Mark RonHon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak and make a short contribution on behalf of New Zealand First and I guess it befalls me because it has the words Veteran's Pension Legislation" included in the amendment. I think there's no need to continue to rotary hoe this paddock. Almost everything that needs to be said about the bill in terms of its technicalities reasons and rationale has been widely canvassed so I will not drag things out by repeating those things.I do wish though to just signal something. I note that there's been some commentary and in fact some expressions of concern and recognition around veterans. Comments have been made around there being around 6800 veterans receiving the veterans pension and sadly this number has decreased over the years as veterans from the First World War Second World War Korean War and even the Vietnam War have passed. I'd just like to signal to the select committee as they consider this bill: looking forward something that seems to escape many people—I know it has not escaped the Hon Maggie Barry; she's fully aware of this—is that whilst the numbers of veterans from the world wars have definitely decreased and decreased quite considerably over the years it does seem to surprise New Zealanders when I remind them that since about—well crikey let's go back to about 1990 come forward to the East Timor deployment. There are now 42000 veterans not the 6800 that people talk about. The difference is that many of these veterans have yet to reach qualifying age. But if one considers that East Timor was the biggest deployment that New Zealand has had since—actually bigger than Korea bigger than Vietnam. We have a block of veterans coming down the line who will all qualify.It's nice to read that this bill modernises and recognises the fact that back in the old days when there was one provider for the household normally the male women were at home tending the fort and minding the children. That is not normality today. Today women have jobs and careers and it is no longer appropriate to be considering that both partners—the non-qualifying partner and the qualifying male—be lumped in together. I'd signal that for many of the veterans who will come through. A large number of them are women who have served this nation and not on one deployment but on numerous deployments. Many of these deployments have included places like Angola Sudan Sinai Iraq and Afghanistan.So I'd just signal to the select committee: do not be lulled into a false sense around this point. There's a large tranche of veterans coming down. We have been in Afghanistan for 16 or 17 years now—that's more than three times longer than the Second World War. That means there are a lot of veterans coming through.I'll signal something else as well. In the Paterson report which I tabled in the House as the Minister of veterans' affairs one of the recommendations from Professor Ron Paterson is that Parliament look again at the definition of "veteran". If you go back to the War Pensions Act 1954 and you go back to the recently passed by the last Government Veterans' Support Act 2014 the definition has been kept pretty much the same. That definition strikes out eligibility to be called a veteran or treated as a veteran for people who have served this country in uniform for 35 years simply because they have not served on one of these officially recognised operations that fit the definition of the current veterans Act. I know that when we were in Opposition representations around this point were made to the previous Government who had a tin ear. That question is now on the table again. My Veterans' Advisory Board has been consulting on that. I'm signalling and I have signalled that I am looking at that question. I do not believe it's a question that will be answered by myself alone or by this Parliament alone. I believe that that's a question that will be answered by the nation and it will be the views of the public of New Zealand as to how their veterans or how their servicemen and servicewomen should be treated—having given good loyal service without the benefit of representation of a union to protect them as all other New Zealanders have—and as to how they should be defined and thereby supported once they have hit the age of 65.I want to raise another point here. If we look through around the question of the level of superannuation and just remind people: going back to the Labour Government in 2005-2008 that was supported by a confidence and supply agreement from New Zealand First and in that we made it clear and we set a minimum amount for a couple as not being less than 66 percent of the net average wage. That 66 percent minimum level for national super and for the veterans pension has as a consequence become the de facto status quo. I would note that there are some parties—namely my party New Zealand First—who want to lift the level of that and have made it very clear in our party's manifesto that we think even 66 percent is still too low but hey when you're negotiating you get to a point where you have to accept that you've gone as far as you can. So 68 percent was really what we were looking for; 66 percent back there in 2005-2008 is what we achieved. It seems to now be pretty much universally accepted that that's where it should be. I think down the line if there are going to be any changes to that again my understanding is this bill will have to be amended again.I would just like people to keep an open mind around those factors when they consider this bill. On that note I recommend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee."