Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move That the words 22 June" be replaced with "28 July".I think every member of this House supports the Minister's desire and will work to the effect of having this bill passed in the term of this Parliament which we know is likely to rise around 6 August. Now the issue for me and for my colleagues—and I should stress that I have discussed this issue with the National Party spokesperson for veterans' affairs Chris Penk—is that while I accept the Minister's point that there has been a very significant preamble in the preparation of this there is no doubt in our minds that this remains a very complex piece of legislation like its parent Act and for example other Acts that determine entitlements but have boundaries like the Accident Compensation Act. There will always be people that fall on one side of the issue or the other.Now if the bill is referred to the select committee tonight/tomorrow and advice is called for clearly in the next week before the recess it's not going to be possible to do much more than call for submissions. Then we're into June. We are I suggest in a very very tight time frame to give effect to what I believe will be the many submissions that will be made notwithstanding that the Minister has already consulted with key groups. But I know from experience that the veterans community is a broad one. It's also very forthright in its views and they often align themselves very much with the sorts of conflicts that they experienced.Vietnam veterans the nuclear test veterans Korea J-Force and the very few World War II veterans that we have left are nevertheless very very interested in the supports that are provided not so much for them but for the modern veteran. Indeed the purpose of this and the Veterans' Support Act 2014 was to update the Act in order to make sure that we have a broader net within which veterans are able to be captured and in my first reading speech when that bill was first introduced I made the point—I think it was the Hon Phil Goff who was the spokesperson for Labour in veterans' affairs and he agreed with the sentiment—that it was better to get it right than to get it early.I have every confidence that the select committee is going to hear from a number of those veterans' groups whether or not they have already been consulted by the Minister's office or Veterans' Affairs New Zealand to have their views heard. It behoves us to respect their right and what they will perceive as their duty to make a thoughtful submission even if it's in support of this bill. But I can see aspects of this already where there will be boundaries around qualifying service and the degree of entitlements that are going to mean that people will fall on the other side of that qualifying service.There's been reference for example to the fact that the Ron Paterson report did not include the definition of service in its scope. But we are in this bill as I understand it changing that to basically put a blanket over any service prior to 1974 which is going to leave people like for example a close relative of mine who served in the Sinai in the early 1980s as an Iroquois pilot outside of the definition of that. I think he and his colleagues may well—he's my brother—feel as though while it is now it wasn't technically then so much a theatre of war or conflict; it was nevertheless a very very active place and one that carried significant risk to both health and life.Now they will want to have a view on this and what I have suggested to the Minister—and he was very receptive in this view—is that let's actually use the time we've got between now and the rising of the House to give the select committee more time to hear from those submitters. As a quid pro quo our members will work very hard to make sure that any improvements are supported and that when we get the bill back in better shape to the House—as I know there will be improvements to it—we will expedite that through this House in a timely manner. I happened to have occasion to speak to the Leader of the House tonight who informed me that were that the case were the Minister receptive to this amendment he would use his best endeavours—and they were stronger words than that; basically "We'll make sure we get this through."So the question really is: having given the Government all of the time up until today since the Paterson report was written to get the bill shovel-ready and into the House we give everybody else just three weeks and then the Government then has another seven weeks in order to get the bill through. My amendment effectively says "You know what? Let's give the select committee a little more time and the Government less time to bring it back but with a commitment from us that we're confident that we'll get a better bill." Nobody's going to hold that up. We will support this but I just feel we will get better legislation for these very deserving people if indeed we take just a little more time than the very short report-back period that the Minister's motion gives.All of that said—and I firmly believe that it's necessary and appropriate to do so—the National Party remains supportive of the intention. I just hope one of two things don't happen: firstly that the select committee has to come back and ask for an extension from the Business Committee—that's possible; we've seen it before when bills are given such a shortened report-back—and (2) we actually pass a bill into law that is subsequently found to have a gap or a hole in it. I don't think given the interregnum and the hiatus between now and the 53rd Parliament that would actually be something that any of us would want to occur.So I do ask the Minister and his parties around him to give careful consideration to enabling the select committee to give its best efforts in what is still two months and a bit. It's still not a great length of time within which to be able to consider this legislation. As I say I'm encouraged by the Minister at least his willingness to listen if not yet to agree to my amendment. But I do commend it to him and to the House."