Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Madam Speaker this feels a bit like a Thursday afternoon debate but tragically it's not Thursday afternoon; it's only Wednesday—oh no I don't mean tragically" because I always miss the House so much when I leave on a Thursday afternoon but the reason that I said that it feels like a Thursday afternoon debate is that we've got consensus amongst the parties in the supporting of this bill.I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Ron Mark as the Minister responsible for this legislation in garnering that support. It's not always easy but I guess it was less difficult less challenging in this instance because this is not a bill that is full of complexities or policy challenges; it's a bill that just rectifies a drafting area—error. I've caught the Willie Jackson disease saying "area" instead of "error". It corrects a drafting error in section 9 of the Veterans' Support Act passed in 2014. This was obviously an Act that was passed under the previous Government but my recollection from the debate then was that it had support from all the parties in Parliament as well.It's really important that we do progress this legislation at a good pace and I'm pleased that that's what the House has been doing and the reason for that is that at the moment even though veterans have been advised that the bill is going to be progressed they've heard the debate at the select committee and as the Hon Maggie Barry mentioned there weren't very many submitters but there was a lot of interest from around—Hon Maggie Barry: Nine.Hon RUTH DYSON: Nine or 10. The Hon Maggie Barry recalls the exact number but there was a lot of interest from veterans around the country who are not confident about the outcome of this. Nobody can ever guarantee what the outcome in Parliament is going to be so a lot of veterans are saying "Once the law is passed we will be assured of what our entitlements are." And of course this is important not just for veterans but also for their families. They need to have certainty about their entitlements. The agency that administers the veterans' entitlements also should be confident about what they're doing in future. There are processes there are mechanisms and there are basic administration issues that will need to be put in place to ensure that when these changes are made when this drafting error is corrected the agency will be able to carry on with the administration.What happened in 2014 is that the Veterans' Support Act changed the criteria for determining whether a veteran who was obviously serving on behalf of New Zealand can receive support or services if they're injured or become ill because of the nature of what they have been exposed to during their time serving New Zealand. It's obvious it was something like that and with the passion that most members—probably all members—of Parliament feel in terms of respect for our veterans it's obvious that that support was going to be ensured. But this section of the legislation had a drafting error in it so it didn't deliver what Parliament expected. For the Government of the day—and if members refer to the Hansard of the debate at the time; late 2013 or early 2014 from my recollection—the intention of the Government was to allow the declaration of qualifying operational time the time of the service to be made at any time before during or after the deployment. So that declaration could be at any one of those three times. That's how it's been interpreted since the legislation was passed.So as a result since that time—since 2015—when the Act came into force a number of deployments which didn't meet the previous criteria have been reassessed. That had to be done to make sure that all those who have served particularly on high-risk deployments are treated equally and consistently. So there's been an interpretation of the legislation there's been an understanding of members of Parliament who were involved in the debate and the discussion at the time and then there's been the actual legislation which haven't all matched up and obviously in order for our agencies to be seen not to be complying with the intent of the legislation but actually to be complying with the letter of the legislation this correction needs to be made.So throughout that process—throughout the interpretation of the legislation—the understanding of Parliament and the sharp eagle eyes of somebody who's been looking at the actual wording—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt the member. That was so interesting but the House is suspended for the dinner break. We will resume at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon RUTH DYSON: I wouldn't always take the remaining time but I have to say that I was so encouraged and enthused by your lovely words prior to the dinner adjournment and I want to thank you for that commendation. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is like a Thursday afternoon.Hon RUTH DYSON: It is like a Thursday afternoon! As I was saying before dinner the reason that I had said that it was like a Thursday afternoon is because we have cross-party agreement on this bill. The Minister Ron Mark deserves support and praise for his ability to discuss the issue that we are now progressing in legislation with all the other parties in this House and get what I understand will be unanimous agreement. Perhaps it's not the biggest challenge that he's had because this is just fixing a simple drafting error. But regardless I think that the respect that a Minister gains when they're able to work collaboratively and also commendation to—I know the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Maggie Barry were two of the former Ministers who were involved and I think we should also commend them for their willingness to put party politics aside and say "For the good of veterans we should just get on and do this".I know that the Hon Ron Mark has a particular passion for veterans and that I have always assumed is because of his time in the military. I want to say that I share that passion. It's not because I have spent any time in the military myself but because I was brought up as an army brat. I was born not far from this fair building in a place called Naenae. I don't know if that's in Ginny Andersen's patch or Chris Hipkins' patch but I was born in Naenae. But I had the foresight at the age of just 2½ months of age to leave Naenae. But unfortunately where I next resided was Waiōuru. It was cold it was damp—it's a delightful place. Then we moved from there to Linton just out of Palmerston North.Every single one of my family is born in a different army camp. My mother was born in Auckland my father was born in Dunedin and my siblings and I were born in army camps in between. So I was brought up to "Reveille" and "The Last Post" and Anzac Day parades and used to being surrounded by people wearing uniforms because that was our life. So I have a personal passion and understanding for the work of veterans. Melissa Lee my colleague across the House has shared Korean Day with me as I honoured those who fought alongside my father in Korea. Melissa was quite surprised to hear potentially something good about a Labour MP that she agreed with! But she and I have often exchanged those discussions at Korean Day events and subsequently. My father also served in Japan and in Egypt as well as Korea but fortunately was one of the people who came home without any physical injuries unlike some of the some of the people who are impacted by this bill.I want to acknowledge that even though this is a bill being progressed by obviously the Government of the day it originally had its intention from a previous Government. The error that's in it is one that's easy to understand and explain. But it does put at risk decisions that have been made in terms of recognising deployments and the entitlements that those that were deployed are now receiving. I think about 15 deployments have been recognised in this way. This correction means that that recognition of those 15 deployments will be valid. At the moment they're up in the air and that's certainly not what we want to do.I am delighted that the House has also agreed to the quite rapid progress of this legislation after the second reading. The longer it's left unattended and uncorrected the less certainty there is by veterans and their families as well as the agency who administer it. They deserve to be treated better. The people that serve us so proudly overseas do so often at great personal risk. Some of course we know have lost their lives but fortunately not so many recently. But that danger that they put themselves in is for our betterment. They are our veterans. They have served us well and by correcting this drafting error I think that we will do them proud as they have done us proud in their deployments."