Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3942] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Some may judge the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) as not exactly a bowel-gripping topic but that is not the perspective from which I come in connection with this debate. I have to say that war veterans have not been well treated by this Government and that is unfortunate. 
That observation is writ large if one looks at the history of the bill. It was introduced on 12 December 2001. The first reading was not until 16 April 2002. It was reported back on 26 November 2002 and now the second reading occurs today on 4 March 2003. I believe that that is not good treatment of our veterans. 
Just by way of further illustration on 28 February my office received an email from a veteran who said this: “Quite some time ago a deputation of veterans visited Miss Clark and some of her loafers to plead the case for people on the veterans pension to be allowed to do some paid work. It was on TV and the case was accepted. However I phoned War Pensions today and have been told that no it has not been passed yet. We are not allowed to work. My question is how long does the Government need to change something as simple.” There is no doubt about it; in a setting where an injustice could be readily resolved the Government has paused to the significant disadvantage of veterans. [ 
Interruption 
] It is important that I make these comments in the context of this second reading because it is important that the Government be brought to account for its shabby and shoddy treatment of veterans over a significant period of time—as long as this Government has been in office. 
Too readily we dismiss the status of veterans. National made a number of commitments just prior to the last election that were intended to improve significantly the lot of veterans. It used to be the case that New Zealand was a leader in the provision of support to returned servicemen and servicewomen. I think all members of the House now realise that new initiatives are required. For many years there was a general lack of awareness and understanding of the ongoing range of physical and psychological problems suffered by veterans as a result of active service. Of course with the passage of time knowledge of the consequences of war on the health of the individual veteran has increased. I believe that the Government has a duty to deal with these issues without delay as veterans age in years. 
We also need to remember that the veteran be it man or woman volunteer or conscript loyally served his or her country when called upon and understood that he or she might pay the ultimate price and that others would carry the scars of active service whether visible or not. 
I believe that in return for the service that they gave they had a right to expect that the Government would act to ensure they received ongoing support because of the trauma they suffered. That is why at the time of the last election National had specific policies touching on revamping the war pensions legislation and the introduction of a veterans’ gold card. It is the case that over the years the clamour of veterans for such a medical benefit has not waned yet the Government appears to have substantially set its heart against that plan. 
An interesting aspect of this bill is that it has attracted an adverse report from the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the relevant provision of the Standing Orders. That is a rare event and I am surprised that the Minister of Justice in his comments on the second reading did not see it as appropriate to refer to that. It is not often the case that any Government should proceed against the view of an Attorney-General that legislation significantly and substantially infringes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
I would like to turn for a moment to a document tabled as E.63 which is the report of the Attorney-General touching on the issue of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. She said: “The Bill gives rise to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. The discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation arises because the provisions set out in the Bill apply only to couples treated as ‘married’ under the Social Security Act 1964. The Social Security Act provides for the recognition of opposite-sex de facto couples as ‘married’ but does not recognise same-sex relationships in the same way.” She then talks about the disadvantages of the legislation from that perspective and notes: “ … the rate of Veterans Pension to be paid is determined by reference to the veteran’s marital status. A veteran with a same-sex partner will not be paid at the ‘married rate’ but will instead be paid at the proportionately higher ‘single rate’. While this results in a financial advantage to a veteran in a same-sex relationship it may also be seen as perpetrating the historical and ongoing stigmatisation of same-sex relationships by failing to recognise the status and value of such relationships.” She concludes that this particular bill “in discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation appears to be inconsistent with … the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and does not appear to be justified in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act.” This is a surprising conclusion. The Government has set its heart against complying with legislation that is part of our constitution—and I note that we do not have a written constitution. 
I would like to turn briefly to the main provisions of the bill. I will leave it to Ms Rich who is to follow me in this debate to deal with those other matters that particularly touch on her responsibility. 
The main provisions of the bill can be summarised in this way. First an entitlement to a veterans pension depends on one’s being unable to be employed. Under the current law the situation is that veterans who are under the age of 65 years may qualify for a pension only if they have mental or physical infirmities that prevent them from undertaking employment and because of that infirmity they must be likely to be prevented from undertaking employment permanently or for a substantial period. That is the first core provision. Second that principle has been modified to allow employment subject to abatement. There are detailed arrangements dealing with that in the bill. In summary in a new provision the bill provides for the abatement of veterans pensions in the case of veterans who are under the age of 65 years. The rate of abatement is 30c for every dollar of employment income derived by the person receiving a pension that is in excess of $80 per week but not in excess of $180 per week and 70c for every dollar derived by a person in excess of $180 per week. 
National supports this legislation. But we believe that the time has now come with an aging veteran population for the Government to be much more seriously involved in the concerns of veterans. I invite those members opposite who form this current interim Government to reflect on what further strategies should be developed for the advancement of the cause of veterans. The time has come when this group can no longer be ignored. There is a raft of injustices across a broad front which need to be remedied.