Logie Jan: Veterans’ Support Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Veterans’ Support Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.