Veterans’ Support Bill

I think it makes sense to talk about the three parts together. Part 3 sets out scheme one, which deals with the veterans who served before April 1974 plus those who served in Viet Nam at Qui Nhon as support for the medical team, and Squadron 41 up to 1975. Part 4 deals with scheme two, which deals with veterans since that time. The reason for separating that out is the introduction of accident compensation in April 1974. The whole emphasis in respect of those who have served since 1974-75 is on rehabilitation, getting the person back to the position they were in before they sustained the injury that led them to require that support. Part 5 deals with elements that are common to both scheme one and scheme two.

But I just want to comment on the discussion that we have had. It is not what we agree on, which is most of this bill, that concerns me; it is where we disagree. Where we disagree is that somehow we think that you can set up a Law Commission to independently analyse and then ignore its recommendations about how we should treat our veterans. There ought to be a good reason if we depart from those recommendations. But there is no good reason why we should depart from its recommendation relating to the payment of all of the benefits that go with the veterans pension. What effectively we have had happen here is that the Law Commission, supported by the veterans, supported by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association, recommended that veterans should get a level of benefit because they have served our country. What this National Government has done is cut the amount of money that the Law Commission and the RSA both recommended should go to our veterans. This is about cutting support for our veterans. Do you know what amount it is about? It is about a miserable $7.4 million. That is what it would take to give our veterans the full entitlement that the RSA and the Law Commission said they should have.

This is penny-pinching. This is miserable. This is mean. In the 100 years since the First World War, as we mark that centenary, this Government marks itself out as being so miserable that it is going to take $7.4 million away from the veterans whom the Law Commission, the RSA, and the veterans believe they are entitled to. I have not heard one valid argument, in this whole debate, from National to justify doing that—$7.4 million. You know, the Government is spending twice that amount of money on one conference, the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States in Samoa next month. Are our veterans less important than that? The Government is spending $30 million on Rio Tinto, a foreign multinational. Are our veterans, who sacrificed for our country, less important than the money that the Government is prepared to put into a foreign multinational company? The Government spends $150 million in legal fees on hocking off our assets, which many of our veterans, like my father-in-law, came back from the war to build up. They worked on the hydro dams at Mangakino and Aratiatia. There is $150 million in legal fees to lawyers, to hock off the assets that we New Zealanders own, but the Government cannot spend $7.4 million to give our veterans what the Law Commission said, after due consultation, after careful analysis, our veterans were entitled to.

The Veterans’ Support Bill, in this form, cuts the entitlements that our veterans should have got if the recommendations of the Law Commission and the RSA were followed. I have not heard a single argument to justify why we should be penny-pinching from our veterans, as we commemorate in this centenary year all of those who have died, all of those who have given service, and all of those who have sacrificed for our country. I think that is pathetic.

In terms of the parts in front of us, we have, first of all, scheme one, which will deal with those veterans who served prior to 1974-75. Basically, what we have tried to do in this part of the bill is preserve the entitlements that those older veterans from the Second World War, from Korea, from Malaya, from Malaysia, and from Viet Nam are entitled to. Those entitlements are good entitlements. I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who would deny our veterans the right to those entitlements—entitlements such as travel costs associated with treatment and long-term hospital care, a disablement pension that people get in addition to their veterans pension, taking into account the level of disablement that they have suffered, weekly income compensation, retirement lump sum, entitlements for spouses, and bursaries for children. I think all of those are important entitlements. I think some of them are quite reasonable entitlements. I do not think they are more generous than what other veterans in similar countries like Canada, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom are getting, but they are entitlements that should be there. We stand by maintaining those entitlements and lifting them above the level that they were once set at.

In terms of the second part, which relates to the post - Viet Nam War veterans, that is designed to take into account the changes that were brought about by the accident compensation scheme. Before we had the accident compensation scheme, the pension for veterans effectively was compensation for those who had suffered accidents. Now we need to ensure that there is a complementarity between the accident compensation payments and those received by war veterans—not just a complementarity but to ensure there is a margin over and above those entitlements that we give to war veterans. There should be that margin because these are people who have suffered their injuries in the service of their country. There is a top-up to preserve the additional support provided to veterans under the 1954 Act, over and above that available to other New Zealanders, and it will ensure that all scheme two veterans receive the same amount of compensation, whether or not their accident compensation claim was accepted. I think that is important. I think it is important that we have moved to focus on rehabilitation and restoration to pre-injury capability, to the maximum extent possible. The assistance provided to veterans is about incentivising wellness and using rehabilitation as a way of leading to other assistance that might be available.

I think one of the important changes that is made in scheme two is in relation to the lump-sum payment rate. That will be set at the equivalent payable under the accident compensation scheme plus an additional 20 percent. I think it is also important that those who are terminally ill can get a lump-sum payment brought forward as a way of acknowledging that their terminal illness is, in most instances, related to the service that they have given. A veteran who is entitled to a disablement pension can elect to suspend payment of that pension for a period of up to 12 months and receive a lump-sum payment equivalent to the aggregate of the pension payable at the maximum rate for the 12-month period. That was a change that was made in the select committee. I think it is an appropriate change. I think the concept of this legislation, based on the Law Commission recommendation, of having a scheme that maintains the entitlement for our older veterans and brings our new veterans into a space where there is a focus on rehabilitation is the right approach.

So, if it is good for this Committee to follow the recommendations of the Law Commission in the fundamentals of this scheme, why is it that National insists on departing from the recommendations of the Law Commission in terms of cutting the benefits that are available to people who have served? It is, frankly, unacceptable to this side of the Chamber, and I had hoped that it would be unacceptable to the Māori Party, that our veterans would be denied that lump-sum payment—$5,700—to enable the family to meet the funeral costs of the veterans. I understand that the amendment I had moved was supported by the Māori Party. Mr Flavell will speak for himself but I understand that—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman—just to finish off. I will be only 1 minute. I understand—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will decide that. The Hon Phil Goff.

A very good decision, Mr Chairman. I understand that pressure was put on the Māori Party members by National that if they were not to support the Government’s position on this bill, then the bill would not proceed—certainly during the life of this Parliament. If that is the case, then that is quite unacceptable. I regret the fact that the Māori Party is no longer supporting what the RSA and the veterans have asked for and the Law Commission recommended, but Mr Flavell will no doubt comment on why there has been a change of heart on behalf of the Māori Party. If they had not changed their view, then the votes would have been equally 61-61 and we would have, I think, negotiated a reasonable solution for the veterans.

💬 Tim Macindoe: We don’t have 122 members.

Well, the calculation—and the whip can confirm it—was that it would have been a tied vote, if the Māori Party had supported Labour on this. [Interruption] Sixty-sixty—OK. It is like 20/20 vision—60-60. It is regrettable that the Government has used its position to prevent a fair deal being reached for veterans.

I have got just this one challenge and it might go to Mr Flavell, it might go to the National Party members, or it might go to Mr Dunne. It is a simple question. Why is it that the recommendations of the Law Commission to be a little more generous to veterans have been dropped by this Government when the cost was small, the cost was affordable, and the case that could be made for the veterans gaining entitlement to that small extra benefit was clear and overwhelmingly supported by the veterans? Why is it that in 2014, 100 years out from the start of the Great War, we could not have given that little bit of extra to the veterans. Words are cheap. It would have been much better if we could have backed up our expressions of gratitude and thanks to our veterans by giving them something, a small something, that would have made a difference for them and their families. That question is hanging there, waiting for a member of the Government, or a party supporting the Government, to answer why it was not affordable to implement the recommendation of the Law Commission.

Tēnā tātau katoa i tēnei rā, otirā, i tēnei wiki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Hei tīmatanga kōrero māku me whaiwhai haere au i te kōrero a te Hōnore Phil Goff. Ko te ngākau, otirā, ki ngā whakaaro o te Pāti Māori e mea ana, me tautoko i tēnei hunga i haere ki te pakanga, ki te tohe mō te painga o tēnei whenua. Arā anō ngā tohu kei ngā pakitara o tēnei Whare Pāremata. Ko ētahi kua haere ki te mura o te ahi, ko ētahi i hoki mai, ko ētahi kāre i hoki mai. Ko te hunga i hoki mai, ko ētahi i hoki māuiui mai, ā, nō reira, me tautoko ka tika. Ēngari i roto i tēnei Whare, arā anō ngā uauatanga i ētahi wā mō te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te pōti. Nō reira, kua riro māku tēnei wāhanga o te Pāti Māori e whakamārama ake, ā, i tēnei pō.

[Greetings to us all today and indeed in this the week of the Māori language. As a means of beginning my address I will follow the tenor of the sentiments expressed by the Hon Phil Goff. The heart, and indeed the thoughts, of the Māori Party is saying that we must support this group who went to war and who were persistent for the benefit of this country. There are other symbols on the walls of this House of Parliament that reflect this. Some went to the battle front, some returned, and some did not. Of those who came back, some were sick and so it is only right that they be supported. But in this House there are other difficulties at times relating to the manner of this voting thing. So this aspect of the Māori Party will be left for me to explain carefully this evening.]

Mr Chairperson, I wish to take a couple of calls, I hope, at your behest to be able to explain the Māori Party position in respect of the Veterans’ Support Bill. As I said in Māori, there is no doubt in our minds that it is appropriate to support those who put their lives on the line for our country and do the best that we can.

In our caucus we had some vigorous debate in respect of the Hon Phil Goff’s amendment and Supplementary Order Paper 441. It was very vigorous because, of course, we are talking about people’s lives, servicemen’s lives, and, indeed, I suppose what happens to them after they pass away as well. In that regard we were in a position to be able to support this bill, to be able to allow it so that veterans could, in fact, gain while we are in Parliament. Who knows what happens after the end of this election. We were of the view that it was far better to make some gains now than not to allow this bill to move through the various readings. We chose, accordingly, to enter into negotiations with the Government and the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs over points that we believed would advance the bill in its original form to something that we believed would have far bigger coverage.

So in the time that I have got I want to outline some of those gains. There are about eight of them or so that I want to put on the record of this House. Firstly, the removal of the 52 percent disability criterion, which used to be 70 percent, means that from our perspective a greater number of veterans will receive the pension.

From our perspective, currently around 6,800 veterans receive it and we say that this will increase, according to the information that we have, by about 16,700 to 25,300 veterans. That is 6,000, now going to 25,000. We suggest that is a major and significant gain, a far wider spread to bring in a far greater catch of those who put their lives on the line. That is the first point.

The second point is that a greater number of veterans will have formal recognition that they are war veterans receiving a war veterans pension. This has been a point of contention for them, and under the amendments—at least the negotiations we had—they will have that recognition.

The third point is that the veterans pension is paid at the same rate as superannuation and is increased annually in line with this, and veterans will automatically get the community services card, which is currently income tested. Income testing will no longer be applied so, therefore, again that is a major benefit from our perspective.

The fourth point is that veterans have protection for long-term hospital stays after 13 weeks. Currently, the pension is reduced to $40 after 13 weeks in hospital. Fifthly, we are also asking for a review of the Act—and I think this comes to the heart of Mr Goff’s discussion—and associated levels of support to be written into the bill, and this has been agreed to. The period of time we are talking about is to allow it to run for 2 years and then have a review to assess the points that the Hon Phil Goff has made and indeed how the bill is going.

As the sixth point, Veterans Affairs New Zealand is proposing to rewrite its standard operation procedures to direct case managers to proactively advise families of recently deceased veterans of their existence, advice and eligibility requirements, and assistance to apply for the Ministry of Social Development funeral grant, which is up to about $2,000. Although this is currently available, the uptake by veterans, from our understanding, has been relatively minimal. Personally, I think that this should be a standard operating practice anyway, but there we are.

These changes will come into effect on 1 October 2014—obviously not far away—and therefore veterans will be able to take up the benefits of the changes and amendments in the bill. We are seeking, on top of that, formal recognition for the Malaya, Afghan, and Syrian veterans and their service, and will be progressing this through the Hon Jonathan Coleman’s office.

Just to wrap up, currently veterans will be eligible for a lump-sum payment on death, although the 52 percent impairment criterion is applied. However, under the review we will aim to have this removed. If the Māori Party did not support this bill—and here is the point—we would suggest that over 1,600 veterans would miss out on the ability to receive a pension and the other gains that we have previously mentioned. We saw this simply as an opportunity that could be not missed out. We did, in fact, have at the very heart of our submissions and our thoughts the many veterans who are hanging out on taking up the opportunities that come from this bill and, indeed, to ensure that we captured as many people as possible into the net to allow them to access the benefits that come from this bill.

Under those circumstances, although this is the path that you have already outlined, and my discussion has been to cover a fair part of the bill, these are the reasons that we as the Māori Party are supportive of the bill. We are pleased with the amendments that we have been able to negotiate with the Minister, such that it will in fact go exactly the way we want.

Sure, there is always more to be done—there is always more to be done—there is always more that can be offered up, but the 2-year review period would allow for that to be assessed at the time. In the meantime, as of 1 October, as I said, the benefits will be able to roll out to those veterans who will be hanging out on these sorts of amendments. Ka nui te mihi.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the call in this Committee stage of the Veterans’ Support Bill. I want to pick up on some of the points that have just been made by Māori Party member, Te Ururoa Flavell, around negotiation and how hard the Māori Party has had to work to get the concessions from this Government. What a shame that is, I think, because the evidence that the Social Services Committee heard was pretty compelling and I think that a lot of the advice that the officials gave us actually supported the full extension of these provisions. The feeling I had was that the Government members on the committee were also, at least in their hearts, supportive of the full extension of these entitlements.

So the fact that the Māori Party has apparently had to negotiate so hard to be able to get some gains—to get us almost there but not quite there—to me just leaves the question of why. Why could this Government not go all the way? Why hold out on the one point around the funeral payments on death? I just do not understand it when we have heard that it is only about $7.4 million. I do not understand why that is a point to hold out on in negotiation, when most of the people in this Chamber—and, in their hearts, everyone on the select committee—supported it. I do not understand why the Government is holding out.

The point was made that it is not really about the money. One of the arguments brought up by this Government was that it should have been done before. That seems very weak to me. I just want to make the point that in the regulatory impact statement we actually read that 28 percent of our war veterans will pass away in the next 5 years, and that will be most of the World War II veterans. This is probably our last opportunity to deliver for those families that full recognition and this entitlement. I just cannot understand why this Government is holding out on that point when it is such a relatively small amount of money. I think it has been mentioned in this Committee that it is 0.00001 percent of total Government spending that it is holding on to. Is it out of meanness? Is it out of political pride not to have caved in to what was seen to then be an Opposition request, rather than the fact that it was the Law Commission that recommended it and that it was backed up by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association?

This is not really about politics. This should not be about politics, and I cannot understand how it has become about politics, because it is about a just recognition. Although I am on the record around being a pacifist and not wanting to glorify war, that for me is all the more reason to be able to offer whatever support we can to our war veterans who have been sent into these horrific environments, who have had to do things that none of us would ever want to do, and who have seen things that we would never want to see. They have been harmed, whether it was physically or emotionally, and their families have also often borne the cost. We heard very moving testimonies through the select committee process from veterans as well as the children of veterans, who talked about growing up in households where the war was relived in their living rooms.

If as a country we cannot afford the cost of acknowledging the harm that Governments have done by sending people, then that is a very clear reason not to send people. If we cannot afford to compensate them for that, then we should not be doing that. I am not going to spend very much longer on this because it has been 7 years since this was sent to the Law Commission and we definitely need to update the War Pensions Act 1954. We need to do that as quickly as possible and by the end of this Parliament.

I listened very carefully to the explanation by Māori Party members as to why they have flip-flopped on their support for the amendment in my name, Supplementary Order Paper 441, to this Veterans’ Support Bill. They had given me that undertaking to support it. I have to tell the Māori Party members that they have been duped. They have been totally hoodwinked—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Again.

—again by what this Government said. Let me use the first example that Te Ururoa Flavell used as to why they supported the bill. He said that they have reduced the level of disablement you need for funeral expenses from 70 percent to 52 percent. Anyone who sat on that Social Services Committee—and everyone on the backbench over there was on that committee—knows that that is absolutely wrong. Seventy percent of the old system is simply equivalent to 52 percent of the new system. It will not bring in one extra person for a lump-sum entitlement, yet that member from the Māori Party comes in and says “Look what we’ve got. We’ve lowered the entitlement ratio.” It is exactly—exactly—the same. They are being duped. They have been duped.

Then we get this other hoary old excuse that we will have a review in 2 years. Do you know what National said about the Law Commission recommendation? It said that it would not bring this in at this time. Do you know what veterans around the country told me? They said: “Bloody typical. They will wait until we are all dead and then they will give us the entitlement.” That is what our veterans think.

I have got in my hand the regulatory impact statement that goes with this bill. What does it say? It says that the veteran population as a whole will decline by 28 percent over the next 5 years—delay, delay, delay until nobody is eligible. This morning we heard the sad news that a member of A Company of the 28th Māori Battalion died yesterday. Do you know how many veterans we have left in A Company from the 28th Māori Battalion? [Interruption] No, there is just one—just one—left. Surely at this time we can make the gesture of saying to our veterans—there is a handful left from the Second World War—that we respect you, we respect what you did, and a very small gesture of appreciation is that we will meet your funeral costs on death to relieve your family of that obligation.

This really is a disgrace. They will review it in 2 years. It is $7.4 million. That is all it is. Te Ururoa Flavell said: “Oh, but they’re lifting the requirement of losing the pension after 13 weeks in hospital.” I asked what the cost was. It was so small that the answer is here in black and white. It says the amount is “negligible”. It probably does not even make five figures. They have given Te Ururoa Flavell the equivalent of beads and blankets—it is worth nothing. It is $7.4 million.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: Oh, you’re better than that.

I ask Alfred Ngaro why it is that his Government cannot afford $7.4 million in the first year, declining by $1 million every 2 years, to honour our veterans.

💬 Mike Sabin: It’s not about that. It’s a privacy decision.

I want to thank Mike Sabin for his earlier compliment, but if we follow his logic—that we cannot give it now because they did not get it before—we would not be changing anything in this Veterans’ Support Bill. If we were not to give something new to veterans today, we would not have changed the Act at all. We have changed the Act because we believe that veterans deserve more—$7.4 million more.

You know, what the Government gave to Rio Tinto would have paid the cost of giving this to the veterans for at least 4 years—over 4 years; probably 5 years, because the cost is declining. But somehow Rio Tinto is more important to this crony capitalist National Government than honouring our veterans—honouring our veterans not because the Labour Party said it should have been done but because the independent group set up to analyse what was going to the veterans said this is a change we should make, and because our veterans said this is a change we should make. Every one of those members in the back row over there heard veteran after veteran come in and ask for just this gesture. You know, words are cheap.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Parts 3, 4, and 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 3, 4, and 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Veteran’s pension