Why is it so much to ask this Government that instead of just rhetoric about our gratitude to the veterans we actually give them something tangible? There are 16700 of them at the moment and do you know what it is going to cost? I asked Veterans Affairs so I have the official figures. In the first year it will cost $11.1 million. That is 2014-15. By 2017-18 in 3 years’ time that will be down to $8 million—just $8 million—because of the level of the passing on of the World War II and the Korean War veterans.What I am saying—and I have been totally upfront in the select committee as members will attest and to the Minister—is that there is a gap in this bill. There is a gap that the Law Commission which did all of the hard yards on this bill recommended should be closed. There is a gap in this bill which the RSA with its wisdom and its right to represent the interests of veterans said “Please fix this.” The Government has not because it says that it will cost too much. On one hand there will be $60 million spent over 5 years. On the other hand just $11 million dropping to $8 million a year is required to fill that gap to enable the people who have returned as veterans to have the pride of saying: “I am not just a superannuitant; I am a war veteran.” That is what they want it for. They are not actually even particularly interested in these small financial benefits. They want to have the pride of saying: “I have served my country.” What better way of saying that than to say: “I am in receipt of a veterans pension. This is how my country has recognised what I have done on behalf of my nation.” That is what we are asking for.In the Committee of the whole House I will be moving an amendment through a Supplementary Order Paper to pick up the Law Commission’s recommendation to pick up what those veterans have asked us so sincerely for and to pick up what the RSA says is a major gap in this legislation.I have one other comment and it is to the Minister of Defence. We know that morale and attrition rates have reached a record low in the case of morale and a record high in the case of attrition. We know that when the Auditor-General reported on this she said that is because this Government is perceived by the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force to have broken the social contract between Government and the services. They have no union and they cannot negotiate their conditions.I want to say to the Minister of Defence—and I say it sincerely—that the best way we can tell our current serving members of the New Zealand Defence Force that we honour their commitment and service is to pass something that recognises that we see our commitment extending into their retirement years. The best way we can deal with the problems of recruitment and retention is to send that message to our serving soldiers today. It will not cost us much for another 30 years. Most of those who have served in Timor-Leste the Solomons Afghanistan and Bosnia will not be retiring for 30 years.But this year—the centenary of our joining the First World War—is surely the appropriate time to say to our veterans that we honour them not simply with our rhetoric but that we honour them with a practical measure that they have asked for and we can easily deliver and that is affordable and justified. I commend my Supplementary Order Paper to the House in the Committee of the whole House.MELISSA LEE (National):Ahn yung ha se yo. It is a great pleasure to rise to support the second reading of the Veterans’ Support Bill. Before I get on with my contribution I would just like to make a comment. It is lovely to see the passion in Mr Goff’s speech. We have seen that in the Social Services Committee and in the House. I just wish he had been as passionate when he was responsible for the Treasury benches when Labour was in the position of Government—in the 9 years that it was in Government. Now that he is in Opposition he basically says passionately: “Why does this National Government not do something about it?”. He had the opportunity; he was actually the Minister of Defence. He could have really done something about it but he did not. Now that he is in Opposition he can throw stones.The men and women who serve in our defence forces now and in the past for freedom and democracy need to be recognised for the sacrifices that they have made. I am a recipient of those sacrifices. Having met lots of Korean veterans who have come back from the war—there were people who were injured and there were people who died during the Korean War—and being born in Korea I grew up with the knowledge that we must be grateful for the ultimate sacrifices of the veterans who actually paid with their lives in a war that divided my birth country. We owe a great debt to our veterans and this National-led Government is committed to honouring their service and better meeting the needs of older veterans who need help to maintain their homes and of veterans of modern-day deployments.This bill has many of the same provisions as the current Act. The criteria for service eligibility will stay the same as will health care treatment. Accepted conditions will continue to be funded. No veteran will have their entitlements reduced; in fact thousands will benefit from increased care and support. That has to be better. It has been quite a process to rewrite a 60-year-old Act an Act that was designed to deal with the physical risk associated with deployment but did not actually cover the psychological and environmental risks that veterans have faced. The Law Commission’s findings after reviewing the Act stated that the Act was outdated and unwieldy and no longer fitted the needs of the veterans it served. This Veterans’ Support Bill actually fixes that.There are two schemes. Scheme One comes into force on 1 July this year and runs until 1 July 2015 to cover all veterans as a transitional measure. After that Scheme One will apply to veterans with service from World War II to the Viet Nam War. The entitlements will be based on what is already available with some improvements such as when a veteran is under the age of retirement and unable work they will receive a higher rate of income compensation than is now available. The rate paid will be based on 80 percent of the average wage an increase of about $200 gross for most of the recipients. Scheme Two covers veterans with service since 1974 when ACC was introduced and comes into force on July 1 next year. In 2015 there will also be changes to the eligibility criteria for accessing support services such as home help and lawnmowing.This is a bill that the select committee considered very carefully. I do understand the passion behind Mr Goff’s speech and most of us in some way understand where that passion comes from because we do all support the veterans who have paid greatly through their service in service of their country and people. We appreciate their participation in battles overseas with the New Zealand flag on their chests serving our nation proudly. This is a great improvement on the 1954 Act which is totally outdated. It is a great improvement and I believe it is something that the veterans have been waiting for. Thank you.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):Labour does support the Veterans’ Support Bill as our veterans’ affairs spokesperson Phil Goff has already outlined. We do have some changes that we would like to make to the legislation as well and I will come back to both our support for the legislation and also the changes we would like to make. But I want to say at the outset that Melissa Lee really needs to just think about history. She is someone whom I think does understand the importance of history and certainly the importance of her nation’s history. She has spoken about the association between New Zealand and Korea since the Korean conflict and the role that New Zealand soldiers played in that conflict. So she has an understanding of history and she understands the significance of knowing your history and getting things right. But Melissa Lee got up and asked the question: why did Labour not do anything about a replacement for the 1954 War Pensions Act? She is suggesting that Labour did nothing.Well that could not be further from the truth. What Labour did is it worked with the RSA to identify what the issues were. There was an agreement between Rick Barker—it was in fact Rick Barker who was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs not Phil Goff as Melissa Lee suggested. It was Rick Barker who worked with the then president of the New Zealand Returned Services Association and he initiated the Law Commission report into the 1954 Act. The ball started rolling back in 2006. It was Labour that got the work started on this. In fact it was not too long after the change of Government when the Law Commission came back with its recommendations. It was June 2010 when the Law Commission came back with its comprehensive report and its recommendations for how the new legislation should be constructed—June 2010.We now find ourselves here nearly 4 years later because National sat on its hands for years after that Law Commission report came back. Melissa Lee do not get up in this Chamber and say that Labour did nothing. Labour started the work and then it was National that delayed the progress on this legislation. So do not attempt to say that Labour in Opposition has not done enough for veterans. There is only one party that has dragged its feet. There is only one party that it has dragged its feet on this legislation and it is National—it is National.Mike Sabin: Helen Clark has always been a great supporter of the armed services of course!IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes actually the Labour Government put far more money into the armed services. I am glad that Mike Sabin raised that because the Labour Government had to rescue the defence forces from years of under-investment by that National Government. The vehicles that our troops had to drive around in in Bosnia the armoured personnel carriers that our troops went to Bosnia in could not keep up with the freight transport vehicles of our allies. That was the state of our armed forces after 9 years of a National Government. So again Mike Sabin get your history right. Do not tell us that Labour is not interested in the defence forces. Do not tell us that Labour is not interested in veterans. Labour has consistently been the Government that has put more money into the defence forces and has put more money into veterans’ support. The 9 long years of National in the 1990s saw our defence forces eroded to almost nothing—eroded to almost nothing under the National Government.So what happened? When that Law Commission report came back to Parliament National sat on it—National sat on it. But what is worse than that is that what National then did was it picked and chose what aspects of the Law Commission report it would implement. Yes this legislation is good. This legislation is a great improvement on what we had in the 1954 Act. It is a huge improvement on what we had in the 1954 Act. But there are things missing and that is because this National Government is not interested in doing the full deal for veterans. It is over an amount of money that is so insignificant—$11 million reducing over time. Often when you bring in a new initiative it costs a certain amount in year 1 and then the costs increase in the out-years. In this case it is $11 million decreasing over the following few years to $8 million. Well if $11 million is money that this Government cannot find in order to make sure that veterans get a fair deal then the Government’s books must be a very very sorry state of affairs indeed. If $11 million is going to be the difference between—I do not know—reaching surplus or not then this Government has clearly failed on a number of fronts.I think what National should do is support Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper. It makes sense. It is what the Law Commission recommended and it is what the RSA wants. In the grand scheme of things it is not a huge amount of money to recognise the service of our veterans—not just our veterans from prior conflicts such as Viet Nam and Korea and those who are still left from World War II but also to recognise those who have served us in recent years in places like East Timor Afghanistan and the Solomon Islands. That is what this Government should be doing. But it refuses. I really cannot tell why. The Government will make the claim that it costs too much but it patently does not. It clearly does not cost too much. I want to hear from the Government members their explanation for why it is that they did not support this recommendation at the select committee. Why is it exactly? It cannot be the cost—it cannot be the cost. An amount of $11 million cannot be money the Government cannot find. The Government found a billion dollars to give tax cuts to the top 10 percent. It found $800 million to bail out South Canterbury Finance. It found $30 million to bail out Rio Tinto. It found $27 million to give to private schools. The money is out there. The Government is perfectly capable of spending money on the people whom it chooses. Why cannot it spend this tiny amount of money on veterans? Why? I want to hear from the members opposite as to why that is. Why is it that the Government cannot spend that money?As I said though that is a change to the legislation that we do want to see but overall this is an improvement on what we had before because the 1954 legislation was becoming outdated and it was becoming outmoded. That is why Labour initiated the review of the legislation. The 1954 Act actually had not changed in any significant way in the—I am trying to count—many many decades since it was first enacted. As is often the case it was legislation that was responsive to the needs at the time and it was responsive primarily to the needs of World War II veterans. Of course it came in about two decades before ACC was established. ACC has changed the playing field for what veterans are entitled to and what they can receive through the normal social security framework that we have in New Zealand. So we needed a new system that not only recognised the change but recognised that we have some veterans who receive an entitlement based on the service that they gave before ACC came in and other veterans on the service that they undertook after ACC came in. So the bill acknowledges those differences and sets up two separate schemes for those different groups of veterans and that is a significant improvement.Overall what this legislation does is it implements a number of the Law Commission recommendations. We think it should implement more of them and we have a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect but in general we do support this legislation.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take a call on and offer the Green Party’s support for the second reading of the Veterans’ Support Bill. I am not however as pleased as I would have liked to be as not all the issues that we had hoped to see resolved within the Social Services Committee have been resolved. But clearly the 40000 veterans with qualifying service and their families have been waiting 7 years since this issue was first referred to the Law Commission and you know it seems about time. The 1954 Act clearly needs updating. So for those reasons we are absolutely supporting this bill today. It is time for some resolution. It is time for families to be able to move forward.The Law Commission made 170 recommendations for updating the Act. The Government has accepted 132 of those recommendations and during the select committee process we heard very well-informed submissions from many presenters on issues of a technical as well as a more fundamental nature. The basic shift of this bill is that it will make changes to the administration and decision-making processes provide a greater focus on rehabilitation and enable the provision of services to better meet the needs of elderly veterans as well as those of modern-day and future deployments.Changes have been made through the select committee and I would like to acknowledge the committee and the presenters for the process that has brought this bill back to the House even with our reservations. I do believe that we all want a system that appropriately acknowledges those whom this country has sent to war. I share I guess the slight bemusement from Labour colleagues about not understanding really why the threshold was not taken out of this bill and I have not heard from the Government a reason that makes sense to me on that.I am a pacifist and the Green Party is founded on a principle of non-violence. After watching the incredibly moving film last night Field Punishment No. 1 I cannot help but reflect on the pointlessness and brutality of many if not all wars and reflect on how much better it would be if no person ever picked up arms. The film which I really think everyone should watch showed how during the First World War conscientious objectors from New Zealand were sent to the Western Front and tortured for refusing to become soldiers. It also highlighted the brutality of war and reminded me that soldiers are real people members of our communities and our families as well as being members of our armed forces.The images we saw last night reminded me of the stories we heard from submitters who have been in our armed forces and told us of lives irrevocably changed by war and in the case of the children how the parents’ experience was at times passed on to the children. When the parents did not get the rehabilitation or psychological assistance they needed the damage that was caused to those parents through that experience of war was at times passed on to their children as their homes became war zones as they lived out that post-traumatic stress in the home.We also heard of years of battles to get help and of struggles for recognition—battles and struggles with the same State that sent these people into places that caused them harm. You do not have to believe in war to want the best support for people who have been through such horror which is why the main point of contention I have with this bill as it is being reported back is that it does not go far enough.The bill does not pick up the Law Commission recommendation and the recommendation of many submitters including the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association that all veterans with qualifying service should be eligible for the veterans pension. It seems to me that that policy would have had several advantages. It would have simplified our system and removed some of what we believe is unnecessary conflict that exists within the system as it is at the moment. Although that might sound like that is triggering dollar signs for people as has already been noted by the Hon Phil Goff the cost of that in the first year would be $11 million and the cost is projected to decrease to $8 million in the year after. That does not seem like an insurmountable unbearable cost for this country to bear. If the fear is possible costs as a result of more conflicts in the future well we would hope that this would be another thing to consider before entering into a conflict. If we cannot afford to recognise people for the cost of going into those wars then we really do need to second-guess our decisions to go.The primary advantage as we see it would be that it would acknowledge the debt of the State to our veterans. Most people serving in the armed services are not there to go to war; they are there for many other reasons. If the State does send them to war I believe a debt is owed regardless of the degree of injury.The second point that we are unresolved over is the portability point. Again this elicited a large number of submissions asking this House to uncouple the portability arrangements for the veterans pension from superannuation rules. It was submitted that the veterans pension is earned in recognition of a duty to the Crown by way of military service putting veterans in harm’s way and not by living in New Zealand for a specific period of time. Again the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association expressed concerns that there were many New Zealand military veterans—particularly Pacific Islanders—who were otherwise entitled at age 65 but who did not qualify due to residency requirements.The counter view to this was that the majority of veterans living overseas reside in countries with which New Zealand has a social security arrangement and therefore they are able to access the pension. Of course of those in places without an agreement the majority at the moment live in the Cook Islands. New Zealand has just announced a change to this arrangement so that veterans wishing to retire in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau will be covered.The Law Commission also noted in its review that the major concern regarding portability was for those under superannuation age. This bill resolves that issue by instating a veterans’ weekly income compensation that does not have a residence criteria. With that all said we still retain concerns about any future conflicts and entitlement for people who wish to retire in other Pacific Islands—for example Tonga or Samoa. We believe the principle—and possibly more importantly the symbolism—of entitlement holds a meaning beyond the financial benefits of the pension.We would have preferred to uncouple the pension from superannuation to ensure all qualifying veterans were entitled regardless of where they live. These two points are really our only sticking points with this bill. Again we want to acknowledge the need to update the War Pensions Act and improve the processes for veterans.War and armed conflict are a horror and a failure of humanity that we should do everything in our power to avoid. When the State fails to avoid war the State has a particular responsibility for those who pay the price of that failure with their health and their freedom. With respect to the human frailty of those who end up fighting the wars created by political leaders—and in the knowledge that this bill will not in any way make going to war more attractive—we wholeheartedly support this bill as the least our country can do to acknowledge the cost of being asked to kill another and putting your life and body on the line. We commend it to the House.ALFRED NGARO (National):I would like to add my words to that and concur with my parliamentary colleague in regard to the fact that war and conflict are unnecessary evils. But there are times when people lose sight of the humanity and therefore we are faced with the reality that in order to keep peace and harmony in existence there are drastic measures that have to be taken. So we end up in this place. I think it is not the place really or appropriate for us in this place and in this time to argue about who did what and who did not do what. In order to honour the memory and to honour the aspect of the support that we need and want to give to our veterans it is important to be able to progress this through to a place in which they receive the support that they so desperately need.Can I also acknowledge Major Rebecca Thornley who is in the gallery and who led the work with the rest of the Defence Force and Veteran Affairs. It was work that I know must have been very difficult not only to hear the stories but also the role that they had to play knowing the legacy that has gone before them and what they needed to do in order to ensure that the future of other veterans will be served by this. So can I acknowledge you and honour you for the work that you have done. It is not an easy place to be.This bill the Veterans’ Support Bill has come about through the Law Commission. In 2007 that review was initiated. This bill replaces an Act that is nearly 60 years old. As was just said out of the 170 recommendations 132 were implemented. Therefore it is important to note that in the implementation of that review there were some things obviously that were not able to get through. But we can have some confidence—hence the reason why we have support across the House—that we have worked diligently and effectively to ensure that we have heard the submissions and worked with officials to ensure that we have a bill that will definitely meet the core issues of importance for our veterans in particular.The Veterans’ Support Bill is now all-encompassing. That ensures that it actually meets the needs of veterans and provides for treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions. One of the challenges is that in the previous Act the War Pensions Act 1954—and I think this is an important part—I know for many of us it was often silent on the provision of rehabilitation and the compensation was often focused on physical disability without acknowledging the emotional or mental effects and the need for rehabilitation in those areas as well. So I believe that this has been important as it has actually answered some of the concerns that were put forward in the submissions as well.Just a couple of other important points. I think there was concern raised about the importance of support for surviving spouses of veterans. As part of this package we have also increased the war disablement pension and the surviving spouse pension by 5 percent last year on top of inflation. We think that is important as well.More than 20000 modern defence force personnel are now veterans and there is a need to have a legislative framework that supports all our veterans. It is never going to be the perfect bill but it is the right bill. It strikes the right balance to make sure that it actually meets the needs of our war veterans. Along with others I do support this bill. It is the centennial next year 2015 to commemorate 100 years of the New Zealand Defence Force. Along with Poto Williams I have also been working with the Cook Islands community to ensure that we remember all of those right throughout our communities who have served and sacrificed themselves for New Zealand. We have put this bill forward with the recommendation that it will truly support and meet their needs as well. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Veterans’ Support Bill. Around this Chamber on the various crests and plaques are the names of many of the great battles and campaigns that New Zealand has participated in. When you look around this Chamber and you see names such as Monte Cassino Korea Passchendaele Viet Nam Malaysia and all the others around these walls it is a solemn reminder to us all as members of Parliament of the huge commitment that our men and women have made in the service of this country in so many campaigns abroad. That service was usually undertaken to uphold democracy and to ensure that others living in other parts of the world can hopefully enjoy the same quality of life that we enjoy here in New Zealand.The men and women who have gone abroad have put their lives at risk. They have done that voluntarily. They have not had to go abroad; they did not have to join the services in many instances apart from of course earlier in World War I or World War II when they were called up. But many in recent campaigns have done this as volunteers in the services including in the instance of the Viet Nam War where my brother was killed. All those who went to Viet Nam volunteered to go as Regular Force soldiers. They did not have to go but they volunteered to be part of it. Many of those servicemen and servicewomen from the likes of the Korean campaign Viet Nam and indeed some from World War II as well—who are now getting very elderly—deserve the absolute respect that this House should give and that the Parliament of this country should give. They should be given all that is due to them.In 2007 the Law Commission put forward 170 recommendations to this House. One hundred and thirty-two have been picked up by the Government to go forward; the remainder have not. In particular the area the Government has not picked up is where the Law Commission recommended that if you have served abroad on behalf of this country you should be entitled at age 65 when you are eligible to receive superannuation to receive a war veterans pension. That would then recognise that any person retiring who has served this country abroad has put themselves on the line and that they have come back. It would recognise the fact that they are not just a superannuitant but they are a superannuitant who has served this country.The small amount of additional money to provide those superannuitants with a war pension to provide them with an automatic community services card to ensure that they retain their pension after being in hospital for more than 13 weeks and to give their spouse or family a lump sum on death is such a small amount as recognition of and compensation for having served their country. I am absolutely appalled having lost somebody in Viet Nam having lost uncles in World War II and having lost relatives in World War I as well that this Government cannot see fit to find $11.1 million—$11.1 million—in 2014-15 to ensure that those veterans are properly recognised in this manner.We have put forward a minority report as has the Labour Party—and the Labour Party one is supported by the Green Party—and in it we have stated “New Zealand First is firmly of the view that the Veterans’ Support Bill is long overdue. The Law Commission first reported in 2010 and four years later this legislation is finally reaching its conclusion. Progress should have been made with much greater urgency. A great many veterans are affected by this review. They are not getting any younger.”—they are not getting any younger. “They deserve far greater respect for the service they have given to their country. Expediency in completing this exercise would be in order.”The report further states: “The National Government has rejected the Law Commission’s recommendation that all veterans who have served on an overseas operational deployment for the New Zealand Defence Force should be eligible for a veterans’ pension if they meet the criteria for New Zealand Superannuation. New Zealand First supports the recommendations of the New Zealand Law Commission to lower the entitlement threshold to zero percent which is strongly supported by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association and some other submitters. New Zealand First does not agree with the Government’s position. We strongly believe that all military veterans who meet the eligibility criteria should be entitled to receive a veterans’ pension in recognition that they have served their country. There should be a clear distinction which acknowledges the important difference”—and this is a critical point—“compared to receiving standard New Zealand Superannuation. The additional benefits of a veterans’ pension are relatively minor but the sentiment and recognition is vitally important to all those affected by this.” It is not just the money but the recognition and the sentiment that go with it to recognise that these people have served their country.It is also very disturbing that many veterans continue to struggle to receive their various allowances and disability allowances as a result of medical records that are missing or are in error. And it is greatly disturbing that we had a situation this week where the Rev. Wally Te Ua was in the High Court here in Wellington having to take Veterans Affairs New Zealand and the Government to court to prove that he has cancer as a result of his deployment to Viet Nam and being affected by Agent Orange while in the jungles of Viet Nam. It is incredible that a man like that an Anglican vicar—an Anglican vicar—has to take Veterans Affairs to court to try to prove that his cancer was a result of Agent Orange.Back in 2008 I was at Tribute 08 the apology to the Viet Nam veterans here in Wellington which was held in this Chamber and in the Legislative Council Chamber. The Rt Hon Helen Clark made the apology on behalf of the Government to the Viet Nam veterans. At the Basin Reserve Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae the then Chief of Defence Force also apologised to them and he also said that veterans will not be disadvantaged because there were errors with medical records and because medical records were missing. He said in his speech that the New Zealand Defence Force had let them down. He said that it had let them down and they would not suffer as a result of the medical records being missing or in error. That was Tribute 08 and yet 6 years later many many many veterans—thousands of veterans—are still struggling to get what they are due from Veterans Affairs New Zealand.New Zealand First can assure the veterans—and some will be listening to this out there today—that New Zealand First will rectify this. We will rectify this. We will ensure that they get what they are due and that they are honoured in the right way by this country. Those men and women who have put their bodies on the line put their lives on the line for this country will be recognised in the true manner.It is just very sad that so many National Party members of Parliament have not had the same close experience with many of these veterans and with the military. I think it comes from the top down. It would be nice to think that the Prime Minister and some of those members could have some heart in this and say: “We will honour them we will do our best by them and we will stop this once and for all.” New Zealand First will support the Veterans’ Support Bill but we will be speaking strongly in favour of sorting out some of the aspects of it that need rectifying.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia ora. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the second reading debate on the Veterans’ Support Bill which Labour supports. I want to acknowledge my colleagues who sit on the Social Services Committee for the manner in which we normally conduct the discussions and dialogue. It is fair to say that there have been intense discussion and dialogue specifically about whether or not veterans should qualify for a veterans pension by virtue of having a disability. I thought I would provide a little bit of history not only on how we have come to where we are now but also on the whole philosophy about why veterans have to have a disability to receive support.What I wanted to do was pick up on my colleague Andrew Williams’ mention of veterans who have specifically served our nation in Viet Nam because it was in fact a 2003 Health Committee inquiry into agent orange that started this process. One of the findings of that particular Health Committee report was that we needed to review the 1954 War Pensions Act. What the Government then did at that stage was enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. Then in 2007 we instigated the Law Commission review. So the momentum for the review of the 1954 Act and for the piece of legislation that is here before us is now over 10 years old.In terms of why you have to be disabled to receive any form of State assistance actually goes back to a quote from Queen Elizabeth I: “such as have adventured their lives and lost their limbs or disabled their bodies in defence of Her Majesty and the State should be relieved and rewarded that they may reap the fruit of their good deserving”. I repeat that—the fruit of their good deserving. What happened after that speech was the formation of a charity called the Chatham Chest which occurred in 1590. So the reality of the philosophy around why our veterans have to be disabled to receive a veterans pension actually goes back to that undertaking—yes which is interesting—by Queen Elizabeth I. So we have seen that philosophy just be transferred historically.What happened from that was that in 1713 essentially that is when the pension for veterans was created. The same was replicated in the USA which became a pension plan for disabled veterans and that occurred in 1792. So essentially all New Zealand has done to get to this point in time is to continue to perpetuate a charitable response to veterans who have fought for our country and have become scarred by that experience or disabled by that experience. I think the question we have to ask today is whether or not that philosophy should drive the provision of a veterans pension now and into the future.I do want to look at the numbers. The Hon Phil Goff mentioned that currently we have 16700 veterans who would qualify. We have a lot of veterans within the 80 to 100-year age range. These are our veterans who served in World War II. But the interesting statistic I want to share with the House from the regulatory impact statement which is dated 27 September 2008 is that in 5 years 28 percent of those veterans actually will not be alive any more. So that means of those 16700 in 2019 we are actually talking about only 12000 veterans. So it is incumbent on the House I think to challenge itself to be critical about the provision of services and of support to our veterans to understand the history of that provision and as I said before to question whether or not that is acceptable and relevant as we move into the future. Because certainly both the Law Commission and the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association were very clear in their submissions that they could not see any rationale as to why all qualifying veterans—and these are veterans who have gone over and risked their lives and their limbs to serve our country and to protect all of us—should not qualify for a veterans pension.I actually think there is a compelling argument for this House to work together which is what we have tried to do in the select committee. To be forced as an Opposition—and I know I stand here as a member of the Labour Party with our New Zealand First colleagues and with our Green colleagues as servants on the Social Services Committee trying very hard to get a consensus around this point. So we are not playing politics actually. What we are playing is a very straight bat founded on a Law Commission process—recommendation 95—and founded on a fantastic submission by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association.My colleague the Hon Phil Goff as our veterans affairs spokesperson will be proposing within the Committee stage a Supplementary Order Paper so that we can get consensus and all of us as a Parliament can recognise that our veterans are worthy of recognition. For a lot of them—and I am speaking on behalf of veterans from my Manurewa RSA and I have spoken to Graham Dolan who is the president—they are proud to have represented our country. It is a sense of pride for them to have a veterans pension. Yes there are going to be benefits and additional support that they will get. But I think they are not a charity any more. Our veterans do not need to be treated as a charity any more. I guess my plea to the House and to the Opposition is to please have a look at it. If we are to debate the Committee stage next week we still have time to reach consensus.As I said before if we actually put veterans at the centre of this bill—because in fact the Veterans’ Affairs Act is all about meeting the needs of veterans. Mike Sabin might think that is strange but actually saying that someone has to have a disability to get support and then haggling over the level of that support seems really disingenuous when we say that we honour what they do. All of us on Anzac Day will be at the services in our electorates honouring the people who have risked their lives for us. I think it is really disingenuous of us not to be really critical about why we will not open our minds to a change in philosophy that is actually about recognising the contribution that our veterans have made to our society the contribution that our veterans continue to make to our society the sense of pride that we have in their achievements and the sense of contribution that we have within a global context for participating in these wars to bring peace to the world. So as a member of the select committee it has been my pleasure and my privilege to be involved in the passage of the bill through the House. I look forward to further discussions and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I am very pleased to take a call on this bill the Veterans’ Support Bill. There has been consensus across the Social Services Committee on much of it. On some of it we have parted our ways and views. One of them is what the previous speaker Louisa Wall has just alluded to. As an ex - naval officer myself I can assure this House that no serviceman goes away to fight for their country thinking “I wonder what I’ll get in the way of a veterans pension when I come back.” or anything of that order.What this bill is about in terms of the veterans pension is bringing parity from what there was in 1954 because let us not forget that a lot of those people have since passed on. To all of a sudden say that now there is only a few of them left actually that disability—and successive Governments have made decisions on this—that would have given them the prerequisite opportunity to have that veterans pension should somehow now mean nothing is wrong. It is wrong because of those who have been there before. I can assure the House that there is not a single serviceman who serves their country because of what they may get out of it—some minor financial compensation—at some other stage in their life.Having said that of course it is important that every veteran is supported wholeheartedly in a holistic way. Actually that is why this House is largely in agreement on everything else on this. What this bill does is ensure that no one is worse off that everyone is supported in a more tangible and realistic and modern way. But never forget that servicemen do not do what they do for this.Can I just also acknowledge the contribution of Major Rebecca Thornley. She got promoted during this exercise and I am sure she is going to shout at some stage shortly. I also acknowledge Ross Miller for his contribution and my father Lew Sabin and my uncle Lew Gibb who are also former servicemen. I am very proud to support this bill.Bill read a second time.