Veterans’ Support Bill

I move, That the Veterans’ Support Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the committee report back to the House on or before 27 March 2014. New Zealand has a proud history of service in defence of our country and of freedom and democracy around the world—from the Second Boer War, when New Zealand decided to help fight for the empire, making that war New Zealand’s first overseas military campaign; to the Great War and the Gallipoli campaign, where forces fought for the first time as a New Zealand contingent; to Passchendaele, where New Zealand suffered the most grievous losses in our nation’s history; and to so many other theatres and conflicts thereafter. That freedom and the legacy of service to our country does, however, come at a significant cost. Many lives have been lost in defence of that freedom, and even more injured.

We members of Parliament sit in this House every day surrounded by the names of those theatres of war and campaigns—the Somme, Le Quesnoy, the Battle of River Plate, Cassino, the Battle of Britain, Viet Nam, Malaya, and a host of others. These are names that act as a constant reminder of the burden of any decision we make to send our young men and women into harm’s way. In July this year this House dedicated three more plaques commemorating service in Afghanistan, East Timor, and in missions in support of peace. It was a poignant reminder that more than 20,000 modern Defence Force personnel are now veterans, and of the need to have a legislative framework that supports all our veterans, including our recent and our future veterans.

In 2007 the War Pensions Act 1954 was referred to the Law Commission for review. The foreword to the Law Commission’s finding stated that the review was commissioned in realisation of the fact that the 1954 Act was outdated, unwieldy, and no longer fitted the needs of the veterans it was intended to serve. It was designed to deal with the physical risks associated with deployments, but did not cover the psychological and environmental risks that veterans face. It also focused on compensation for disability, but was silent on the provision of rehabilitation. Lastly, the 1954 Act had not been adequately amended to take into account that although some veterans qualify only for entitlements under the war pensions scheme, others qualify for entitlements under both the war pensions scheme and ACC.

The Law Commission reported in 2010 with 170 recommendations. The Government adopted 132 of those recommendations in full or in part as part of a $60 million package of changes, of which this bill forms the material part. Most of the recommendations not taken up related to administrative structures not related to veterans’ entitlements. The process of rewriting a 59-year-old Act and implementing all 132 recommendations has been a long one, but I make no apology for this. I was much more interested in getting it right than in getting it done early. I want to thank officials from Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand, the New Zealand Defence Force, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their diligent hard work in preparing the bill—under, I must say, considerable pressure from the Minister.

The Veterans’ Support Bill will replace the 1954 Act and the associated subordinate legislation. Although there are significant changes to some entitlements, the key foundations remain the same. The key principle of benevolence, including relaxed evidential provisions, will continue in this new bill, as will the service eligibility criteria. Furthermore, all deployments currently covered under the 1954 Act will retain coverage under the new Act, and medical treatment will continue to be funded for all service-related impairments.

The new legislation contains two schemes, which I would now like to focus on in a bit more detail. Scheme one will cover veterans who served from the Second World War through to and including the Viet Nam War. Until 1 July 2015, it will cover all veterans as a transitional measure. After that time, scheme one will cover veterans with service prior to 1 April 1974. The scheme is based on the entitlements available under the 1954 Act, and it covers approximately 10,000 veterans and 5,500 surviving spouses and partners of deceased veterans. Veterans will continue to receive periodic disablement pension payments for impairments of 5 percent or greater. Veterans who are under the age of retirement and unable to work will have the option of receiving weekly income compensation, which will be paid at a rate of 80 percent of the average weekly wage. This is significantly higher than the current entitlement they receive. However, entitlements for spouses or partners and children will remain the same. Scheme two will cover veterans who have served since 1 April 1974. This includes deployments such as Cambodia, East Timor, and Afghanistan. The entitlements available under this scheme will be based on entitlements available through ACC, with a top-up that is additional to ACC entitlements and that recognises the special nature of military service.

Veterans who are of working age and who are unable to work due to service-related impairment will be eligible for weekly compensation. This will be payable at 100 percent of their pre-injury earnings for the first year of their incapacity, and 85 percent for the period thereafter. It is higher than the 80 percent compensation paid by ACC to other New Zealanders and retains the benevolence shown in the current Act. Scheme two will provide impairment compensation to veterans in the form of lump-sum payments. The lump-sum rates will be set at the equivalent rate payable by ACC, plus an additional 20 percent. In addition, the scale will be broader than the ACC’s scale and will provide for compensation of 5 percent to 100 percent of whole person impairment, to match the rates of impairment compensation provided for in a 1954 Act payment. Compensation for the spouse or partner and children of eligible deceased veterans will also be based on ACC entitlements. A one-off survivor’s grant will be payable in the form of a lump sum, as well as ongoing weekly compensation. The spouse or partner will receive 60 percent of the veteran’s earnings prior to death, and the children will share 20 percent. This is a slightly higher rate than that paid by ACC.

There will also be a number of common provisions available to veterans of both schemes. Veterans covered under either scheme will have access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions. The veteran’s pension for over-65s will be retained from the 1954 Act. This is an equivalent of New Zealand superannuation, with some additional entitlements. Other common provisions include access to support services, such as home help and lawnmowing for service-related conditions, and the provision of funeral grants for veterans with a service-related death. The Veterans’ Support Bill also includes a new provision for a code of veterans’ and other claimants’ rights. It also establishes a specialist medical advisory panel, the functions of which will include providing advice on specified matters relating to service, veterans’ health, and entitlements under this Act.

The Government recognises the significant sacrifice and contribution our veterans have made in serving our country over the years. The replacement of the War Pensions Act with the introduction of the updated and modern Veterans’ Support Bill demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to those who have given service to our country. Our veterans deserve no less. I commend this bill to the House.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I want to support the Veterans’ Support Bill, and I thank the Minister for giving me an early draft copy of it. I too join with the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs as I stand in this Chamber and look at the memorial plaques around the Chamber, to remember those who sacrificed their lives and those who served this country in a way that no current member of this House has been required to do. I look across and I see Messines, and we have a plaque for Passchendaele.

On 12 October I joined the Minister to lay a wreath at the Auckland War Memorial hall to commemorate the appalling tragedy of Passchendaele, where 2,400 New Zealand men were casualties in the first 4 hours of the battle—2,400. We stand on the shoulders of those men who made that sacrifice and of those men and women who served our country in that war and subsequent wars. I am also conscious that just a matter of months ago we had new plaques put on the wall, commemorating Timor and Afghanistan. The 14 years that our troops served in Timor, and the more than 10 years in Afghanistan and in the Solomons—and originally, in Timor, at battalion strength—means that there will be a need for the provisions of this legislation for many years to come.

It is right to say that this bill has indeed been a long time coming. The fact is that by far the largest group of veterans entitled to its provisions is still that group that served in the Second World War, and the ranks of those veterans thin with each day that passes. There is no World War II veteran younger than their late 80s now. Most, like my father, are in their 90s. Regrettably, by the time we pass this legislation and it comes into effect in 2014-15, many more hundreds, if not thousands, of those veterans will have passed away.

I, as the Minister of Defence, was involved in the initial discussions and the decision to review the War Pensions Act 1954. We were aware that the Act was at that stage more than 50 years old. It was outdated, it was inaccessible, and it was badly in need of change. We believed that we should, first of all, be providing better support for our veterans—those who served in the Second World War, in J-force, in Korea, in Malaya, and in Viet Nam—and we also believed that we needed new and updated provisions for a younger generation of veterans.

The natural cut-off point to distinguish between those two groups was the passage, under the third Labour Government, of the Accident Compensation Act in 1974. ACC makes good provision for injured people, but we believed, as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs has said, that in respect of those who are injured in the course of service to their country there needed to be a margin over and above the payments that were made to other New Zealanders who are injured in the course of their work or their leisure, or at home.

We believed that it was not enough simply to make payments—we needed a modern, 21st century approach to rehabilitation in order to, wherever possible, enable people to get back into work, and to have early intervention to provide recovery. We looked around the world. We looked at Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada in particular, and in each of those countries there were new models of support that we believed would be good models for New Zealand to follow. As a result of that we requested that the Law Commission independently review the provisions of the War Pensions Act 1954, and we included that in the memorandum of understanding with both the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association.

That was not the only important thing that we did in that memorandum. It was an interesting gathering as we negotiated that memorandum. On one side were those in the Government of my generation who had been anti-war protesters at the time of the Viet Nam War, and on the other side were the men who had actually fought there. But there was no rancour, and there was a full agreement from our side, under the Labour Government, that whereas we did not agree with the war in Viet Nam, it was not the veterans who made the decision to go there; it was the Government that sent them there. But, tragically, the flack—for want of a better term—that followed a war that became deeply unpopular, as it was seen as ineffectual and unjust, fell on the veterans themselves.

We determined out of that memorandum of understanding Tribute 08, where, for the first time, those veterans were given the honour and the respect that they deserved for the honourable discharge of their duties and the courage they showed. The one outstanding factor that was left was the question of a review of the War Pensions Act, and it is important that we now make every progress to try to advance that.

In late 2008 Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who then headed the Law Commission, came up with a 280-page document. It was a very substantial piece of work—[Interruption]—a discussion paper; yes, there was a lot to discuss—and then there was a very good consultative process. The Law Commission went around the military bases of New Zealand, it went around the RSAs, it talked to veterans, and it talked to current service personnel. It finally reported in May 2010, by which time there had been a change of Government, and the report came to the new National Government.

The commission had done the bulk of the work. It had a quite detailed blueprint for what it believed needed to replace the War Pensions Act, but it had not done the costings and it had not put it in draft legislative form, so there was still work to do. But I regret that it has taken 3 years and 5 months from the time that that document was given to the Government to the introduction of the bill in this House. As I say, the tragedy of that is, and will be, that in the next maybe 12 to 18 months many more servicemen and servicewomen will die without them or their families getting the benefit of the more generous provisions that will come through this legislation.

I say to the Minister that at the Social Services Committee we will be seeking an explanation for the changes that were made, where what the Government has put into legislation differs from what the Law Commission proposed. I am conscious of the fact that the proposals in this bill are much, much cheaper than what the Law Commission recommended. I want to go into that with an open mind. There may be some good reasons why not every recommendation of the Law Commission was followed. But what I do want to say is that we will be determined to find out whether those cuts can be justified, or whether they are, unfairly, to the detriment of our veterans.

With so many veterans now dying, I think it is time to err on the side of generosity for those who are still surviving. Men of that generation spent years of their lives out of this country, away from their families. Many who returned suffered from physical injury and, just as important, from psychological injury, and nothing was done in those days to address the latter form of injury. So we owe these veterans, and we owe it to them, Minister, to be as generous as we possibly can be. This bill, and the Act that follows it, needs to be about honouring those veterans and their families, and, frankly, it would be hypocrisy for us to sell them short.

To be fair, the Government has announced some additional funding, as the Minister has said. There is some $60 million to be spent over the next 5 years in addition to those payments. That means about another extra $12 million a year. I welcome the increase in the war disablement pension and the surviving spouse pension rates of 5 percent. I think that is a step in the right direction. I welcome the increased eligibility for services such as home care and lawnmowing, and so on. For the younger veterans who are unable to work, I welcome the fact that if they are still under the retirement age they will be paid an income of 80 percent of the average wage. It will help only a small number, but it will be worthwhile for those who are beneficiaries of it.

Veterans post 1974 will get all of the relevant ACC assistance and also, as the Minister explained, a margin on top of that, and I think that that is justified by their service and by their sacrifice for our country. We support this bill and at the select committee we will ensure that it delivers what is needed and what was promised.

In late February 2011 I attended the funeral of Private Kirifi Mila in South Auckland. He was a member of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. Like me, he was born in Samoa, and, like me, he came to New Zealand for a better life. But, unlike me, he will not see a long life in this country, because Private Mila gave his life for his country in the service of our people here in Aotearoa New Zealand, like thousands of others who have given service to this country.

This bill is a recognition of the great debt that we owe to our veterans across this country. This National-led Government is committed to honouring the service of not just those who have passed away in the service of our country but also those who survived in the service of our country. The Veterans’ Support Bill enables the Government to better meet the needs both of older veterans who require assistance, as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs and the Hon Phil Goff have pointed out, to remain in their homes and veterans of modern-day deployments. This is a $60 million package to support new legislation. It is part of a package that increases war disablement pensions and surviving spouse pensions by 5 percent this year, on top of inflation.

We have got a proud history, and both of those speakers have alluded to the recognition of not just our fallen servicemen and servicewomen but also those who have survived those events in our history that are rather tragic but also ones that we are proud of. We recognise them through our museums. We recognise them through our RSAs, which many of us are members of. We recognise them through my gym, which is a war memorial gym. On Anzac Day we all celebrate those very touching moments, the reflections of the history and the tradition of this country. Again, I say that we owe a great deal, a debt, to our veterans.

So, as the Minister has already pointed out, this bill was referred to the Law Commission for a review. The findings of that review stated quite clearly that the War Pension Act 1954 was outdated. It was unwieldy. It no longer fitted the times or the needs of veterans whom it was intended to serve. So this bill aims to reform some of the measures that were taken many decades ago. It is all-encompassing. It covers two schemes, which Minister Woodhouse has articulated in his speech, in terms of access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions.

I want to acknowledge Margaret Burke, a woman who has tirelessly fought for this bill in my electorate of Maungakiekie. I want to acknowledge the presidents of my RSAs—Tom Kerr in Onehunga as well as Leon Matthews in Panmure and Mount Wellington. They have talked to me, as I have been an MP, about the need to reform this area. For those who are listening and watching out there, I salute you and all the other returned servicemen and servicewomen who have advocated for this bill.

It contains many of the same provisions of the current Act; the service eligibility criteria will remain the same. All veterans currently covered under the current Act will have coverage under this new legislation. We are talking about more than 20,000 modern Defence Force personnel who are now veterans, and all of them need that support as veterans.

The Prime Minister, Phil Goff, and I were also at the opening of the Ranfurly units. Again, that is another example of how we salute and recognise those who have returned from service overseas. That development, I think, is a shining example of what we can do not just through legislation but also in our communities when the resources are put to looking after those returned servicemen and servicewomen.

I am proud of this comprehensive package. I, like the Minister, look forward to the Social Services Committee deliberations because it does honour a group in our society—and their families, I might add—who have given much sacrifice and commitment to those of us who can enjoy the freedoms and liberties of our current State. I commend this bill to the House.

It is impossible when discussing in this Chamber anything to do with the defence force or veterans not to recognise the plaques around the building and the past conflicts. There are well-known names like Alamein, Crete, the River Plate, Gallipoli is just up here to my right, and over the far side there is Monte Cassino. They are names that evoke strong emotions in the New Zealand psyche. They are places where, in many ways, the national identity has been forged. Increasingly in this century, New Zealanders are turning to Anzac Day, in particular, and other commemorations of those events as days to look towards one another as a community to reflect on what it is to be New Zealanders, and to reflect on our nation. Also look at other names like Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan, which, perhaps, sometimes for some people evoke a slightly different response—questioning the Government’s decisions to participate in those conflicts, questioning what the reasoning was for being part of them, and questioning the reason why there was an action occurring in those places in the first place. To those people, who may or may not be listening this evening, I say that what we are talking about are veterans.

A veteran is a veteran. It does not matter what conflict they were involved in. A veteran is a person who, at the request of their Government, went to a foreign land and fought on our behalf, in the belief that it was in our nation’s interests that they do so. Whether it be in the defence of our freedom, whether it be in the defence of our democracy, or whether it be to advance our principles of peace and freedom, that is why every single veteran who has served our nation has served. That is why it is important that we pass this Veterans’ Support Bill and that we address the situation that has been allowed to develop—that the support system for veterans in New Zealand has become outdated and outmoded.

Looking down to the far corner to my left we see Viet Nam, Timor-Leste, Afghanistan, and recognition of the peacekeeping duties. That is an appropriate corner to glance at while we are discussing this because Viet Nam was the final conflict before the ACC laws and the ACC scheme were introduced in New Zealand. Following that we have the other conflicts that we have been involved in. In a way, we have two sets of veterans who deserve to be treated in an equitable fashion, but in order to do so we require two different schemes that recognise the two different situations that those veterans face. That is what is established here in this legislation. This legislation will do a number of things to improve the support systems for veterans, but right at the heart of it is the establishment of two schemes. One is for veterans who served before ACC came into place and another is for veterans who are covered by the provisions of ACC.

As the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs mentioned, the current law is getting close to 60 years old. That is why, as far back as 2006, the Labour Government and, in particular, Labour Ministers like Phil Goff and Rick Barker looked at what needed to change in order to bring the support mechanisms for veterans into the 21st century. It was after that initiation that the matter was referred to the Law Commission. It began its work under Sir Geoffrey Palmer in 2007, and an issues paper was developed for discussion and brought to the House in 2008. There was then a long period. That was the appropriate time that was needed to be taken in order to get the recommendations right. The Law Commission embarked on a lengthy period of consultation with various veterans groups, not least the RSA, with the families of veterans, with veterans themselves, with veterans of conflicts from long ago, with veterans of more recent conflicts, and with the New Zealand Defence Force to talk about the future needs of veterans.

After that lengthy period of consultation, and an election and change of Government, the Law Commission reported back on 1 June 2010. That was a 2-year period to get this right, and that was appropriate. I hear what the Minister said—that we needed to make sure we got this right. I suppose that was his explanation for the length of time that it has taken. I guess that on this side of the House we say that a long period of time was taken to get the recommendations right. They were reported back to this House 3½ years ago, and those 3½ years have, frankly, been too long for this legislation to be introduced to Parliament. For a period of time I was the veterans’ affairs spokesperson for the Labour Party. It was a role that I enjoyed because it gave me the opportunity to visit RSAs up and down the country. That is not a bad way to spend your time, actually. In every single RSA that I visited, the first topic for discussion was around what was happening with the Veterans’ Support Bill: “What is happening with the Law Commission report? When is that going to come before Parliament? When is it going to be progressed? When are we going to see the change that we have been promised for so very long?”.

I know that veterans up and down the country will be very pleased that we have finally got to this stage this evening. I have got no doubt that many of them will come to the select committee to offer their views and opinions. They will, as my colleague Phil Goff pointed out, probably want to raise some questions about the difference between this draft legislation and the original recommendations in the Law Commission report. I imagine that there will be a robust and collaborative discussion at the select committee. I hope that the select committee has the opportunity to make amendments that will strengthen the legislation and that we will come back to the Chamber with a much better piece of legislation, because it is not something that we need to play party politics over at all. It is something that I am sure will have broad support around the Chamber. It will be an opportunity for members of Parliament from all parties to work constructively towards putting in place the best possible legislation to underpin the best possible system to ensure that the needs of veterans, both of conflicts long passed and of conflicts in which we may need to engage in the future, are treated in an equitable fashion. We certainly support, as I said earlier, the establishment of two separate schemes to recognise the difference between veterans who are covered and those who are not covered, by ACC. We support the other extensions of coverage and the other improvements to entitlements and provisions that are held within this legislation.

With that, I have some final words to say. Labour wholeheartedly supports the efforts—getting on to over a couple of decades now—of the various veterans’ groups to ensure that this legislative change has happened, congratulates them on ensuring that we have got to this point, and encourages everybody who has an interest in this legislation to participate in it and to come to the select committee to make sure that we get this right for our veterans and future defence force personnel.

I also rise to offer the Green Party’s support for the Veterans’ Support Bill to go to the Social Services Committee. I must admit that I have not had the opportunity yet to read the full 247-page Law Commission report, which has prompted this 259-page bill, which I also have not quite managed to get through yet. Call me a slacker, but that is how it is. I am not quite there yet, but I am pretty sure, from what I have read, that we can offer our support for it to go to the select committee. In the select committee we will be looking to the principles, the delivery on the Law Commission’s recommendations, and, of course, most important, the views of those affected or likely to be affected by this bill.

But I cannot speak responsibly as a Green Party MP on anything to do with war without making a clear statement. As the Green Party, we have four core charter principles, and one of those is non-violence. So for us, whenever we are talking about war, it is necessary to make a statement that we dream of, and are working towards, a world where there is no need for war—a world where armed conflict is not necessary, because Governments are upholding human rights and disputes are settled peacefully. We wish to see the support of this country going towards creating that world. Priority, for us, must always be given to non-violent means of resolving conflict between countries. If armed force is necessary to protect New Zealand citizens and public resources or to help other countries protect their citizens, then for us the use of force must be sanctioned by the people of this country and by international law.

But although I make that statement, it has nothing against this bill. I am making that statement because that is the context that this bill works within, and that is who we are, as my colleagues have said. But in some ways, that strengthens our commitment to veterans, particularly of the wars where there has not necessarily been that national agreement or the valuing or the protection of human rights at the heart of the conflict. Those soldiers who were forced to go to those wars possibly deserve our protection and support even more so, in terms of their rehabilitation as they deal with the results of those wars.

This bill replaces the War Pensions Act 1954 and has arisen from the Law Commission’s recommendations and report. The original Act primarily dealt with physical injuries that occur in a war environment. Now the introduction of this bill will extend that to also recognising the psychological and environmental risks of war, which is incredibly important, as I will talk about a little bit more later, because so much of our learning from Viet Nam was, I think, around the lifelong, generational consequences of the environmental toxic poisoning that happened to the soldiers in that war.

The 1954 Act was not updated with the introduction of the ACC scheme in 1974. The ACC scheme applies to serving and former members of the New Zealand Defence Force. A key objective of this bill is to bring a rehabilitation focus as well as providing monetary and other forms of support. That, I guess, is just updating our approach to fit with this modern world and the understanding that we can actually help, with the right systems, people to rehabilitate and be able to increase their mobility, or whatever participation.

As per the Law Commission’s recommendation, this bill introduces two schemes for support. Scheme one will cover veterans in service prior to 1 April 1974, so it is including Viet Nam War veterans. It continues the original Act’s practice of paying a periodic pension to veterans with service-related impairments, and provides compensation to spouses, children, and dependants.

I would just like to remind the House of some of the consequences that we saw from Viet Nam. There was a report that was released just this year by Otago University that found that New Zealand Viet Nam veterans deployed in a “toxic war environment” were exposed to a significantly higher risk of leukaemia, and that “most veterans deployed in the Nui Dat area of Phuoc Tuy province, experienced a ‘toxic environment’ because of the widespread use of 2, 4, 5-T and 2,4-D as defoliant herbicides. This mixture is more commonly known to most of us in the world as agent orange and was contaminated with a carcinogen, a dioxin. The research from the Otago University study examined from 1998 to 2008 the health records of 2,752 of the nearly 3,400 New Zealand military personnel who served in Viet Nam, and it was the first cohort study done in New Zealand of Viet Nam veterans to assess the long-term health effects of serving in that kind of combat zone. It found “a doubling of the risk of mortality from cancers of the head and neck, as well as an increase in oral cancers of the pharynx and larynx. Lung cancer contributed the greatest burden of deaths in both New Zealand and Australian veterans.”

I mention this because I think it brings to life—for me, at least—some of the real horror of those wars and the ongoing consequences. And here we are with research in 2013, nearly 40 years later, that is just starting to understand the consequences of that war. Those are the veterans with whom my colleague Catherine Delahunty was out protesting for a very long time to get access to treatment and recognition by the State of that toxicity and the harm created by it. That is just a tragic situation, and I really do hope that with this bill and that recognition of the psychological and environmental impacts of war, no veteran will ever have to fight so hard for an acknowledgment of such harm.

Scheme two within this bill covers veterans after the date of the introduction of ACC, and it will focus on that provision of medical, psychosocial, and vocational rehabilitation. It describes rehabilitation as “the gateway to other assistance such as income compensation and lump sum” payments. The Minister went into quite a bit of detail around some of the provisions in that, and it sounded very good to me on the first hearing of it. I do recognise that he did say that some of the recommendations of the Law Commission are primarily administrative ones and have not been implemented in this bill, and I certainly will be looking at those closely. We know that this sits within the Ministry of Social Development, and some of the processes for appeal within that system are definitely proving problematic at the moment. We would not want to see those problems replicated for our veterans, and neither would we want to see some of the struggle to have access to ACC replicated for veterans. Our hope would be that if this is a generous scheme, as mentioned by the Minister, that hopefully that will have a bleed-out effect into the Ministry of Social Development and ACC in return, so that all New Zealanders can get the assistance they need to be able to participate fully in our country.

But, ultimately, I will finish this speech again with my hope that one day in the future there will be no more need for anyone else to access the entitlements in this bill, and that we have peaceful ways of resolving conflicts. I am not so naive to believe that that is going to happen quickly, but we will keep working towards it.

I am wholeheartedly and respectfully in total support of the Veterans’ Support Bill, and I congratulate the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Michael Woodhouse, on bringing this bill to this House for its first reading. Earlier this year in July I had the great pleasure of returning to my birth country with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Michael Woodhouse, to attend the 60th commemoration of the Korean War. You see, New Zealand has a proud history of service in defence of our country, and of freedom and democracy around the world. I am one of those beneficiaries.

In 1950, 63 years ago, on 25 June at dawn, at around 5 o’clock, North Korea invaded South Korea. I do get a little bit emotional about this because it does affect my family. I recall my mother talking about not having enough food in the family, and yet they took in 10 other refugees so that they had a roof over their heads. They all had to return down south to Pusan, the only city that North Korea never invaded. My grandfather was shot dead by the North Koreans because he was educated at university. There were a lot of atrocities that actually happened. I am grateful for the advancement of South Korea, because without the veterans who went to the call of the UN, who actually asked for the veterans to come from around the world, I may not be standing here proudly as a member of Parliament in this great country of ours in New Zealand. I apologise for my emotional state, but New Zealand owes a great debt to our veterans. I personally owe a great debt to the Korean veterans, the Korea Veterans Association, the K-force that actually went to the call of Korea.

A total of 3,974 soldiers went to the call in Korea in 1950. New Zealand was one of the first countries that went to Korea. There were 1,300 navy servicemen who went to Korea, as well. A total of 33 New Zealanders died in that war. Although the numbers were not as large as other contingents from around the world, we were a proud fighting force that actually fought very, very bravely in one of the bloodiest wars we have seen in recent times. When Jim Newman, the president of the Korea Veterans Association, and all of the veterans whom I lovingly refer to as my dads talk about this bill, they talk about the hardship that they actually faced. They gave up their youth to fight for something that they did not even have anything to do with in a foreign country. They were all aged 18, 19, 20—early in their years. They forsook their education to go and serve in a country that they had nothing to do with. They fought in—and some of them even recall—the coldest winter they had ever known. New Zealand has never seen a winter like that. They talk about their boots and their clothes, and that they were not prepared for the kind of cold they had. When their boots actually touched the ground in Kapyong, they simply broke apart and they split. The veterans did not actually understand the harshness of the conditions they were fighting in.

Yet the veterans, when they returned to this country, still remembered the country that they served in, and they are very proud of the developments in the last 60 years of the Korea that has become a leading nation in the world. It has become an economic power around the world. Everybody uses Samsung. Everybody knows about GoldStar. Everybody knows about Kia and Hyundai. That growth was made possible by the sacrifices of our very own veterans. I totally, totally support this bill, because it benefits our veterans who made it possible for me to stand in this House. I commend this bill to the House.

I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, as the veterans’ affairs spokesperson, to support the Veterans’ Support Bill. This bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken 3 years to finally get to this Chamber and to Parliament, but it is better late than never. Unfortunately, it is too late for many veterans who would have liked to see this a long time ago. The 1954 War Pensions Act was designed to meet the needs of Second World War veterans, and it is time for it to be replaced with this bill to bring it into the more modern era in terms of legislation.

What this bill does is acknowledge community responsibility for injury, illness, or death of veterans as a result of being placed in harm’s way in the service of New Zealand. It also ensures there is a provision for veterans with fair entitlement. It promotes equal treatment of equal claims, and it promotes a benevolent approach to claims.

It is split into two schemes, because ACC was introduced in 1974. So, as a result, the entitlements pre-1974 apply under scheme one in this bill, and post-1974, in the ACC era, under scheme two. It ensures that Viet Nam veterans and those before them are still fully covered under the original Act and are not in any way disadvantaged because of the post-1974 ACC situation. This also ensures that spouse and partner entitlement will be approved through this bill, and that is a very good thing. In many areas the spouses and partners of veterans have great difficulty and extreme hardship, and this bill goes a long way to addressing that. Veterans from both schemes will have access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions. They will have access to home help and lawnmowing for service-related conditions. There will also be funeral grants for service-related deaths.

Two boards are being established under this bill. The War Pensions Advisory Board is replaced by the Veterans’ Advisory Board, and a Specialist Medical Advisory Panel will be established. This panel will assume responsibility for making grants and awards. It is good that a specialist medical panel will be involved with this, because for so many of the veterans it is very much in a medical area that they are seeking assistance, where they need to be identified for the impacts that they have suffered as a result of going to service for this country and where they do require medical support and medical attention. We are increasingly seeing that situation as a result of those who served in Viet Nam with agent orange, those who were in the Pacific with nuclear contamination, and those who have been in other areas of war around the world where there has been contamination or where they have been subjected to conditions that have resulted in their having very poor health in later life.

New Zealand First has always been a strong advocate for our veterans. New Zealand First places great value and recognition on the service given by our veterans. Our nation has a special obligation to them, particularly to those who have suffered as a result of their service. In this respect New Zealand First has a number of principles that we put forward and stand by. We will ensure that veterans’ pensions maintain relativity plus an additional 10 percent in recognition of their sacrifice. We will implement the recommendation of the Law Commission’s review of the War Pensions Act absolutely, 100 percent, because we believe the work that the Law Commission did was very thorough, very worthy, and should not have taken this amount of time to be implemented. We will work with the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association towards providing veterans with a sustainable health-care package.

New Zealand First, when we were in cooperation with the Labour Government, negotiated $1 million for RSA social, support, and health services, and we are committed to ensuring the ongoing financial support for that, which is in the order of $250,000 a year. This Government has reduced that to $150,000 per year. We are committed to putting that back up to the full extent of that $250,000 per year to support veterans with health and social services, which are most important. That includes helping veterans get to hospitals, helping volunteers to be supported to take veterans for medical attention, and that sort of thing. That $100,000 difference that the Government has cut out of that fund per year is a huge amount because that directly impacts on many, many volunteers and people who support the veterans in their time of need.

New Zealand First will also increase the radiation-related health conditions listed on the veterans’ affairs presumptive list to include all cancers, because we believe that this country and this Government should be covering those veterans for all cancers involved, whether from agent orange or from nuclear radiation, and for whatever cancers have been formed as a result of being in the theatre of war. We will support claims by veterans and their children who have been affected by agent orange and any other such issues. We are also fully committed to supporting all areas of the RSA, including the likes of the National War Memorial park in Wellington, to recognise the service and sacrifices of the veterans to this country.

This bill is an important bill. It affects so many people throughout New Zealand. We are constantly hearing very sad stories about the conditions and the lives of veterans who have gone to war, who have gone to serve this country, and who are now struggling, and also of their families, their children, and their loved ones who are suffering. And many of them are having to take care of those veterans during their later years.

I think it is a sad indictment that it has taken so long for this bill to come to the House. It is a very lengthy document. I am looking forward to it coming through to the Social Services Committee so that when it is fully considered, when the submissions come in—and I am sure that there will be many hundreds of them from all over New Zealand—this Parliament will give huge weight to this document, will pass it, and in fact will increase the provisions that are shown in this document to the full extent that is possible.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the first reading of the Veterans’ Support Bill, and, as my colleagues have said, we will support the bill to the Social Services Committee, with the aim of ensuring that all the recommendations from the Law Commission’s report are fulfilled. There is no doubt about it; the 1954 Act is outdated. That is why, when we were in Government, we commissioned the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of the War Pensions Act 1954, which is the basis of this bill. Also, as some of my colleagues have observed, since 2006, when this process began, a number of veterans have sadly passed away, and we need to ensure that this bill is proceeded with quickly so that more veterans and their families do not miss out on what they deserve and what we owe them. The bill is long overdue, and it is something that Labour was striving to deliver when we were in Government. That is because veterans hold a special place in New Zealand society, and rightly so.

Recently, I visited Flanders with some other parliamentary colleagues, and went to Messines and to the battlefields of Passchendaele, where 2,400 of our young men died in one day. I also stood at the Mennen Gate while the “Last Post” was blown. My colleague Tau Henare placed a wreath on behalf of the New Zealand Parliament. We also went to visit the Messines memorial, and there is the most heartbreaking quote on that memorial, about the New Zealand soldiers who came to Messines and died, “from the uttermost ends of the Earth”. How heartbreaking is that? Last year I also visited Messines with Mr Speaker and my colleague Melissa Lee. She will remember this, because when we were in Messines, a soldier from the First World War had been found and identified as a New Zealand soldier, almost 100 years after the Battle of Messines. They managed to narrow it down to six families, but because there are no descendants of those families, they have not been able to do a DNA test, so that soldier is still unidentified. But Melissa Lee might like to know that when I was in Messines this time, we visited a cemetery where that soldier has now been buried. They had a special ceremony for him and a proper recognition of his contribution. But the sad, sad thing on his sad epitaph is “Known only unto God.”

No one can visit Flanders and the battlefields of World War I, or, for that matter, World War II, and not be moved and at the same time horrified. In World War I there were 100,444 deployments from New Zealand, of whom 2,688 were Māori, with 16,697 killed in action and 41,317 wounded. That is a 58 percent casualty rate for New Zealand at that time. We had only 1 million people in New Zealand, so it is no wonder that these things touch us. But what I want to mention—because it is worth knowing, as we are coming up to the anniversary of the First World War and there will be a lot happening in the next 4 years, and certainly they are preparing for that in Flanders—is that this inspired me to go and look at my own history, as many of us do. I have family who fought in both the First World War and the Second World War. It is worth letting people know that all of the records from the First World War are now on the database of the Auckland War Memorial Museum cenotaph. So you can look that up on the internet.

I found some missing relatives. It was really sad to see a photo of a great-uncle of mine, whom I never met, obviously. He was a legend in our family. He was called Uncle Dan, and everyone used to talk about how lovely he was. He went to war. He fought in Gallipoli, was wounded and sent home, and then died of the Spanish flu not long after that. When I looked it up on the database, there was a photo of Uncle Dan. I had never seen his photo before. It brought him to life. He was a young man. He was just 20 years old. I want to encourage families and members to make use of that wonderful resource that has been developed and is under way now with the Auckland War Memorial Museum, the cenotaph database, because it is our history. That is why this bill is so important, and this is why I say that veterans hold a special place in New Zealand, and rightly so.

Of course, it is our responsibility to protect the servicemen and women who have been put in harm’s way. They have been sent to defend our country and to meet our international obligations, and they deserve both our respect and our gratitude but also our lasting memories. I think that in the next few years the centenary anniversary recognition will be a very, very moving time for many New Zealanders. The other thing we did when we were in Messines was we went to visit the grave site of some of the Māori Battalion. The Hon Tau Henare, who was with us, actually recognised some whānau. It is unbelievable stuff. So I understand Melissa Lee’s passion and emotion about that, because the blood in the soil of Messines, of Flanders, is our blood, and you cannot help but recognise what an awful thing that war was, what an unnecessary war it was, how many people suffered, and how many veterans came home and lived without the support of this type of legislation.

As others have said, the Veterans’ Support Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report, which recommends a new support scheme for veterans of military service to replace the War Pensions Act 1954. As noted by many, the 1954 Act has not changed significantly since its enactment, and it does need to be replaced with modern legislation designed to deal with not only the physical risks associated with deployments but also the psychological and environmental risks that veterans face. I think that is a new understanding that has grown from more recent conflicts, because I certainly know from most World War I veterans that the psychological impacts and the effect it had on their lives were never recognised. It was covered up in many instances. I think that is a very, very important part of this bill. It also obviously updates accident compensation in accordance with the accident compensation scheme, and continues the principles and decision-making presumptions of the 1954 Act, which are in common with veterans support legislation in other countries.

I wanted to just mention, though, that Sam Lotu-Iiga talked about the Ranfurly War Veterans Home opening recently. This is another important thing that I do not want to let go by in this debate. The Ranfurly War Veterans Home was established for veterans in 1904, and was run for years and years and years by the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board and then the Ranfurly War Veterans Trust, and it has just recently been sold to a developer. We have seen some stories in the news about the dissatisfaction of the veterans who are in that particular home. I do not want to comment particularly on that, because I am not qualified to comment on that, but what I do know is that the carers in that home had to fight to keep their pay when the home changed hands. I would want to put in a plea, while we are talking about looking after our veterans, that those who actually care for them in homes like Ranfurly are paid a living wage, so that we recognise and honour our veterans by actually paying the carers properly. I know that the people who live in the Ranfurly War Veterans Home actually came out to support those workers.

I support this bill. We look forward to the select committee, but I end with that plea about a living wage. Thank you.

As colleagues have said, New Zealand has got a proud history of service in defence of our country and of freedom across the globe and other democracies. Other members here have outlined family members whom they have had who have fought for our country and the countries of others. I do not have immediate family members who have been through that, but I do acknowledge the families of all those across the House who have given so much to our country. In 2007 it was a good idea that the War Pensions Act 1954 was referred to the Law Commission for review. This Veterans’ Support Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report, recommending a new support scheme for veterans in military service.

We owe a great deal, a great debt, to our veterans. The National-led Government is committing to honouring their service, and this bill, in part, delivers on our election promises. The Government has committed $60 million for a package to support the new legislation. As part of this package we also increased the war disablement and surviving spouse pensions by 5 percent this year on top of inflation. That is why I support this bill. I look forward to hearing select committee submissions to the Social Services Committee, and making sure that the mood of this House is reflected in the final legislation.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. In 1915 the Hon Māui Pōmare was commissioned as the member for Western Māori but also as the Minister responsible for the Cook Islands and other Pacific Islands. He went out through to the Pacific and to the Cook Islands and Niue, where he managed to get 150 Niuean soldiers and also 45 from the Cook Islands, who came over to New Zealand. They were there also to be deployed to Gallipoli to strengthen the Pioneer Battalion in 1917. They actually came down here to Parliament and paraded in front of Parliament before they went up to Narrow Neck up in Auckland, where they trained and then were sent over to the Western Front at that time. I mention that because in the last 2 years I have been to the commemorative services for the Niuean community, and I suppose there are a number of people to whom this bill, the Veterans’ Support Bill, becomes important. A number of New Zealanders right across the country have family members who have been part of the veterans community. I commend this bill to the House. This is a good bill. This new Veterans’ Support Bill aligns with the importance of all-encompassing medical treatment and rehabilitation. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare e tu nei. It is a great honour to take a short call on this very important bill, the Veterans’ Support Bill. Can I say that there is nothing more humbling or that creates a sense of pride than remembering our veterans who have served our great nation, not just on Anzac Day but at times like this when we are supporting an important bill like this.

My dad was 8 years old when World War II broke out and 14 when World War II ended. Unlike his older brother and his uncle, who joined the 28th Māori Battalion, my dad had to wait for the Korean War. I just want to stand on my feet and acknowledge the member Melissa Lee. I acknowledge you for your moving speech, Melissa, and for your recognition of our veterans who served in Korea. My dad served there, so I take your word and say kia ora, sister. It is a serious issue that we have in front of us.

I was sharing the personal stories of finding myself in Rome in 2010. My whole intent of travelling there was to do two things. One was to track down the carver of the Pānia of the Reef statue in Carrara city, and the other was to visit my dad’s brother and uncle in their grave sites. It is amazing to me that I needed to go to the grave sites, so I journeyed up to the mid-eastern side of Italy, not knowing that both my uncle and grand-uncle died on 15 December 1944 at the tender age of 22, passing away on the same day but buried in two different graves, in Forli and Faenza. I want to acknowledge the 28th Māori Battalion website, because without that website, I would have had no idea where to locate my uncle and my grand-uncle.

I say to the Speaker and to this House that it is one of the most moving occasions to walk along row upon row of young Kiwi soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives for freedom, liberty, and justice for all. That was a sobering time in my time in Italy, but one that will remain with me. In coming back and sharing that story with my father, I know he was very proud that somebody was able to go to the grave sites of his brother and his uncle, whom he remembers fondly as a young boy growing up.

In terms of personal relationships, my dad was fortunate enough to travel back to Korea 50 years after serving there for 2 and a bit years. His sharing of his time there, as Melissa Lee quite rightly shared with the House, is the remembrance of a very, very cold, harsh Korean winter. My dad served as a gunner. Back in those days—and I am glad this bill is addressing not just physical but psychological and environmental risks—my dad suffered hearing problems. Sitting on gunners, he never had any ear protection, so I am standing in his honour and memory, and for all the other veterans who suffered during their time serving this great country. I join with this side of the House in recommending that this bill go to the Social Services Committee, and I look forward to the closer scrutiny that will require. Kia ora tātou.

I just inform the House that this is a split call.

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 the Agenda For Peace; the United Nations is developing this, slowly, agonisingly, but it is 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.

I want to finish the debate on the Veterans’ Support Bill by acknowledging the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, and by acknowledging members across the House for the support they have shown. I acknowledge some of the comments that have been made. This is a very important bill because the men and women who have served this country, many of whom lost their lives in the service of this country, are very important people and will always be in our hearts, minds, and otherwise. It is important for this Parliament to recognise the contributions veterans have made, and those men and women of the New Zealand armed services who paid the price with their lives.

I am a former naval officer. My father spent a significant amount of time in the Royal New Zealand Navy, as well as my uncle, and so matters of this nature do resonate very strongly with me. I also just want to take a short opportunity to acknowledge someone who has made a significant contribution to the interests of veterans in New Zealand, and that is a former senior army officer Ross Miller, who was a constituent of my electorate. He worked very closely with successive Ministers, including the current Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, to advance the very important interests of veterans and to contribute to a huge body of work that has gone on in reviewing what is a very significant piece of legislation, and the need to recognise and address the issues that have been brought forward by veterans. So I just acknowledge Ross Miller and his contribution to this process. I commend the work that he has done.

I acknowledge all the veterans who have also contributed to the process that has brought us to this point, where the bill is now in the House. I think the House can enjoy moving it forward in the spirit, which we must all acknowledge, that reflects the importance of these citizens to our nation, lest we forget. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.

I move, That the Veterans’ Support Bill be reported back to the House by 27 March 2014.

Motion agreed to.