War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2)

, on behalf of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: I move, That the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. This bill meets the veterans’ community’s desire for their entitlements to be instituted and viewed separately from the wider social security system, in recognition of the special status of veterans. The bill also enables veterans of working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment, should they be able, without losing their veterans pension.

The War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) provides formal recognition of the impact of service in a war or emergency on New Zealand veterans, by providing a mechanism to assist with rehabilitation. It does this by amending the current provisions surrounding the veterans pension, and allowing veterans of working age who need support during rehabilitation to engage in voluntary or part-time work without losing their entire pension’s entitlement. The bill removes the penalty of loss of entitlement when veterans undertake voluntary work, and institutes an abatement regime particular to the veterans pension for veterans who undertake paid work. This allows veterans to undertake such work without losing their full entitlement to a veterans pension. There is no stand-down provision associated with the veterans pension.

The introduction of the abatement regime gives members of this group a means of flexibly managing their medical needs without financial disadvantage, if their circumstances alter. Making this change to legislation, and supporting working-age veterans as they re-enter the workforce, is a forward-looking, progressive, and practical way of assisting the younger veteran population. Providing financial support to veterans while they make that transition will benefit their overall rehabilitation.

This Government recognises the special status of New Zealand’s war veterans, and the ongoing impact that service in a war or an emergency has on an individual’s life and the lives of his or her family. As I understand it, the bill received the unanimous support of the Social Services Committee, and I commend it to the House.

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.

I do not know how Mr Worth kept a straight face while he was speaking; it would seem that he is suffering from a severe case of amnesia. I ask that member what his Government did for 9 years, while he sat here on this side of the House. He now has the audacity to stand up and criticise this Government for putting this legislation into action, and responding to the needs of veterans. Of course veterans are a special category of people. I am delighted that this bill is now going through the House. Let us progress it as quickly as possible. If the member really believed in what he was saying, let us all sit down now, have this bill go through all its stages, and have it implemented as quickly as possible. I am very pleased to support this bill.

I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill. I take note of Jill Pettis’ comments, and will take only a very short call.

💬 Richard Worth: It’s important that veterans should be recognised—speak at length!

It is important that veterans’ needs are recognised. We believe that this is a really important bill, because it is responding to issues that are really important to New Zealand’s service personnel. New Zealand First is delighted to support this legislation, as we believe that our veterans must be properly recognised for the special contribution they have made to New Zealand’s security. Society owes a debt to those men and women who served overseas in a declared war or in an emergency. On occasions, the full extent of that debt can never be acknowledged. For some people, it will never be acknowledged. New Zealand First believes that our war veterans should receive at least an additional 10 percent in recognition of their sacrifice.

💬 Rodney Hide: Why not 20 percent?

It could very well be 20 percent; it could be more. In the past, war veterans have not been well treated by the House. It is a shame that this bill was not put through the House more quickly, for the sake of those people who are affected by this legislation. We are really pleased to see it here now, because we believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. It will enable veterans of a working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment, should they be able to do so, without losing their veterans pension. This bill ensures that veterans will be able to work any number of hours, depending on their capacity, without removing their entitlement to a veterans’ pension. The measures in this bill are designed to ensure that veterans will be viewed separately from the wider social security system, in recognition of their special status, and we believe that that is as it should be. New Zealand First supports this legislation going through the House.

United Future will also be supporting the second reading of the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2). I heard the tail end of Mr Worth’s speech, and although I did not pick up all the sentiments he was expressing, from what I did glean I think he was saying that we need to take the interests of veterans more seriously, even though the numbers of veterans are declining as they inevitably age. That is a sentiment I agree with. It seems to me that this bill, by separating the provisions for veterans’ pensions away from the social welfare legislation, and putting them into the War Pensions Act, is a step in that direction.

I note from the report of the Social Services Committee that many issues were raised by the witnesses. From memory, I think the report stated that only one of the witnesses fully supported the bill. The other eight submissions supported recognition of the special status of veterans, but actually dealt with a range of other issues that are outside the scope of the bill. I think that is part of the dilemma we have here. This bill is a necessary step in the right direction of our giving veterans the special status that I think every one in the House would acknowledge they need and deserve for their sacrifice and for the effort they made in pretty stressful times. But it is also true that there are a number of issues, which are touched on in the report, that need to be addressed. This bill is not the mechanism for doing that, but that does not make the concerns any less significant. I want to refer to just a couple of those that I think will need to be addressed in the future.

We already have the provision in some circumstances for portability of superannuation payments and I think we do need to look at the practicality of the portability of war pension entitlements, particularly for countries we may have some sort of bilateral understanding with. There is also the issue of surviving spouses being able to continue to receive the veterans pension. I think there are some natural justice issues involved here. Overall, we agree with the conclusion that the Social Services Committee reached that this bill is a useful consolidation of the existing legislation that governs war pension entitlements, and that it will be a step in the right direction. The mistake would be to assume that by passing this bill we will have dealt with the issue. That, I think, might have been the point that my friend Mr Worth was attempting to make, but in somewhat different language—he always has a somewhat greater style in these matters than the rest of us, and I acknowledge that.

💬 Rodney Hide: Well!

Well, certainly more than Mr Hide, but never mind.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Style rather than substance, perhaps.

The Minister should not be too concerned; there is such a thing as words dripping with irony. But seriously, I think this bill is a step forward. It is worth supporting, and we will certainly be pleased to vote it on its way and see it pass into law.

I rise in support of this bill. Let me also congratulate the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minster’s staff, on actually taking a keen interest in veterans’ affairs issues, and on hearing veterans’ concerns directly in her office. I think she did a mighty fine thing, and I think her staff did a mighty fine thing. If we are going to progress the cause of veterans, it requires that we put aside any politics, so let us not make politics out of caring for veterans. Let each of us commit as individual MPs, and as political parties, to doing a better job. It is very easy for members of the Opposition to bash the Government for not doing enough, then find themselves in Government and not doing very much. I congratulate the Prime Minister on meeting with the veterans and on progressing this bill.

I also take the opportunity to congratulate the Office of Veterans Affairs, and, in particular, Colonel Jessie Gunn. She has presented the Office of Veterans Affairs with a human face and an understanding heart with regard to the concerns that veterans have. Does that mean that everything has been solved, and that every veteran’s concern has been taken care of? No, but in order to do that, we need to commit more resources. Veterans do not need fine words from politicians. What they need is a commitment and resources, so I favour fewer fine words from politicians and more action.

As we look around this great debating chamber, I want to make this observation also. The most powerful things in it are the wreaths symbolising all the great battles in which our armed forces personnel—New Zealand soldiers, men and women; New Zealand airmen and women; New Zealand navy personnel, men and women—have served and died, or been wounded, physically and mentally. Each year we go off on Anzac Day and honour the fallen. We honour the battles and the sacrifice made in them so many years ago. It seems to me that we do that because, in a funny way, it is free; because those men and women whom we honour then are dead. The last surviving World War I veteran has died.

My concern, of course, is to honour those who have made the greatest sacrifice of all for their country, but spare a thought for those men and women who served our great country on foreign fields because politicians like us directed them to. Politicians directed them into harm’s way—which they went into voluntarily—and they saw and suffered terrible things on our behalf and at our political direction. I myself cannot imagine it. I would not have the heart to do it, but men and women did. I look at Bill Gudgeon here today; he actually did that—and I salute him and them. I ask that we spare a thought every day for the men and women amongst us who served our country with pride and distinction and carry the scars. Not all the scars are ones that we can see. Not all the scars involve a missing limb or a damaged body. Some of them involve a scarred mind. Years later, a veteran closes his or her eyes at night, bad images flash back, and that man or woman suffers.

I say that there is no interest in anyone in this House playing politics, because we are looking after those great men and women who served their country when they were young. We should just do it. We should congratulate the Prime Minister, and, indeed, this Government, on doing what they have done. We should congratulate them, too, on making a distinction between civilians on a benefit and a veteran receiving his or her pension or disability allowance, because there is a fundamental difference. A beneficiary in hard circumstances might be entitled to a benefit, but veterans served this country at political direction, and that is why they are on that pension, and, indeed, why they have disabilities. Let all of us, from every political party, be generous to them, and realise that it was politicians in this House who put them in harm’s way, and saw the damage done to them as young men and women.

We should also understand this: it is my observation of veterans that they are different from the rest of us, because they served. It is not their nature to turn up and ask for a handout. We should never think of a veterans’ allowance or pension as a handout, because it is not. It is a payment for service. It is a payment for the damage done to mind and body during that service. We must bear in mind that a man or woman who puts him or herself in harm’s way in a foreign war zone is a proud person, a strong person, and a proud Kiwi. It is not in their nature to put their hands out. It is my observation that when a veteran comes for help, he or she is at the end of their tether. They are not trying it on, and we should respect that. The rules that apply to veterans should not be the same rules that we apply to everyone else, because they have served. No one else can say that. Mr Gudgeon can; I cannot, so we should respect that.

I think it is great that veterans on a disability allowance can now work hours. It has been explained to me, and I have observed it myself: sometimes the best rehabilitation is to do a bit of work, but sometimes a veteran suffering terribly from post traumatic stress disorder cannot make the transition to full-time work. I think that everyone in this House now agrees that what we had operating before was cruel and inhumane. It is cruel and inhumane to say to a veteran that if he or she attempts to get back into the workplace and suffers and misses some days, then he or she loses the pension. Again, I congratulate the Prime Minister and her office for taking on the veterans’ concerns and doing something about them.

I ask members of this House to reflect on these few words: to do a better job of looking after veterans, we all must agree. Opposition members of Parliament must chide and chivvy the Government along, whoever is in power, to make those concerns a priority and keep them that way. But let us not do that in a way that plays politics. Let us do it in a way that is well meaning and good-natured—just like those men and women who went off to serve. When they put their bodies and minds in harm’s way, they did not play politics; they did their job. Let us try to do the same. Let us give Colonel Jessie Gunn and her staff our utmost support and praise for the very difficult job that she must do. I do not know of a tougher job than that of looking after veterans, and I do not know how she copes sometimes. What I do know is that she could do with a lot more help and resources, so I plead with my fellow employees to give her that.

I am very pleased to stand in support of the second reading of this bill. In doing so, I want to endorse the comments that Phil Goff made earlier in the debate. I was not in the Chamber for his speech, but I heard it on the radio in my room. I thought he summed up the bill and the feelings behind it very well. I am proud to support it also as the member for Otaki—the electorate with the highest number of people over the age of 65, and therefore one containing a very high proportion of people on this war pension. The bill will make a big difference for them and meet the desire of the veterans’ community to have its entitlement viewed separately from the wider social security entitlements in the system. That is recognition of their special status as veterans and is an appropriate thing to do. I am pleased to see the bill going through the House.

The Green Party welcomes the return of the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House, although, given the simplicity of the legislation and the evident and welcome support for it from all parties in the House, it is a pity it has taken so long to resurface since its first reading in May 2002. As others have mentioned, for the gentlemen and women concerned, it has been a long wait.

The Green Party supports the core goals of the bill, the first of which separates veterans’ pensions from the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Act and moves them over to the War Pensions Act as the basic legislation. We welcome the consolidation of the legislation into war pensions law as that recognises the desire of so many returned servicemen and women to have a special status separate from the bulk of social welfare beneficiaries. Along with my colleagues, I understand that motivation completely, because of the sacrifices they have all made.

The second core aim of the bill is to allow veterans under retirement age who are eligible for the war pension, to work, albeit subject to the abatement regime that applies to all other working age beneficiaries. It is astonishing to me that that anomaly has taken so long to be tidied up. It was an injustice to the veterans, and again it is why I am hoping this bill will be passed as soon as possible.

I will speak briefly on a couple of other matters. When the bill first came into the House, Margaret Wilson, as Attorney-General, provided a special report on it in relation to legal recognition for same-sex de facto couples. I know it seems strange to members that we have that report, but this bill—like all other amendments to social security - related legislation—is caught up in this Government’s desire to create a situation where there is no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; that is, whether a couple is gay or straight, they should be treated the same way under law. That is a deep and controversial issue on which the Green Party has quite mixed feelings, and we look forward to the day when it can be debated properly in the House. In dealing with this bill, the select committee and the Government have basically glided over the Attorney-General’s report. I just wanted to say that we have not forgotten the issue, and that it is a very real one that needs proper debate and consideration by all of us in the House.

The second issue I wanted to raise is that one of the most moving submissions we received on the select committee was from a gentleman who had served on either the Otago or the Canterbury —I cannot remember which ship—during the French nuclear tests at Mururoa Atoll. He talked with us at length about his experiences at Mururoa.

💬 Richard Worth: It was the Otago.

Thank you. Certainly, I found his presentation very affecting, and I could understand his desperation. The issue I had not been aware was that those servicemen had not been recognised in terms of declaring their tour of duty as an emergency, either for the veterans’ pension or the war disablement pension. Again, that seemed extremely strange. Since the committee heard that submission, the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs has remedied the situation and declared that they are now eligible. I am sure that is a great relief to all of us who heard him speak.

In conclusion, the Green Party supports this bill, and we look forward to seeing it enacted as soon as possible.

I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this bill. The electorate of Napier has a proud tradition when it comes to supplying people who have fought overseas, and although this bill really affects only about 100 people, it makes clear the difference between those who are entitled to work and receive a pension because of past service, and those who draw a benefit and do not work. The point of this bill is to recognise past service, and those who can work, despite their age, will still be entitled to their pensions under this bill. That is a major advantage. It recognises the dedication to duty of those who served this country well, and it recognises the duty and dedication that is recognised continually in Napier at the Returned Services Associations and various functions for the veterans, and those who have a great sympathy and support for them. For that very brief and short reason, I enthusiastically support this bill.

First, I would like to make a couple of comments about the two speeches by the Labour members. I am quite sure that this bill will have an impact on a greater number of lives than just the 100 mentioned by Mr Fairbrother. Secondly, I would like to ask the member for Otaki if he is 100 percent sure that the veterans in the home in Levin have been well looked after. It is my understanding that there is still a great sense of unhappiness about the way the management of that home has been treated by this Government.

I want to commend Mr Hide for his contribution. He pointed out that one of the important things we need to do as members of Parliament is develop the ability to empathise with a wide range of people who might not have had the same experiences as we have. That is quite important when looking at this War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2). Very few of us in this Chamber have had the sort of experience that we perhaps need to be able to really understand what it is like to be a veteran. Most of us, I suppose, rely on the experience of our families, the stories that some of our elderly folk have told us, or people we have met in our travels as members of Parliament. I grew up in the small village of Outram, and I always remember lining up with my pack on Anzac Day and hearing read out the long list of names of the young men from Outram who went to both wars and never returned. When one is 7 or 8 years old, one does not really understand the huge impact that would have had on the families of those soldiers.

Today I rang a Mr Perce Wellington in Dunedin, who has been a member of our party for well over 60 years. I took the opportunity to ask him about his experiences in World War II. He was a prisoner of war of the Japanese from March 1942 to September 1945. When he became a prisoner of war, he was 13½ stone, but when he was finally released, he was a mere 6 or 7 stone. One of the things that my generation struggles with is understanding what it was like to be at war. Most of us can be quite flippant in some of our comments about war, because we do not have a true understanding of the sacrifices that were made. I cannot imagine what it would be like not seeing a member of one’s family for years, not knowing whether that person was alive or dead, not getting any letters; and not being able to have the products and things that we hold very dear today. I think the younger generation does forget about those who have gone before.

Mr Hide made a very important point in saying that the provision of entitlements and special treatment of veterans is based on the presumption that society has a debt to repay to those New Zealanders who served in the wars or some other kind of emergency. I very much believe in that. People who have put their bodies on the line are quite different. They do not go to war because they choose to; they go because they are directed by Governments to serve their country. Very few of us have a true understanding of what that sort of sacrifice is like.

In terms of recognition, it is important for all of us to understand that there are some things that make returned servicemen and women quite special. One of the things that this bill sets out to do is to start to set in place ways of recognising those differences. It is a good idea to move the management of pensions away from social security legislation to the War Pensions Act. That sets veterans aside; it says that they are quite different, and that we should deal with them specifically. Another positive move in this bill is the changes made to the abatement regimes. This bill provides that veterans can work any number of hours without losing their entitlement to a veterans’ pension. Sue Bradford pointed out that that anomaly should have been tidied up a lot earlier.

It is interesting that only one of the nine submissions was totally in support of the bill. Many submitters perhaps used the opportunity to raise a whole lot of other issues that were just as important but not covered by the scope of the bill. There was some discussion of issues like the portability of pensions for people who choose to travel overseas. New Zealanders see themselves as very international citizens, and increasingly they want the ability to be able to take their pensions with them.

💬 Darren Hughes: No detailed knowledge of war veterans’ homes!

I must have really hit a nerve with young Mr Darren Hughes, because throughout this entire speech he has interjected about the Levin war veterans’ home. I say again that he should check out his home patch, because we on this side know that there is a lot of unease and unhappiness about the way the management of that home was just left—

💬 John Carter: By the Government.

By the Government.

The other thing I would like to do is pay tribute to the Returned Services Association and some of the comments it has made about this bill. As an advocacy group, the association is extremely good at bringing to our attention the things it thinks we need to know about issues to do with its members. This issue is not going to “die out”, so to speak, because younger servicemen— particularly those who have served in East Timor and other areas; people who have seen equally upsetting sights and been equally traumatised—can argue that they too deserve special recognition when their time comes to retire.

There is a lot of consensus on this bill and, as members are no doubt aware, our party will be supporting it. I disagree with comments that perhaps we should have rushed the bill through and not spoken to it at such length. It is important that we recognise the importance of this legislation and give members of all parties the opportunity to make that recognition.

The last comment I would like to make relates to an interesting Government oversight. It relates to the way that same-sex and de facto relationships have been treated by this bill. The Attorney-General has said that parts of the bill are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is interesting that Tim Barnett and other members on the other side of the House have not raised that as an issue. Although they are quite happy to bring the issue up when it comes to other legislation, they have glossed over it with this particular bill. I would like to know what the rainbow branch of the Labour Party thinks of the Government’s oversight, because it seems to support those issues when it suits it, but not in other areas.

We will be supporting this very important bill. It gives veterans the recognition they deserve.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2), but before I speak to the specifics, could I put on the record, for the benefit of the member who has just resumed her seat, the fact that Presbyterian Support Services now operates the Levin War Veterans Home—

💬 Darren Hughes: Very successfully.

Very successfully, according to the local member, Darren Hughes, who, frankly—

💬 Jill Pettis: What’s his name?

Darren Hughes, who, frankly, knows a lot more about that issue, and who has taken a very strong and active interest in the ongoing continuance of the Levin War Veterans Home. I was delighted to see a satisfactory resolution of what was a very unsatisfactory situation. I would like to acknowledge the leadership role that Darren Hughes played in ensuring that the home was able to continue in that fine town of Levin. I am disappointed that Mrs Rich chose to use what is basically non-political, bipartisan-supported legislation to have some sort of dig at Presbyterian Support Services—an organisation that certainly does not deserve in any way, shape, or form any criticism. In my view it is a very strong supporter not just of our war veterans but of older people in our communities generally. It has my continued admiration for this.

There are a number of quite strong philosophical themes running through the debate today, and, particularly, support of the wish of the war veterans’ community to have their status specifically recognised by their being set aside from the rest of the social security system. That is not because there is any negative view towards anyone else who receives a benefit, an allowance, a pension, or anything of any description at all in the benefit system; it is solely as a means of saying that war veterans do have special status in our society, and our being able to recognise them in the social security system in that way is a very good thing for us to do as a Parliament.

The second part, of course, is to allow veterans of working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment, if they are able to do that, without losing their veterans pension entitlement. This has been a wish of veterans for some time, and I am delighted we are able to progress it.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this bill, not only because it is right to do so but also in recognition of our servicemen and servicewomen who have served our nation with distinction, established our citizenship, and made it known throughout the free world. Before going any further, I would like to compliment and thank previous speakers from parties throughout this House who have recognised this.

In recent gatherings that I have attended with servicemen and servicewomen throughout the country, this matter has been a very popular topic. Many are still not aware of what is available to them that might be of assistance in their later years. Comment received from veterans under retirement age and in receipt of a veterans pension is that they are aware of people on the unemployment benefit who work extra hours above and beyond what they are entitled to, and who are not penalised, unlike the abatement scheme that servicemen and servicewomen are subject to. In my view, a recommendation should be made to the officials from the Ministry of Social Development to progress this issue; a special case should be presented to the ministry in favour of our servicemen and servicewomen.

On page 5 of the commentary on the bill it states: “At this time the issue of the definition of war or emergency in relation to eligibility for a veteran’s pension was concerned primarily with the status of service in Malaya and Indonesia. In 1995 service in Malaya and Indonesia was considered as routine service only,”—that is an indictment on the thousands of men who served in that area—“for the purpose of accessing a war disablement pension under the War Pensions Act 1954, and therefore was not qualifying service for a veteran’s pension … In 1999 the Government recognised service in the Malayan Emergency, Indonesian Confrontation and on the Thai/Malay border … Initially some restrictions were applied to the service requirements for these emergencies. However, these restrictions were removed in June 2002.”

When we hearken back to the years of service that our fellow men have given in these theatres, why was it only in June 2002 that that service was recognised? Let me put this from the perspective of the people who served there. There was a war, and the Victoria Cross was awarded to a member of a Gurkha battalion that was attached to the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. A member of our own Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment received medallic recognition of his acts of bravery in saving members of his own platoon.

New Zealand First supports the bill, and will also support further amendments that will enhance the personal conditions of our veterans, in recognition of their unselfish service in putting their lives on the line for Queen and country.

I remember a quote from a former battalion commander of the 28th Māori battalion, Colonel Awatere: “We have won the war, and now for the battle.” I wondered what he meant by saying “now for the battle” on returning to New Zealand and to the service of his country and the men who had served with him, those who suffered through being wounded, and those who had died and were buried over there in the countries that we see commemorated around this House. I now realise what Colonel Awatere meant. What was the battle he was talking about? Was it for their living conditions? Was it for the conditions of their homes? Was it for their health? Was it to be recognised? It was not that they wanted to be recognised, because they were men who would never, ever ask for a handout. And I speak for all the servicemen and servicewomen of New Zealand, having experienced these things personally. I talk to my fellow servicemen and servicewomen, but they will never ever ask for a handout.

I recognise the remarks made by Mr Hide. It should be our duty, regardless of our political affiliation, to recognise the service that these people of our country rendered for us. We are bound by it, and it is our duty to give this recognition to the people who did that for us.

I remember that we were invited to go to see the Prime Minister of that time, Mr Holyoake. We received a message through our radios: “Your Prime Minister is visiting you.” We were on operations on the Thai border, so we tossed a coin to decide who would go. We must have walked about 3 to 4 hours through those jungles in Thailand and Malaya to see our Prime Minister. None of us at that time thought about politics or anything to do with politicians, but because a Prime Minister had taken it upon himself to visit his troops who were serving our country, we felt honoured. I did not realise how short he was until I saw him. We called him “Kiwi Keith”.

It is our responsibility, regardless of our culture, our race, and our religious affiliation, to recognise the servicemen and servicewomen of this nation. We are a proud nation. We have some of the best servicemen and servicewomen in the world. They are professional and able to carry out their responsibilities and duties, regardless of the risks they face, which are accepted by them before they go away. I admonish this House to support the bill and anything that will enhance the living conditions of these men and women, because they will never ask us for it. They never will. We honour them, and if members do not believe that, they should go to the Anzac Day celebrations and learn what they have done for us. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our servicemen and servicewomen.

Bill read a third time.