War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. The bill fulfils an important pre-election promise to enable veterans of working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment should they be able. Making this change, and providing financial support to veterans when they are unable to work, and sustaining that support while they make the transition back into the workforce, will benefit their overall rehabilitation.

This bill has the strong support of both parties within Government. I would also like to thank both United Future and the Greens for their support to ensure that the Government had the necessary support. It would be remiss of me not to thank parties from across the House that offered their support for the bill. I acknowledge the work undertaken by the Social Services Committee, which is very ably chaired by my colleague Georgina Beyer, the Labour MP for Wairarapa, and a strong supporter of the veteran community, and, indeed, the work of the committee as a whole. I acknowledge the officials who worked on this bill. In particular, I thank the director of the Office of Veterans Affairs in New Zealand, Jessie Gunn, and other officials from that office.

This bill acknowledges the special status of New Zealand’s war veterans, and the ongoing impact that service in a war or emergency has on an individual’s life, and on the lives of his or her family. This legislation is an example of that, as it provides assistance while enabling working-age veterans to make choices and manage the impact of their service on them and their families. The intention of this bill is to provide veterans who are under retirement age with a mechanism for rehabilitation. A point of difference with this bill, compared with other social security legislative measures, is that it does not contain a definition of full-time work. That will allow veterans to work any number of hours, depending on their capability, without removing their entitlement to a veteran’s pension.

The Government introduced two Supplementary Order Papers. The first restored in legislation, for consumer price index adjustment purposes, that the minimum level of the veteran’s pension for a married couple is not to be less than 65 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. The second amendment amended the schedules to allow for an increase in the rates of pay, in line with the increase of 2.72 percent in the All Groups Consumer Price Index. Both changes are quite important. I am pleased that the House supported the Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage.

The provisions in this bill will provide for the future needs of younger members of the veteran population, and passing it fulfils another pre-election promise. I am proud to serve as Minister of Veterans Affairs in supporting the passage of this bill through its third reading.

National is supporting this legislation, and I imagine that every single party in the House will be supporting it. The bill rectifies some anomalies in the legislation, which have been recognised by all parties. It recognises that increasingly in modern times veterans will be active in campaigns of often quite short duration—rather than those on the scale of wars like World War I or World War II—and in a whole series of events that we know well from our post-World War II history, like the Korean or Vietnam wars. But on top of that, there are vast numbers of specialised UN supervisory operations, and many of those are extremely demanding. We in this House and in this country often do not fully recognise just how demanding service is, for example, on the Lebanese border. Having talked to a number of the people who worked there, I know it is dangerous, that people are at risk of serious injury, and that soldiers, sailors, and others working there from other countries have been injured and even killed.

This more modern approach recognises that it is no longer appropriate for the Government of the day to declare a particular category of service as qualifying for pensions. It is more important to examine each individual’s service history and ask whether he or she suffered disablement or injury in the course of service to New Zealand, and recognise that. I welcome that approach. I have had—and I am sure many members of Parliament have had—submissions and letters from constituents who have had huge difficulty in getting not just the current Government, but also the previous Government, to recognise the nature of that service and recompense veterans properly for their injuries. With this change of administration and the provisions of the legislation in the House today, I would like to think that those kinds of issues will be in the past, and that it will be fundamentally easier for our service people. They have a demanding vocation—not just when shot and shell are being fired, but in terms of the whole nature of the service itself. It taxes the body and mind in a way that probably no other vocation does. That is why we have to have special legislation, and why we have to update that legislation, in order to recognise the changed nature of armed conflict.

I want to talk about a couple of broader issues. I note that our country handles these matters differently from other countries. For instance, we essentially have two types of war pension. The first is a disablement pension that is available at whatever age a person is disabled. It tends to be quite a modest sum, additional to other income. On top of that, when veterans reach the statutory retirement age of 65, or, more accurately, the eligibility age for New Zealand superannuation, there is an election. The veteran either takes New Zealand superannuation or the war pension. They are the same amount of money, and personally I have always found that to be something of an anomaly. Certainly, there is still the disablement pension or some limited entitlements as well, but it seems to me that we have not properly recognised that a person in receipt of a war pension post-65 should really be getting a bit more than New Zealand superannuation.

The argument in the past, for good and proper reasons, was that the country simply could not afford it. Certainly, the number of veterans from World War I and World War II was such a huge percentage of the total population that I suspect the country felt it could not afford to provide, say 150 percent, and service was recognised in other ways—educational benefits in the 1950s and 1960s, settlement on farms and in businesses, and so forth. Both National and Labour Governments have done a great deal over the years to recognise that service—but that was then. All of those people are older now, and, almost exclusively, retired. Yet we do not now financially recognise that service; we say it was recognised in the past. Knowing that veterans have been involved in dangerous service, and given that the numbers who serve in our armed forces are so much smaller now as a percentage of our total population, I think that one of the issues we will have to examine as a Parliament and as a Government is whether we as a community should recognise that maybe an additional payment beyond the level of superannuation is justified, once those servicemen and servicewomen reach 65.

I know that the Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association has raised that question with the Government. It has certainly done so with the Minister, Mr Harry Duynhoven, and no doubt talked with Minister George Hawkins. As I said, I understand the reasons that such a payment was felt not to be financially possible in the past, but I have to ask the Government whether that issue should not be looked at afresh. The nature of the service is different today, and the numbers of citizens involved—male and female—is so much lower. The circumstances that led to the original legislation are different today. So whilst we have recognised an anomaly today—and that is an important thing, and will be welcomed by veterans throughout New Zealand—we still need to look at that broader question.

I know that there are big differences from time to time in this House about whether our nation should be involved in any particular conflict. I am not going to go into that, because I do not think it is appropriate to do so in this speech. But I would go so far as to put on the record that there are those differences, and that they are increasingly being understood. Indeed, they were well-reflected in question time today. That is not the issue for the veterans. They do not make the decisions about where they should serve; those decisions are made by the people that they and the rest of New Zealanders elect. We should always remember that. They do not get to make the choice, but in each and every case, they serve our country valiantly and loyally. What we are doing today is recognising that service.

The reason I have mentioned that is that just recently I was at the return of Her Majesty’s vessel Te Kaha at Devonport. The families there had waited 8 months for their family members to return, yet outside the gates there was a group of protestors. I thought: “Why are you doing this; why are you protesting against these service people?” It was not the service people’s decision, although I am sure that they wanted to be involved. Fundamentally, protests should be aimed at those who make the decisions. I would like to think that there is a greater maturity in civil society in that people understand the difference between those who serve their country on the directions that Governments elected from this House make and those who make the decisions. It is a hugely important distinction, and I was extremely disappointed to see those protestors there that day.

It is a noble and proper thing that any nation recognises the contribution of those who give service in its defence. The notion of war pensions is one that has a resonance, when one looks around this Chamber and sees the plaques that commemorate the various battlefields on which New Zealanders have given service over a long period of time. Although I was not around at the end of World War II, I have seen the newsreels, I have read the newspapers, and I have heard the statements that echoed those of Lloyd George in an earlier time, about a land fit for heroes to live in, and all the opportunities that were promised the returning veterans about the nation they would be a part of rebuilding. Now, 60 years later, when we look at the state of our war pensions administration, it pulls us up very quickly that that rhetoric has not often been matched by the way the law has been applied.

I am delighted to support this bill, because it tidies up a number of issues that have been left to languish for far too long. I find it extraordinary, for instance, that only by this bill are we transferring provisions for veterans’ pensions to the War Pensions Act—which was passed in the year I was born. It has been part of a transitional piece of legislation since 1990.

💬 Rodney Hide: When you were born!

No, that is some time after I was born. I was just about to start school! But veterans might well be forgiven for wondering what priority was attached to their well-being, and what gratitude to their contribution, by the historically haphazard way in which the law has been applied. There will be some who will say that those events occurred a long time ago—even though there are still New Zealand military personnel involved in conflict situations—that the notion of “veteran” really is something that belongs to a bygone era. I challenge anyone who holds that view to spend even a modicum of time with people who have served and suffered, not just themselves, but through the loss of comrades in conflict; or any of the other deprivations that go hand in hand with that situation. They would quickly be disabused of the notion that the concept of a veteran is something that belongs to the past. It is a mark of pride for many veterans that they are treated differently, and it is important that this bill preserves that distinction, even if the monetary value of the pension payable to them does not differ significantly from national superannuation. It is the point of separation that is the important distinction. By continuing to treat them under the title “war pensioner”, we continue to recognise their achievement. That is why this bill is important, because it ensures that on into the 21st century, as perhaps the numbers of veterans thin, that recognition does not dim. United Future is pleased to support this bill.

I conclude with some reference to the comments made by the speaker who preceded me. I was intrigued by his comments that perhaps we should, in effect, pay a premium to war veterans who attain the age of eligibility for national superannuation. The cynic in me suggests that that is an easy promise to make because the numbers are, in a sense, reducing—though I am not suggesting that that was the member’s attitude. It is a far more substantial issue than that, and one that merits serious consideration. It is not a question of a two-tier arrangement, but more a question of saying that given what those people have been through, given all the other stresses and strains they have endured in the years subsequent to their service, is there a little more we can do? We have already had inquiries into various allegations that exposure to certain toxic chemicals or nuclear explosions, or the like, have had a detrimental impact on the health of not just those who were allegedly exposed, but also their descendants. Many will claim that other less-specific conditions and problems are a lasting by-product of their service. It may well be, therefore, that something along the lines that the member has suggested has merit. That proposal is not part of this legislation, but I think it is something that perhaps this House, maybe on a bipartisan basis, might want to give some consideration to.

In that respect, can I step way outside this bill—because again it has some relevance to the issue—and simply acknowledge the work that the member who preceded me has done to protect the employment of volunteers who give their time for military engagement. I hope that issue can be resolved fairly shortly, because those people might be the servants of today but they are the veterans of tomorrow, and they also deserve recognition. I am happy to indicate United Future’s support for the third reading of this bill.

New Zealand First is satisfied with this bill, so we support it. If it were possible, we would like to see an increase in the veterans pension, in recognition of the service of those people to their country. I suppose I could stand here and say that I am one of those persons who would be eligible for this pension. Only about 2 weeks ago I attended my battalion’s reunion in Hastings, and on the list were the names of about 200 men who have already passed away. It saddened me to see that.

But getting back to this bill, I say that in the past the men and women who served—I am aware especially of those who served in the Second World War—in the armed forces were not aware of the benefits available to them as service people. Some have passed away as a result of their service in the desert, but they were not aware of the benefits they could have claimed. They died without having that facility offered to them. Maybe that was because of their lack of knowledge, or ignorance, of what was available to them. But I think it is the responsibility of this Government, and was the responsibility of previous Governments, to make our servicemen and servicewomen aware of what is available to them. I look at the battalions of about 600 men and women that have served in East Timor. My battalion was a full operational battalion of 1,040 men—no women. A lot of the guys asked me this question in Hastings: “What are we entitled to, as veterans?”

I visited Australia towards the end of last year. A great number of the servicemen whom I served with are now living in Australia, and have lived there for quite a few years. They commented on the way that the Australian Government recognises them and takes care of them, and said it is way beyond what our own Governments have done for our people here. When I listened to the previous speakers, I was thinking that our service people deserve more than they get now. They would never ask for what they should have; they are too proud to do that. So we need to look at how we provide for the people who have served our country. How can we make them aware that they are entitled to this pension as a form of appreciation that this nation offers them? It will be a few years yet before I fall into that category. But I think I might just take that pension up when the time comes, because I am now aware of what is there for me and for those who have served our country.

About 3 weeks ago I was asked a question that I did not want to answer. It was whether I had been involved in taking the lives of any of the men or people I had fought against. That was a very hard question for me to answer. My reply was: “I have photos. Do you want to see them?”. The questioner hesitated, because he did not think I had been involved in that kind of action. It has had an effect on me, as a person who has served in the services. Whenever I am driving today and a car backfires, my reaction is immediate. Sometimes my wife has looked at me when she has travelled with me, and she has asked me what was going on, because I have jumped. I have reacted to that sound as if I were in action, even though that was over 30 years ago.

Nearly every day of the week I get correspondence from veterans who have served in South-east Asia, asking what I can do about Agent Orange, and also from the naval service people who served around Christmas Island during the testing of the nuclear bombs there. I was at university in Hawaii when one of those bombs went off on Christmas Island. That night was brighter than the day. I did not realise that we had service people serving there, in that area. Those men—and women, if there were any on those ships—are still asking what the Government will do about that service. That is an indictment on our Governments, which sent those men and women away.

💬 David Parker: And the British Government.

I am talking about the New Zealand Government. Let us forget about the British Government; we made our decisions here. So I ask what is being done for those people.

New Zealand First supports this bill. Hopefully, we will look at this pension not as something we owe to service people but as something we give to them in appreciation of the service that they have given in order to enable us to have what we enjoy today. When I first came into Parliament, many people looked at the Returned Services Association badge that I wear. A guy in our office did not wear his Returned Services Association badge. I said he should wear it, and now he now does. Why is that? It is because I reminded him of his responsibility, and of the service he rendered to our country. Now he wears his badge every day.

Have any members been brought up in an environment where they were surrounded by men who had served our country, and saw the battle scars and the bayonet wounds on them? As a kid I poked my finger in and out of the shrapnel holes in my father’s legs. I have seen the shape of a bayonet on the back of one of my uncles. But not once did they ask for an appreciation of their service. They died that way. In fact, my father died because of the shrapnel in his body, which caused the cancer he died from.

I am bringing members back to earth here. I say we should look after our service people and take care of them. They need to be taken care of, without having to ask the Government for help. As a returned serviceman, I advise that strongly. When I look at the men whom I served with—over a company of them have passed on, and have not enjoyed recognition by the Governments that sent them away overseas—I feel sorry for them. But those people would do it again, if they had to. In fact, they ask why they are not in Iraq. That is the spirit that these people have. They are prepared to do that. I did not answer that question. So I say that shows the quality of the people we have in our country.

I listened with interest to what the member who has just resumed his seat had to say. I appreciated the considered contribution he made on the bill. In respect of his questions about the level of pension that is being paid to our veterans, I am sure that he will be aware from his notes, when he has a moment to read them, that the minimum level of a veterans pension for a married couple remains legislated for at not less than 60 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. That is something that has been fought for, long and hard.

I have taken an interest in this legislation, not only because of my electorate constituency but also because of my own interest in the issue. I, too, come from a family that has served this country for three generations. In my generation, my husband and my brother were also in the New Zealand services. They, too, would never ask for anything—as most people who have served our country would not, either. But I am very pleased that after many years we are able to bring this legislation into the House. It is timely, and it has been well considered. I am delighted to say that at long last, after spending 6 years in Opposition, it is wonderful to be in Government and to see it do something tangible about the issue. I commend the bill to the House.

It is a great honour to follow Mr Bill Gudgeon, who is one of the now few members of this Parliament who have served overseas. There was a time when it would be hard to imagine getting elected to Parliament, not having been a returned serviceman. We are fortunate indeed to have the experience and insights that Mr Bill Gudgeon brings us. He has been on patrol in the jungles of South-east Asia with a band of brothers, and he knows full well what those of us who have not served know—what it is like to serve. He also knows what it is like to come back to New Zealand, and what it is like, 30 years on, when driving a motorcar down the road, to still be reminded, at a moment’s notice, of something that happened so long ago. It is an honour to follow him in this debate.

This is a bill that reflects well on this Parliament. It is also one that reflects well on this Government. We have at long last, I think, gone some way towards addressing the special concerns of veterans in this country, and I commend the Government for that. I also think it bodes well that this Parliament is of one voice in agreeing that this bill is right and proper but that we as members of Parliament have to work together to do better for our servicemen and servicewomen. We have to do that not just because it is right, and not just because there is an implicit promise to every serviceman and servicewoman, but because of a very practical, pragmatic reason. Everyone, I believe—I think I can count on my Green colleagues on this—wants us to have a strong military. We want servicemen and servicewomen who are professional, who are competent, who have high morale, and who are good at what Governments ask them to do. I cannot imagine that anyone in this Parliament would say otherwise. We might disagree about how they should be deployed, where they should be deployed, and how they should be resourced, but it is in the interests of every member of Parliament that we have a good, competent, and professional military.

We have been reminded in these times, watching television nightly, that a man or a woman who puts on a uniform without being consulted, without being asked for his or her opinion, can be sent into harm’s way. Once those service people have those uniforms on, their lives are at risk, their bodies are at risk, and their minds are at risk. I think it is important that the young men and young women who are thinking about signing up to serve with our services can be confident that if they are damaged in war, and if they are damaged in service to their county during peacetime—damaged not just physically but psychologically and emotionally—then whatever Government is in office, they will be looked after because they are men and women who have served. If we do not do that, how can we expect to have a good military? It is not enough just to pay well—and we all believe, I think, that they should be better paid and better resourced—but there has to be a concern about how a serviceman or a servicewoman will be looked after following service.

So I think we have made progress with this bill, and I think we have made progress with this Parliament, because the best thing we can do is to keep politics out of this. I do not hear of anyone standing up in this House and saying that we should not be doing what we are doing. I think it is right that Opposition members chide a Government to do better, but let them remember that when their term in Government comes, they too are honour-bound to look after our servicemen and servicewomen. I congratulate the Prime Minister and this Government on this bill and on the moves they have made. I chide them for not going far enough, but today is not the day for that. I congratulate this Parliament on its support for veterans and—I say this to Mr Gudgeon—on still having veterans here who truly know the horrors, the thrills and spills, and the scars and tears of service.

It is important also that we put on the record the important turn-round in attitude that has occurred in the Office of Veterans Affairs. There has been a 180-degree turn-round, and that has been achieved by the efforts of the Prime Minister and—I do not think the Prime Minister would mind if I took something away from her—by the good work of Colonel Jessie Gunn and her staff, who have turned round a department that treated veterans as beneficiaries on the take, trying to pull a fast one, to an office that is special and understands that veterans are special—that they are proud people who do not easily put their hands up. Mr Gudgeon is right: the Office of Veterans Affairs has to go looking for its clients, because they can lie out there in our country for 30 years, badly damaged, badly scarred, and too proud to put up their hands and ask for help. It is important we recognise the work that Colonel Jessie Gunn and her staff do. They do what they do on a very, very modest budget, and they have to cover the whole country. I am sure that, as MPs, we have had one or two veterans come through our doors. I am sure that we realise what a tough job it can be tending to the needs, concerns, and issues that confront them and their families.

On behalf of this Parliament, we should all salute Colonel Jessie Gunn for the work she does. For the first time in many, many years, we have in the Office of Veterans Affairs a leader who empathises with the plight of veterans and who does not see the Office of Veterans Affairs as a cost-centre to be administered. Veterans—from whatever theatre, from whatever age, from whatever period—are seen as proud servicemen and servicewomen who need to be looked after for the simple reason that they donned a uniform and served their country and who have, for the rest of their days, a contract with the Government that we are duty-bound and honour-bound to uphold. Let us all agree on this: Colonel Jessie Gunn has done a wonderful job.

This bill is a good one. Let us strive as a Parliament to do better. Let us strive as a Parliament to support the Office of Veterans Affairs and to get it some more resources. All our pious words are nothing without the necessary resources that are needed to look after our veterans so that we do honour the promise of a land fit for heroes.

On behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how pleased we are to see the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) finally through its third reading debate today. I know that there are a lot of veterans out there who have been waiting for this long overdue piece of legislation to become law. It is very timely that it is finally happening just a couple of weeks before Anzac Day 2003.

This bill helps consolidate the legislation dealing with veterans’ entitlements under the War Pensions Act and away from the morass of social welfare law. While I hold my own reservations about the negative way in which beneficiaries are viewed by all too many in our community, I can also understand why veterans want the dignity of recognition separately and in their own right. Although the legislation around the actual machinery of payment of war pensions stays with the 1964 Social Security Act, the fact that this bill ensures that the overarching law will be clearly distinguished from the Act is welcomed by submitters and, I think, by all MPs who sat on the Social Services Committee.

The Green Party is also pleased that this bill finally puts people in receipt of war pensions on the same footing as other people on income support, in terms of giving those of working age the right to work, either voluntarily or in a paid job, and having their pension abated. But the bill also distinguishes war veterans from other beneficiaries in that it makes special provision for them to be able to work any number of hours without having their entitlement to the war pension taken away from them. Again, this reinforces the fact that veterans have a special status because of what they have sacrificed for their country, and I believe no one in this House will ever begrudge them that.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge, firstly, the people who had the courage to make oral and written submissions on this bill to our select committee. It was very emotional to hear from some of those people. Some of them were getting on in years, and it was touching to see people who had made the effort to come to Wellington and speak to the committee directly, and to hear their voices. I also acknowledge, as others have done, the Office of Veterans Affairs, the officials who helped guide us through the bill, the other members of the select committee, and all the other MPs in this House who support this bill, which has been a long time coming.

I rise to take a very short call, just to follow on in the multi-partisan approach that has been taken on this bill. It is a good example, not only of the Labour-Progressive Government honouring a pre-election commitment but also of Parliament recognising the special role that war veterans play in our country.

The one key point I would like to put on the record relates to some of the changes we made through the progression of the bill from its introduction. The bill will be of huge benefit to the veteran community, because we have been able to increase the minimum level of a veterans pension for a married couple to not less than 65 percent of the average ordinary time weekly wage. That is significant because previously that rate had been set at 60 percent for married couples when one was on the veterans pension, so the Government has, through this bill, been able to change that rate from 60 percent to 65 percent. We are very pleased to have been able to do that, because it reflects the importance and the value that Parliament and the Government place on our veterans.

The second key thing we have done is to increase the pension rate in line with a 2.72 percent rise in the consumer price index. This is important because we do not want to see the value of superannuation or the war veterans pension fall as the cost of living goes up, so by putting in this consumer price index adjuster, the real value of the war veterans pension is kept for people on that entitlement.

The bill as it is at the moment also makes some amendments surrounding the veterans pension by allowing veterans of working age who need support during rehabilitation to participate in voluntary or part-time work without losing their entire pension entitlement. The bill puts in place a very important process for that whole issue of rehabilitation for war pensioners who are hoping to move back into the work force—normally into part-time work, but sometimes, if they do want to go into full-time work, there can be some difficulties with their pension entitlement. The bill makes a big difference to people in that way. It is important that we have an individual piece of legislation that covers that. We talk about the special status that our war pensioners have. It should not just come under normal or standard law. Parliament ought to put some time aside by way of special legislation to ensure that we recognise the place they hold. That is why one of the effects of this bill is to have the war pension as something in its own right, not just as a standard social security entitlement, as something that we say is special for those New Zealanders who have served this country in time of conflict.

I would like to join with Mr Hide in acknowledging Mr Bill Gudgeon, the New Zealand First member who spoke very movingly earlier on about both his own experience and the experience of the generation that preceded him, and the sacrifice that was made by those who gave their lives. He also made the point that there was a cost to those who came home, in that they had a number of very serious physical injuries that often hampered their ability to go into full-time work, or back into work they may have been doing prior to their service to the country. So again, that reinforces the importance of the bill in recognising the special circumstances of recipients of the war pensions. It is good to have members who are able to bring that home quite clearly to other members of the House. Mine is a generation that has not had to go to war, but Mr Gudgeon’s did, and it was good to have him in the House and able to put that into all our minds so that we do not think we are debating these bills in isolation. They are part of a much wider issue, which is about protecting our older people, particularly those who are in the war pensions category.

The Social Services Committee, under the leadership of Georgina Beyer, the member for Wairarapa, delivered a fantastic report. Its members worked together very well, and the bill we see before the House is worthy of the support of all parties. Our colleagues in United Future, the Greens, ACT, the Labour-Progressive Coalition Government, and also National, have worked together, and it is a bill that deserves the honour of this Parliament.

I concur with the previous speaker. National will be supporting this bill, and has done right through. It is important legislation. We will commemorate Anzac Day in a couple of weeks’ time and recognise the servicemen and women who have fought around the world. We owe them a debt of gratitude. If we look around the walls of this House we see plaques commemorating the great battles that have been fought on the world scene—the Atlantic, Crete, El Alamein, and behind us here I see North Africa. If we look further up the Chamber we see plaques commemorating the First World War battles. I cannot read them all from here, but we have Egypt, Gallipoli, and the Somme. Around the walls of this debating chamber we acknowledge and recognise the sacrifices that have been made.

This bill is important because it recognises that veterans have not been fairly treated. The bill makes some logical changes by moving responsibilities for veterans pensions to the Office of Veterans Affairs. That was acknowledged by Rodney Hide, who made very strong points, with which we concur, as we concur with the comments made by Bill Gudgeon. When someone has had the experience of serving New Zealand in the theatre of war, we appreciate that contribution.

The bill recognises that military personnel are dealing with smaller skirmishes today. The skirmishes of the past—Vietnam, Korea, and the First and Second World Wars—have long gone. Today we have servicemen and women who are in more of a supervisory role with the United Nations. Today these skirmishes are much smaller, so the numbers involved in the military are fewer than in earlier years.

This bill will allow our servicemen and women to access war pensions. The entitlement has been mentioned. There will be two types of war pension—the disability pension, and when veterans reach the age of 65 they will be able to choose the superannuation scheme or to remain with the war pension scheme. As a previous National speaker has said, there is no recognition between superannuation and the war pension scheme. There may be an opportunity in the future to provide a recognition that these people have fought for New Zealand and for the freedoms that we enjoy, and that there should be recognition that they be paid more; not just the same as a superannuitant. So that is the current position, and I am not advocating today that this bill does not go far enough. There will be opportunities in the future, and that is one of the things we would certainly like to see happen.

This bill is supported by Parliament, and it is pleasing to see that all parties are supporting it. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms, and we will be acknowledging that on Anzac Day, in a couple of weeks’ time. I believe that this bill is a move in the right direction, and National has great pleasure in supporting it.

Bill read a third time.