Graham Kennedy: Veterans’ Support Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Veterans’ Support Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14116. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): This debate on the Veterans’ Support Bill is beginning to wind down but not the commitment of this Parliament to its objective and its principles. I rise just to reaffirm the Green Party’s support for this bill. We will see it referred to the select committee. It has been a while in coming—3½ years since it was reported back to the House—but as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs himself said it is important to get it right and I assure the Minister that the Green Party will work constructively with him to that end.It is always an interesting characteristic of debates and bills pertaining to national security and veterans’ sacrifice that they bring out a personal commitment and personal recollections on the part of members of Parliament. We have heard the very moving speech from Melissa Lee and I think there is no individual member of Parliament here who is without some form of personal relationship to sacrifice in this country. Certainly I had an uncle whom I never met who fell in Egypt during World War II. My father-in-law who served in the RNZAF in the United Kingdom and was stationed over at an RNZAF base died just 3 years ago leaving behind his widow—my mother-in-law—who is still with us but who has very very very little time left with us.We certainly endorse the principles in this bill. I think they are sufficient for the purpose: community responsibility fair entitlement equal treatment and beneficial approach. I think with those that we apply into practical manifestation we will indeed get this right.Just to conclude on a philosophical note my colleague Jan Logie identified the fourth principle in the Green Charter which is non-violence which effectively means that conflict needs to be settled in a non-violent way. For that to happen you basically need a mechanism I think of peace—a fabric for peace. I think it is not so much turning round or presuming to turn round human behaviour. If we wish to avoid the nightmare of fallen loved ones and people returning as veterans with physical and psychological scars then we need to develop with greater determination and insight than we have in even the last half century a fabric for peace. In fact it was Melissa Lee on behalf of herself and her countrymen and women who referred to the United Nations coming to the aid of South Korea at the time and I would endorse that. It was probably the clearest case of the United Nations rising to the challenge in terms of aggression and effectively making this the critical contribution to restoring peace.Coming out of that however the fabric for peace that you need—which is there in theAgenda For Peace; the United Nations is developing this slowly agonisingly but itis getting there—is preventative diplomacy pacific settlement conflict resolution peacekeeping and peacemaking. That requires—especially the last one peacemaking—the legitimate use of force. The pathway to a world without war is the strengthening of international law and the legitimate use of force. A world without force would require a change of human nature but a world without war simply requires a change in human principles and institutions. I do not think it is in any way impossible naive or unrealistic to look for a world without war while fully recognising that human nature does not need to change. We just need to be more insightful more determined to get it right.