Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker. You've encouraged—indeed instructed—us to be pretty specific and pretty tight in this debate and I wish to accept that challenge by giving my most outrageously pedantic contribution yet. In my contribution I will focus on the placement of the apostrophe in clause 19—(Abatement of veteran's pension)".The word "veteran's" is spelt with the word "veteran apostrophe s" meaning that it refers to a veteran singular—and I might note that all veterans are singular in that other sense of the word too—rather than veterans plural. And this is significant to the bill in five main ways.SPEAKER: The member is wrong. Clearly he didn't have a good English teacher.CHRIS PENK: I didn't realise it was your turn to make a contribution but I look forward to any heckling that may—SPEAKER: Sorry I thought the member was being light-hearted in his approach.CHRIS PENK: Yeah OK—very good. Thank you sir. I'm pleased to maintain the light-hearted approach and anyone who cares to listen along can no doubt gain some enjoyment as well as some education from the experience.So we're talking about a veteran. Now no doubt that applies to all veterans to whom the legislation applies but I think it's significant that we're talking about a veteran in the singular notwithstanding that the principal Act that's being amended by Part 2 of this bill is the Veterans'—plural apostrophe—Support Act 2014.The five ways that it is significant briefly—which I'll go through more fully you'll be pleased to know—are that it personalises the concept of the benefit; second it stresses the individual relationship to the society inherent in the nature of a benefit; third it recognises the service that has been provided by the veteran on a very personal basis—Kiritapu Allan: Leader of the Conservative Party!SPEAKER: Order! Order! This is actually interesting.CHRIS PENK: —fourth it emphasises that the circumstances in relation to the work now being performed by the veteran are different in each individual case; and fifth it notes that the pension belongs to the veteran himself or herself. It's possessive in the best possible sense of that phrase.I'll start with the first of those and I regret that I don't have more time—I might seek that at the end of my call. Personalising the benefit: while it might be a symbolic point that I make—and I do appreciate the Speaker's feedback on that point without wanting to bring him into the debate despite having just done so—the benefit that we're talking about the pension of the veteran is very much one that belongs to him or her as the case may be and that's appropriate because the nature of service is that it is very personal. It is a personal commitment—sometimes I suppose we would say a personal sacrifice—that he or she has made in the service of God king and country if I can use that phrase. I know it's out of date; all three are out of fashion these days—SPEAKER: Queen.CHRIS PENK: —but in any case for some to whom this legislation applies that might be how they feel about the matter.The second is to understand the relationship between society and the individual involved and that's the nature of a benefit in the sense of the social assistance being provided in this legislation. So it's a good thing that the veteran has done for their country and then it is a good thing—literally a benefit—that is being provided back in turn. It's something of a contract between the two.The third point as promised is that it's recognition that the service has been provided on a personal basis. That links back to the first point that I made in relation to the personalisation of the benefit. Of course it's the nature of abatement as is the particular mechanism of the Act that it is a very personal situation because it depends crucially on the amount that he or she is earning and the increase in that that the benefit is abated at and the proportions change of course in the way that's set out in there.My final point as my time reaches towards the end is the fact that we've got the word "veteran's" expressed in that way seemingly relating to an individual veteran notwithstanding that there will be many to whom it applies. We're emphasising the possessive case—literally the possessive case—and the pension of course does belong to the veteran. It's possessive in the sense of both the semantic and the syntactic as my colleagues across the House have no doubt picked up on. They are indeed heckling grammatical points at me even now as I speak.So with that all in mind it's disappointing not to be able to commend the bill to the House in its entirety but there is some interesting education I think that we can gain from that particular aspect."