Veterans’ Support Bill

Part 6 is in fact the part of the Veterans’ Support Bill that deals with the issue of veterans pensions and lump-sum payments. This is the matter that has been canvassed by members for much of the evening, particularly by the Hon Phil Goff, who has amendments that he has proposed to this part of the legislation.

It is a pretty simple thing that in the Labour Opposition we wanted to follow the desires of the RSA and other veterans’ groups to ensure that all veterans would be entitled to a veterans pension, and that it would be something that was universally available to everybody who has served our country overseas in conflict or peacekeeping situations. It is fair to say that it was not a big ask of the Government. It is anticipated to cost $7.4 million a year, and that is actually the anticipated cost for the first year only. It is an unusual provision in that as time goes on the costs actually reduce. Usually when you introduce a new provision like this the out-years are more expensive than the initial year. This is the exact opposite, so it is not a difficult thing for the Government to adopt.

In fact, after a lot of advocacy from the Hon Phil Goff the Government finally relented—almost. It almost relented entirely and supported everything that Phil Goff asked for, except for one thing, and that is the provision for lump-sum payments. The argument that the Government is using is that it will not be the veterans themselves who benefit from lump-sum payments but their families. We on this side of the Chamber say that veterans’ families have made a significant sacrifice themselves—a different type of sacrifice from a veteran who actually goes and serves, and sees conflict, and faces battle alongside their comrades; true. It is a different type of sacrifice, but it is nevertheless a significant sacrifice for a family to have one of their own, often the breadwinner, go overseas and come home with all the impacts of seeing conflict. We particularly think about our older veterans who served in the Second World War, in Korea, in Viet Nam, and in Malaya, who saw—just as our recent veterans in Afghanistan and East Timor and the Solomons did—very real conflict and very real danger, and things that were traumatic and that obviously put their lives at risk.

We simply want to acknowledge their sacrifice and also the sacrifice of their families in sending a loved one overseas and giving up their time with them, but also sometimes having to be there, more often than not, for that family member when they come back home again. So we think it is absolutely appropriate that both veterans and their families should have the opportunity to be acknowledged.

We agree with the comment made by Melissa Lee, I think, that nobody goes overseas to serve our nation because they expect to get a pension out of it. That is not the reason they go. Of course it is not the reason that they go, but it is a way in which we can acknowledge the sacrifice that they have made. I think Melissa Lee talked about a spirit of adventure. Well, sometimes people did go with a spirit of adventure and then found that it was something a lot more than that when they actually got into the conflict zone.

I think what actually drove most of our veterans to participate and to serve our nation was a sense that what they were doing was absolutely right. It was what their nation had called on them to do. They were doing it because they believed that it was in our country’s interests, and they believed that it was in the interests of the people who lived in the nations that they went to and served in, and absolutely in the case of the Korean conflict. I have been to Korea myself on a parliamentary delegation and there is no doubt that the people of Korea absolutely appreciate the work and the sacrifice that was put in by New Zealand veterans over there. They did it because they believed in our security, in our region’s security, and in supporting, ultimately, peace in our region and around the world, by confronting aggressive actions from other nations.

That is why they do it; we appreciate that, but there is still nothing wrong with us as a nation saying we want to acknowledge that with some additional support that goes to those people who serve us and to their families as well. It really is now at the point of absolutely penny-pinching that the Government has refused to take this final step.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How much would it be?

How much would it be? It is $7.4 million annually. That is what they have agreed to, and the lump-sum payments would add—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: That’s what the lump-sum payment is.

That is what the lump-sum payment is; it is the value of the lump-sum payment. So it is really a tiny, tiny amount of money in the scheme of Government expenditure, and it kind of feels like the Government just does not want to do the whole thing that the Opposition has asked it to do. That is basically what it comes down to. It was not the Government’s idea. It was the Opposition’s idea; it was Phil Goff’s idea. The Government does not want to do it because it was Labour that proposed it. The Government has come some of the way, but not the whole way. That is a shame. It is simply a shame.

I know that when we go and visit RSAs around our electorates and around the country, and when we talk to other veterans’ groups, this is on their minds. It is what they talk about, and it is the first thing that they talk to us about. It would have been a simple thing for the Government to agree to, and it is just a shame that it has not been prepared to do that. But on this side of the Chamber we will continue to fight for those veterans and they can be assured that, should there be the inevitable change that is coming in September this year, there will be a better deal for veterans under a Labour-led Government.

I just want to take a quick call on Part 6 of the Veterans’ Support Bill, because this is the critical point of difference. There is an enormous tome of a new piece of legislation here, 99 percent of which we agree with. It is the 1 percent that we do not agree with. Before I touch on that, I want to just make reference to Te Ururoa Flavell’s contribution a bit earlier. He made the big play that in his caucus they argued for a long time about this. Well, for God’s sake, if you are going to do it, get the facts right. Get the facts in front of you so you are actually able to argue about what is real rather than what you are told. What he has done is to do himself a huge disservice, because not only has he argued about the wrong things but he is standing up there and stating facts that are simply not right and is basing his decision not to support this lump-sum payment on that.

This is about an expenditure of $7.4 million—$7.4 million so that on the death of our veterans their families can receive a lump-sum payment of just $5,700. If anybody has had to prepare for a funeral, you will know that that will cover the costs of only an ordinary funeral. This is not extravagant, but it is a gesture to the families who have put up with so much while their loved ones—normally, their fathers or their sons or whatever—have been offshore and serving. This is $5,700 per veteran, an annual cost of $7.4 million.

When you go back and you look at some of the expenditure that this Government has committed this country to, you see that it has given $30 million to Rio Tinto. It has given $30 million to Rio Tinto. It has given $150 million to a bunch of fat-cat lawyers to sell off our assets—$150 million. That could have taken us through for the next 15 or 20 years at that rate. You ask yourself whether our veterans are worth that. Of course they are—of course they are. This is wrong. It is penny-pinching. It is just simply not good enough when the Government has come to the table on the other issues that we disagreed on just a few weeks ago but it has left this out. We know that the RSAs support this. They support the lump-sum payment. They tell us that when we go around and speak to them. We know that this is what the Law Commission recommended. It is not what Labour recommended; it is what the Law Commission recommended. We believe that both the Law Commission and the Returned and Services’ Association are absolutely right—absolutely right. This is a very small amount of money that will go an enormously long way, particularly for those World War II veterans, who are diminishing week by week.

I just hope that the Government—I doubt that it will, but, nevertheless, I hope—sees fit to pass this, as it has the other aspects of this bill. As I say, 99 percent of this bill we agree on, but that 1 percent is important. That 1 percent is important and it will go a long way for the families of those veterans who serve us so well overseas. Thank you.

Last month, together with the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, I had the privilege of attending two ceremonies: the 63rd anniversary of the Battle of Crete and the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Monte Cassino. The true privilege of attending those two occasions was to talk to the several dozen veterans at each event; to talk to the men who had fought on Crete, who had fought at Cassino, and to be able to acknowledge to their faces our debt to that generation. Most of them are now at least 90—one or two of them had reached 100 years. As I sat at those commemoration ceremonies I considered the lucky generation that we in this House represent. We are the generation that did not have to follow in our fathers’ and our grandfathers’ footsteps and serve in great wars overseas.

The story of my family is very similar to many families in this House. I was very much influenced by my grandmother. She lost her elder brother in 1917 in the Great War. Even more tragically, she lost her youngest son, my dad’s younger brother, aged 19, in the Solomon Islands in 1944. I think of what that generation went through and I think of the debt that we owe to those people. So when we mark the centenary year of the start of the Great War in 1914, whatever we can do within reason for our veterans, we should do. It is decent. It is common sense. It honours and respects them. Honour and respect can be in the words we say, but, more important, it can be in the small gestures that we can make.

I have not invented the Supplementary Order Paper that stands in my name, but I am asking the Committee to support it. Supplementary Order Paper 441 does something very simple. In one clause, it restores the lump-sum payment on death to all of those who are eligible for the veterans pension. It is a gesture. It is what the Law Commission asked for. That is the logic of it. The Law Commission did the hard yards. It consulted with thousands of New Zealanders. It took 2 years over its work. I do not condemn it for taking 2 years; it did it thoroughly. Nobody says that this group of people did their job other than properly and thoroughly and came up with considered recommendations. So when we reject a recommendation of the Law Commission, surely there has to be a good reason for that.

I have been participating in this debate for 3 hours. I have asked time and again for the National Party to put one speaker up—one speaker; just one speaker—and give us a reason why we should be rejecting the recommendation of the Law Commission and why we should be throwing this in the face of the New Zealand RSA and the veterans when they asked us for it. Surely we owe them an explanation as to why we are denying them it.

I hear from the National members, when they think that it is appropriate to take a call, that it is the expense. Well, I want to talk about the element of expense as it relates to veterans’ affairs of New Zealand. I have in my hand the written answers to the estimates questions for the Budget Vote Veterans’ Affairs for 2014-15. What do I find? Between 2011 and 2012 there was a cut of $8 million in expenditure on veterans’ services and payments. Between 2012 and 2013 there was another cut of $9 million. In 2013 and 2014 it was a cut of $7 million. This year the Budget represents a further reduction of $11 million. In each of those years the cut to Veterans Affairs New Zealand would by itself have paid for what the Law Commission is asking for. It is not asking you to invent new money; it is asking you to slow down the cuts that you are making in payments to veterans and services to veterans so that it can give those veterans, whom we honour sincerely and gratefully, the payment that the Law Commission asked for and the RSA pleaded for.

The money was already there. Each and every year the National Government has been able to cut the payment to services for veterans by more than what we are asking for in my Supplementary Order Paper. Do not tell me that we cannot afford it. The evidence is there. You would just have to reduce the cuts that you have made each year for 5 years to Vote Veterans Affairs to pay for this. I know from talking to some of my colleagues on that side of the Committee that they would dearly like to support this Supplementary Order Paper. I am not going to name them; that is unfair. I know they would like to do that because it is the right thing to do, and they recognise it is the right thing to do. I have talked to the Minister outside of the Chamber and said “For God’s sake, let’s have a consensus here in this Committee so that we can do the right thing for our veterans.” I do not want the politics of this; I want to do the right thing for our veterans—what the Law Commission said we should do, what the RSA and General Don McIver have asked for us to do, what those veterans whom we meet every week or every month in our RSAs say is the decent thing to do.

I have been round more RSAs than I would care to number, and I deeply respect the service that those people have given us, the last of the World War II veterans, the Korean War veterans, whom Melissa Lee spoke quite movingly about, and our Viet Nam veterans, whom we failed to honour when they returned from Viet Nam. Is it too much to ask this Committee to do the right thing by our veterans? It is affordable. It is justifiable. It has been recommended to this House by the body that we set up to review the Act. For heaven’s sake, why will the National Government not do the right thing?

I tell the Māori Party, which has switched its vote to support a mean cut to the veterans, to think again, because every reason that Te Ururoa Flavell gave us was evidence that he had been duped in his discussions with the National Government. If the Māori Party goes down screaming at this election, this will be yet one more example of why, when the crunch point comes, it has not been able to stand up for the rights of its own people. Why has the Māori Party sold out? Well, Te Ururoa Flavell said that the Government said that it will not progress this bill unless the Māori Party does sell out. That is equivalent to blackmail. That is unacceptable. It is not acceptable to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

This Opposition—Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First—are facilitating the passage of this bill so it can pass before the rising of the 50th Parliament. We are doing the right thing by our veterans. We are simply asking, reciprocally, for the National Government to do the right thing by supporting this amendment. If each member on that side of the Chamber fails to support that amendment, they are effectively saying that they do not put value on our veterans, not because I am saying that that payment should be made but because the official inquiry that was set up to recommend to the Government made that recommendation and because the RSA has asked for it. In their hearts, so many of the National members of Parliament on the backbench know that it is the right thing to do.

I heard the former Speaker of this House in his valedictory go out saying that he had a deep regret that he had voted against the Crimes Amendment Bill in regard to homosexual law reform. I hope there is no member of this current Parliament that goes out of Parliament saying: “God, I wish I’d done the right thing by our veterans.” It is not a matter of expense; it is a matter of respect. I ask the National Government and each member of the National Government to show that respect to our veterans.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to the proposed amendment set out in in Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 161(1) be agreed to:

replace “section 148(1)” with “section 147A”.

Could I just remind members that votes are taken in silence, please. The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 441 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 148 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 452 in the name of Andrew Williams to clause 148 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 441 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 149 be agreed to.

I seek leave for Parts 7, 8, and 9, and the title and commencement to be taken as one question.

There are also schedules 1 to 4. Do you include those as well? [Interruption] Leave is sought for Parts 7, 8, and 9, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Parts 7 to 9, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 480 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Parts 7, 8, and 9, schedules 1, 2, and 4, and clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 7 to 9, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Land Transport Amendment Bill with amendment and the Veterans’ Support Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.