Goff Phil: Veterans’ Support Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Veterans’ Support Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18518. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I first add to the list of people that the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs has thanked for the work that has gone into bringing the Veterans’ Support Bill to this point those who initiated the process. I am thinking of Rick Barker the former Minister of Veterans’ Affairs. I am thinking of the late John Campbell who was president of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association and Major ChrisMullane retired of the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. We began this process back in about 2006. The other person I want to add to that list is actually Sir Geoffrey Palmer. We set up the Law Commission to look at the War Pensions Act 1954 which was out of date. Geoffrey Palmer did a huge amount of work went around the country talked to the veterans and talked to theRSAs. He brought up a package of recommendations that this House should take very seriously.This bill has been a long time coming. I welcome it now that it is here. I have to say that my big disappointment—and this will come as no surprise to the Minister—is that the Government has left out of this bill some of the critical provisions that were recommended by the Law Commission by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association and by other veterans’ groups. We have missed out things that the veterans came to the Social Services Committee and asked us directly for.I agree with the Minister. We should in this debate honour those whom this bill is about. I am looking across the wall there at a plaque that says “Crete”. Last week we celebrated the 73rd anniversary of the Battle of Crete—something very close to my heart because my father-in-law was captured there and spent 4 years in a prisoner of war camp. I seeCassino over there. I met with 44 veterans of MonteCassino in our hall in this building. I talked to those people whom we should honour because through their sacrifice and their commitment we have a better world today.Where I come out on this bill is not simply to do as the Minister has done which is to pick up half of my suggested amendments and bring in the symbolism of saying that anyone who put themselves in harm’s way should be eligible for a war veteran’s pension. We should not only give them the symbolism but keep the substance—the substance of what the RSA asked for pleaded for and the substance of what the Law Commission said we should do which was to give them a few small material benefits and some substance to back up the symbolism of recognising their role and their service. This is our last opportunity to do it. In the regulatory impact statement we read that 28 percent of our war veterans will pass away over the next 5 years. That will be most of the World War II veterans. They were there in their 90s when we met with them last week. There was one fellow there IanMathieson who had turned 100. We spoke with him and we admired what they had done. We admired their grit. This is the chance to thank them in their lifetime by giving them the substance of what the Law Commission after 2½ years of hard work said the House should give them.I ask you Minister why we are scrimping. What is the cost? It is $11.1 million. The Minister said it might be more than that. When I asked the officials they said it was less than that. That is the answer I got from RickOttaway Minister—that it was less than their original prediction. I ask you why it is when we are passing in the estimates this year $13 million to pay for a conference in Samoa that we cannot afford $11 million to honour those who for 4 years served this country abroad watched their mates die or get badly wounded before their eyes and often came back traumatised. I ask Minister whether $11.1 million in the first year reducing to $8 million 3 years down the track is something that is unaffordable and unreasonable to offer our veterans.We have given RioTinto $30 million to subsidise it to stay in New Zealand for another 3 years before it pulls out. Last night we passed a very good piece oflegislation—well we did not pass it; it went through its second reading as you might recall Mr Chairman and I do not think you were unfortunate enough to be the presiding officer in the Chair at that point—that would cost $138 million by its third year. I applaud that. We should be helping working mothers to have a little bit of time out to raise their kids. If we can do that for our working mums then surely for our veterans in their last years we can make this gesture to them of a little bit of substance to back our expressed gratitude—and I accept that it is heartfelt gratitude from the Minister—for their service.What I am saying is that what we are asking for is not unaffordable. What we are asking for is not unreasonable. What we are asking for is not part of a bidding race in an election year; it is something that the Law Commission said we should do and that the veterans sincerely and genuinely pleaded with us to do. Surely in this Chamber when we stand up time and again and express our gratitude we can give it a bit of concrete form. You know the $40 million that the Minister mentioned is over 4 years. There will be $11 million dropping to $8 million. The Minister says: “What about the other 10000 to 15000 vets from Afghanistan and Timor and the Solomons?”. That will be a factor. It will be a factor when most of us in this Chamber are dead. Most of those veterans will not be retiring until about 2054. So it is not an argument to say that we cannot afford it because sometime in the future 40 years out those who have served us well in Afghanistan Timor and the Solomons will also be eligible.It is as the Minister acknowledged about the families as well. The families of those World War II veterans went without their loved ones for 4 years. When their loved ones came back they were often traumatised as my father-in-law was. In his case it was from 5 hugely difficult years when he was starved and forced by the Germans to march across Eastern Europe in the face of the advancing Red Army. Those families also suffered. What most veterans will tell you Minister if you listen is that they want to be sure that those costs are met when they die and that they are not a further burden on their families. It is not a lot to ask for: a $5700 lump-sum payment on death to give that peace of mind to our veterans and to acknowledge our gratitude for their service and sacrifice to our country.I applaud the fact Minister that you have done a U-turn and said that all veterans are eligible for the war pension. But that just means that they transfer from New Zealand Superannuation to something called the veterans pension. They want that. That is good. That symbolism is important. They get the community services card which might cost a couple of million maybe—maybe not even that much. They get their pension even if they are hospitalised for over 13 weeks. That might cost a couple of hundred thousand. The one thing that we were offering them and that the Law Commission said we should give them was that lump-sum payment on death. Is that too much to ask of our generation and the generations that will come for people who shaped the world that we enjoy today the peace that we enjoy today and the well-being that we enjoy today?It is a gesture. It is a token amount. It is tiny as a percentage of the total spending of a Government. It is 0.00001 percent and we are told that it is unaffordable in straitened times. Well we could afford to give big tax cuts to wealthy people. Can we not afford to make a small gesture to our veterans so that they know that on their death the costs of their funeral expenses will not fall on their families? It is a little thing Minister to ask and I am asking it of you sincerely.I would love to see this Committee go forward as one and say: “Here is something concrete tangible albeit very small that we can do for our veterans.” I have heard no explanation in the Minister’s speech or from those on the National Party side who have spoken at the earlier stages as to why we cannot afford to do that and why we should not do that. No New Zealander would begrudge this small gesture to the people whofought and sacrificed themselves on our behalf. I have got Supplementary Order Paper 441 here. I am asking that members across the Committee support it. I know that New Zealand First is supporting it and I thank those members for that. I know that the Greens are supporting it. I thank them. Brendan Horan is supporting it. The Māori Party is supporting it—