van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. Now I've listened carefully to both the Minister's reasoning for his proposed shortened report back and the amendment that has been put forward by the Hon Michael Woodhouse in consultation with Chris Penk our veterans spokesperson.One of the things I learnt very early on in my time in the New Zealand Army was a phrase Hurry up and wait." And that was something we became very effective at doing. When I first enlisted that was something we learnt and when I commissioned as an infantry officer I developed a slightly different view on that and it became more relevant and I understood better why that was the case. It comes slightly to the planning and preparation the mission analysis process you go through when you are assessing time and space in your deliberations. And with that one of the other rules of thumb we would always use is when you receive your orders from a superior you then determine the time frame that you have to work in within that—you allocate a third of that time frame to yourself for planning and the other two-thirds goes to your subordinates for their planning and subsequent rehearsals and delivery of orders etc. before implementing the plan.I think it's important to note that in the context of what we're looking at here the Paterson report came out in March 2018; that's just over two years ago. I appreciate it takes time to get these proposals in the right space but I'm heartened to hear that Mr Woodhouse has spoken with the Leader of the House who has given his assurance or support for passing this through this Parliament. And I would be absolutely concerned if we weren't able to achieve that because I think it is important to do that. But perhaps taking an additional month to consider this in the select committee process would be appropriate to give any submitters the opportunity to share their views on why they would or would not fit within what's been defined within this.When we look at some of the proposals in terms of a limited entitlement to treatment or counselling services for the veteran's family members—spouse partner child dependant—how limited who potentially constitutes a family member within that and the guardians because we're talking about changing the definition of child under this as well. So there will potentially be scenarios where someone doesn't quite qualify for what is being put forward in this bill and it would be a real shame to see them miss out because we thought we had it right and we didn't quite give them enough time or space to submit and to clearly articulate their views to the committee and for the committee to subsequently consider that and report back to the House.So on that basis I would like to support Mr Woodhouse's amendment extending the report-back date from 22 June as put forward by the Minister out until 28 July in order to enable those veterans their family members—or indeed any stakeholder who may wish to express a view on this bill—to do so in that period. Having the report back at that point still gives us then a sufficient window if we act efficiently—which is always the intent from a military perspective—to then process this bill through the remaining stages in terms of the second reading the committee of the whole House and third reading to enable it to receive the Royal assent and pass into law. Obviously as we've heard tonight that is the clear intent of Parliament—to have it passed in this term—and so on that basis I am very keen to support the proposal put forward and just wonder whether there is ongoing consideration of that in terms of a position we reach in agreement with the Government on this particular piece of legislation.So there is a lot to be considered and whilst the bill is not particularly robust there are many many pages to consider. They are important considerations that need to be made throughout. The assessment of that qualifying operational service I think is one of the key aspects and Mr Woodhouse touched on that a bit earlier on as well in terms of what does or doesn't fit within that. And again different operational theatres we deploy to as the New Zealand Defence Force can change threat levels over time and what may or may not be qualifying operational experience can therefore vary as well. And of course it's not just direct military contact; that can be other aspects in terms of the nuclear components or a range of other environments that can be classified at the Minister's determination to be qualifying operational experience.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That thirty seconds actually needs to be on a very tight—you do have a colleague who's—TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Yes and so we look at those aspects because there are those range of different considerations around qualifying operational experience; the time frame to consider that and to enable those different veterans from different classes to put forward their submissions to indeed work within their different groups. And of course the Returned and Services Associations—I'd like to acknowledge the great work that they do in terms of providing support to veterans and I'm sure they will have a range of views on this and would like to canvass their members quite widely. That can take some time but it's an important process.So on that basis I'm happy to go with the consensus between the Minister and Mr Woodhouse. I think we have reached a position here and I look forward to seeing this bill progress through the rest of the stages this Parliament."