Veterans’ Support Bill

So I am now calling David Shearer, who has 4 minutes remaining if he wishes to speak.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—yes, I do indeed. I just want to pick up where I left off, which was where we basically agreed with this Veterans’ Support Bill, which is a rewriting of the War Pensions Act 1954, which is well and truly out of date. As I was saying last night before the House rose, this is something that has been long overdue—to upgrade this Act. Since 1954 it had not really been touched. The review was kicked off by Rick Barker and Phil Goff under the last Labour Government. They asked the Law Commission to look into this bill and to provide some recommendations, which the Law Commission did. It consulted very widely. It talked to veterans and it talked to the RSAs around the country. It spent 2 years doing that and did a very good job. It was completely non-partisan and completely neutral, and as a result of that it came up with a 280-page report with some extensive recommendations.

For the most part, those recommendations have been agreed to. We have been pretty happy with that. There were a number, as I was saying last night, that were not agreed to. We pushed pretty hard from this side of the House—and I want to acknowledge Phil Goff’s efforts here—first of all to correct an anomaly that somehow there was some means of being able to assess a disability at 52 percent. It was a long, complicated piece of mathematical torture, really, in order to be able to come up with that 52 percent. That has now gone. The Government was reluctant to do that, but it has agreed to it itself. In addition to that it has agreed that the community services card will be automatically given to our veterans because, once again, it was something that the Government was not willing to entertain. The Government agreed to it, with pressure from this side. It also ensured that if a veteran was hospitalised, even after 13 weeks, their pension was not terminated. Once again, the 52 percent disability assessment, the community services card, and ensuring that 13 weeks in hospital did not mean that they were going to lose any of their benefits were additions that on this side of the House we pushed for, and after some pretty vigorous disagreement the Government agreed to them.

What we are left with, though, which I think is miserable, is that the lump-sum payment on the death of a veteran cannot be paid to that veteran’s family. That is a sum of $5,800. It is not a lot of money. Over the period of time that we were looking at, with the decline in the number of veterans because of the way that, unfortunately, people are getting older and passing away, that will amount to less than $8 million a year. I can think of a lot of money that is being spent by this Government on things that are of much less value than giving the benefit to those veterans’ families—giving them something when that veteran dies. Because, let us face it, it is not just about the veterans who went away; it is also about their families left behind, who suffered when they went. This would acknowledge that contribution that they made to New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to support the Veterans’ Support Bill. It is a piece of legislation steeped in symbolic meaning and practical importance for the 40,000 veterans with qualifying service and their families, people who have been waiting 7 years since this law was first referred to the Law Commission for resolution. I am exceedingly thankful that it is passing in this term of Parliament. The world and our understandings of harm and the possibilities of rehabilitation have changed dramatically, as has the nature of warfare, since the original War Pensions Act 1954 was passed. An update is clearly overdue, and it is time to allow families certainty to be able to move forward.

This bill will make changes to the administration and decision-making processes, hopefully making them easier for veterans. It will provide a greater focus on rehabilitation and enable the provision of services to better meet the needs of elderly veterans as well as those of contemporary and future deployments. Changes have been made to this legislation through the Social Services Committee, thanks to the work of the Greens and Labour, and they were received by the Government. Post the select committee I would offer my thanks to the Māori Party, which has negotiated, I think, quite fiercely to get further small changes to this bill that are important changes. Sadly, the changes have not quite gone all the way. I must say I still fail to understand the apparent meanness of the Government in holding out on such a small financial contribution to ensure all veterans and their families are entitled to all entitlements. I really did feel that the mood in the select committee was one of commonality of concern, and yet, sadly, still we have not been able to deliver on all of the 170 recommendations from the Law Commission or everything the submitters requested of us.

It is important for me again on this, the day after the centenary of the start of the First World War, to take a moment to reflect on what those men, young and old, experienced at that time and remind us of our duty to do our absolute best to avoid sending any more men, women, or people to war. For me, no one has said it better than Wilfred Owen, describing the horrors in a way that I think helps some of us who are lucky enough to have known only peace to come close to, or to at least in some way imagine, the lifetime costs borne by those fighting the wars created by people in places like this. With the risk of a terrible schoolgirl recitation, I do want to read the poem from Wilfred Owen because for me there has been no message or poem that has helped me understand it better than this one. So I beg patience of people.

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling,

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And floundering like a man in fire or lime.—

Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Translate it.

For those of you who do not know this poem or your Latin, this last phrase translates as “It is sweet and right to die for your country”.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Who wrote it the first time?

It was written by Wilfred Owen; that is the version I know. We need to again acknowledge those conscientious objectors in the First World War who were kidnapped by the State and sent away for that “old Lie”. Tragically, we still all too often hear this, or versions of this, used to sell populations on the need for war. We see it in Gaza and we see it in the Ukraine. We do not see it so much in Syria, but it is continuing. Many of us watch these images and read these stories with a degree of horror—those of us who do not have family there—and with incomprehension and pain for the ordinary people there.

I think, obviously, that is right, but we also need to remember that many of the soldiers too are not there by choice. They are there because of the will and the power of the leaders, who do not have their bodies on the line. It is a tragedy, a failure of humanity, and a corruption of politics for anyone to have to die or, indeed, kill for their country. This failure must be avoided at all costs. We must stand up for human rights, work for peace, and honour those in our armed forces for their will to work for a safe world without war. Soldiers are real people—members of our communities and our families, as well as being in our armed forces.

Through the select committee process we heard from submitters who have been in these conflict zones and who told us of their lives being irrevocably changed by the war. At times, we heard from children. Those war zones had been brought home and into their family lounges and the harm had been passed on to the next generation because rehabilitation and support services were not provided by the State to ensure healing. We also heard of years of battles to get help and of struggles for recognition—battles and struggles with the same State that sent these people into places that caused them so much harm.

You do not have to believe in war to want the best support for people who have been through such horror, which is why the Green Party has been disappointed that this Government has held off on the two relatively small remaining points of payment on death and portability. We would like to have seen everything that the veterans asked for delivered on. We mourn the need for this bill, but wholeheartedly support it as the least our country can do to acknowledge the cost of being asked to kill another and to put your life and body on the line.

The reality is that in the world we live in, the nature of human nature is that there will always be conflict of some degree or another. In that sense, although I hear what the Green Party has just said, the reality is that the men and women of this country and most other countries in this world will have a body of people in military service who will stand up for exactly the rights that the previous member, Jan Logie, was talking about. Sometimes, unfortunately, that will involve bloodshed, conflict, and heartache and will absolutely destroy the lives of not only those involved in the conflict but those who are left behind. That is the nature of the world in which we live. It is, sadly, a reflection of human nature. We do not have to look very far in the world at the moment to see that exact conflict going on.

I just want to acknowledge the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force and acknowledge the contribution they have made in the modern warfare environment, which more often than not involves peacekeeping; acknowledge the contribution and the sacrifices that have been made in Afghanistan over a significant period of time; and also reflect back on the legacy they picked up from those who have served in conflicts like Viet Nam and Korea, and going back to the Great War. This country can stand very proud of its sacrifice and its tradition to uphold and fight for the democracy and the freedoms that most of the world enjoys today. Although in the Green bubble maybe it would be nice to imagine away the need to have that, the reality is it will always be needed, and in needing that we will always need people who are prepared to put the service of their country ahead of the servicing of their own needs and their own interests. So I just pay my respects and homage to those people both past and present, because ultimately the reality is we need those people and always will.

The Veterans’ Support Bill—I have enjoyed the conversation that has been had across the Social Services Committee and in the House. There has been some robust debate on some particular points, specifically around the lump-sum benefits. Obviously, although I think that everyone can accept that there is no price that can be put on the service of an individual for their country in this regard—there is no comparison with any other level of service—the reality is that what the Veterans’ Support Bill does in its totality is reflect the need to acknowledge the contribution made by some of our older veterans and to also acknowledge that there are some 20,000 or so modern-day veterans of war.

The Veterans’ Support Bill, having been a long time in its gestation, essentially from back in 2007—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Could I ask those members—I know you are probably talking tactics—to just move to one side, please.

I have absolutely, completely lost my train of thought, although, having said that, I did not do so when they were standing there having their tactical meeting.

Let us not forget about the 20,000 modern-day servicemen. What this bill does is to reflect—[Interruption] What was that, sorry?

💬 Moana Mackey: Where’s the lamé?

Yes, I have just changed tie, indeed. What this bill does is reflect their modern service and the modern defence service alongside acknowledging the contributions of those past servicemen. I will not dwell too much on what the nuts and bolts are of this bill. I think they have been very well traversed, and I acknowledge the points that have been made, in particular by the Hon Phil Goff. He has certainly debated vigorously, and I commend him and I acknowledge exactly where he is going.

Can I just thank the officials—in particular, Major Rebecca Thornley, who got promoted during the course of the passage of this bill. I would like to think that that was because of her great service to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and I am still waiting on her acknowledgment by way of some huge military shout, which I am sure will be coming. Can I just acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse and also other former Ministers of Veterans’ Affairs, such as the Hon Nathan Guy—who is just traversing his way past me as we speak; how convenient—and also Judith Collins. I also want to acknowledge Ross Miller, who is one of my executive but certainly has been involved in this work as a former major, a former officer in the army. He has made a great contribution. I commend this bill in its third reading.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, as the veterans’ affairs spokesperson for New Zealand First, on this very important bill, the Veterans’ Support Bill. It is very symbolic that tonight this bill is going through its final, third reading, in the week leading up to the centenary, the 100-year commemoration, of the commencement of World War I. Of course, all the veterans from that great battle are now long gone. However, we still have a number from World War II and, of course, a great many more from subsequent campaigns in Malaya, in Korea, and in Viet Nam, and in other subsequent engagements.

Firstly, can I commend the Law Commission for the excellent work that it did 4 years or more ago to bring this bill to the House, originally with its report. Its recommendations—some 174 recommendations, I think there were—[Interruption] What was that?

💬 Louisa Wall: 170.

170, I am told—170. Those really did bring home to this House and to those involved in veterans’ affairs and the RSA and all veterans around New Zealand what is indeed involved in terms of looking after the interests and the welfare of our veterans. It is most commendable that the Law Commission did such a thorough job to come up with its findings and to make its extensive recommendations. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the length of time that it has to get to this final, third reading. As we have said before, many of the older veterans are not getting any younger. Every year that goes by we lose more and more of them, and that is a very sad situation that we face. Therefore, time is of the essence to do all we can for those veterans as best we can and to give them just recognition for their services to this country.

I have spoken in this House before but I will speak again of how I still have reservations about the full intent of this bill in terms of ensuring that veterans receive the benefit of the doubt in relation to their medical records and their medical conditions. There have been so many cases—several thousands of cases—of claims being turned down by Veterans Affairs New Zealand because of inadequate medical records or medical records that are missing and other such errors. Back in 2008 the then Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae spoke at Tribute 08 for the Viet Nam veterans here in Wellington. He apologised on behalf of the Defence Force to the veterans that so many medical records had been lost, had been mislaid, and had not been handled correctly by the Defence Force. He apologised, and in his speech at the time said that no veteran would miss out, be penalised, or lose in any way as a result of the mishandling by the Defence Force of the medical records.

However, this bill does now include some clauses that talk about presumption of injuries and illness and death in terms of qualifying operational service, and it does refer to other aspects of that. There is still a lot of legal jargon here that still allows too many loopholes for those whom I would describe as bureaucrats to come up with excuses not to properly pay out to veterans who are in need. In that respect, I put forward Supplementary Order Paper 452, which was supported by Labour, the Greens, and several other parties, but which National did not support. My Supplementary Order Paper said: “In the case of doubt arising from missing or insufficient New Zealand Defence Force medical records as to whether a veteran suffered injury, illness, or death on operational service, the injury, illness, or death is presumed to have occurred while the veteran was performing qualifying operational service.” Had that gone through, it would have taken out a lot of the legal complexities of some aspects of this bill and ensured that veterans truly did get the benefit of the doubt.

We heard instances at the Social Services Committee, for instance, of a retired colonel who was declined a disability pension because he had no medical records of the accident happening on operational service, and, yet, so many of his comrades had seen him jump from the back of an army truck with full kit on, carrying a weapon and pack. He landed on his feet, but he landed badly on his ankles and did considerable damage to his ankles. In those days they did not just hobble off and go to the first hospital and be hospitalised. They were tough, tough men, these people. These were the guys in Viet Nam. They were tough. This gentleman carried on with very damaged ankles. In later years he now has arthritis and serious pain in his ankles. He has considerable problems with his ankles, and yet he has been declined a disability pension for that particular incident because there is no proof that he did it in Viet Nam. All his friends, all his mates, say that they saw it happen. They saw him receive the injuries. It was there, but it does not appear on any of his medical records, even though he was treated in Viet Nam.

John “Doc” Mountain, who was a medevac medic in Viet Nam, testified to the committee and also came and submitted. He said he witnessed so much of this going on. He saw many of these men being injured. He also witnessed the fact that subsequently, when they came to Wellington, many of their medical records, a lot of the original records, were not transferred correctly. They were on hard copy, they were on pieces of cardboard, and they were transferred into a more modern system of paper files and more modern transactions. They were not transposed. Information was left off. As a result, many of these gentlemen—and women as well—now struggle to prove some of their medical conditions because of the way those records were handled.

Can I just assure you that if New Zealand First is in a position after 20 September to address this situation again, we will rectify that. What we want to have in this bill is that veterans will get the benefit of the doubt, and we will ensure that they will be given that distinction. We will ensure that that is the case. We are talking about a small amount of money in relation to the Government’s Budget. It is a tiny amount of money in terms of the Government’s annual funding, but this is a huge amount for individuals—for individuals who are now elderly and need this assistance. Therefore, we are doing a great disservice to them by not allowing such payments and such support in their elder years of life.

We also agree with the other parties as well. We have said that we do not agree with the declining of the lump-sum payment. We think that should have been put in place. Again, families are often the ones who suffer. They are often the ones who have taken care of a veteran in their declining years. They deserve the support as well because many of them have suffered as a result of the military service and the military life of that veteran, including their coming back home and having subsequent illnesses. The family suffer and they should, therefore, also be recognised in that manner.

We are coming into a very important period in the next couple of years when we will be commemorating many of the battles that are on the wall plaques here—Passchendaele, Gallipoli, and many of the famous battles. But at the same time we have living heroes today in New Zealand—living heroes from Viet Nam, living heroes still surviving from World War II, living heroes who have gone and put their lives at risk in service of this country. I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to them for their services. This Parliament should most definitely give them every assistance they should receive.

New Zealand First continues to always uphold that principle. We were the party that put in place the funding for the RSA social support services—$1 million of funding over a 4-year period, or $250,000 a year. This Government cut that back to $150,000 a year. Again, after 20 September we will return that to full funding for the RSA. Again, the veterans deserve it; they need it. That social support from the RSA is most important to assist the veterans to get to hospital, to get to medical appointments, and to have the social support for them. So this has not finished.

This bill is a great step. We do commend this bill to the House. We know it goes a long way, but we can still improve on it yet.

It is a very great pleasure to speak this evening in support of the Veterans’ Support Bill. It seems in some ways appropriate that we are debating the third reading of this legislation during this period, as we move into the commemoration of the centenary of the beginning of the First World War, which we will acknowledge on Monday next week, 4 August. It is 100 years after New Zealand entered that conflict.

It is also very good news, I think, that we are able to debate the third reading of the legislation now, in the final throes of this 50th Parliament. It is a shame that we are doing it in the last gasps of this Parliament, but it is pleasing that it will finally, after all these years, be completed and in a few days’ time will go to the Governor-General for Royal assent and become law.

Veterans all around the country have been waiting for a very, very long time for this day and, indeed, the day when this legislation is fully implemented. It is a conversation that started many, many years ago and led to the decision in 2006 by the then Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Rick Barker, to empower the Law Commission to embark on a period of consultation to discuss the issues that veterans faced—to discuss the ways in which the 1954 legislation had become outmoded, outdated, and no longer fit for purpose.

That was a conversation that was always going to take some time. We all knew that and we all appreciated that. The Law Commission, under the leadership of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, carried out that consultation well in a very robust fashion, in a very thorough fashion, so that all the veterans, all the veterans’ organisations—not least of which being the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association—were able to participate in that conversation. They helped the Law Commission to put together an extensive and thorough report that contained within it superb recommendations that were the genesis for this legislation, to ensure that in the 21st century we are appropriately providing for all our veterans, be it our veterans who served in World War II, in Korea, in Viet Nam, in Malaya, in Afghanistan, in Timor, in the Solomons, or in other places around the world.

Their needs are not all uniform, and there is a very distinct point in time at which the needs of veterans changed—that is, 1974, with the introduction of ACC. What this legislation contains at its heart is two separate schemes: one that applies to veterans who served before ACC came into force and another for veterans who served after ACC came into force. That is appropriate, to ensure that veterans from those conflicts prior to 1974 have adequate provision and are appropriately acknowledged by the State for the contribution they have made on our behalf and the sacrifice they have made on our behalf.

I was pleased with the Green Party’s contribution tonight because, like the Green Party, we abhor war, we abhor conflict, and we believe that as a nation we should be seeking every possible opportunity to avoid violent conflict with other nations and with other groups around the world. Increasingly, in this century, we do not find ourselves in conflict with other nation States but with non-State organisations. But we should always seek opportunities to avoid that.

Nevertheless, sometimes we as politicians, we as Governments, ask our people to go and put themselves in harm’s way. To me, a veteran is a veteran is a veteran. It does not matter what history might say about the conflicts that have taken place around the world. It does not matter what history might say about New Zealand’s participation in those conflicts or the decision that Governments made, rightly or wrongly, for us to be part of them. Those veterans served because their Government asked them to and because they believed it was the right thing to do to secure our nation and to maintain peace and prosperity around the world.

We should acknowledge the incredible sacrifice that was made by veterans who may have been injured or disabled, or, simply, actually all veterans who are necessarily impacted on by what they see and what they experience when they go to represent us overseas. So it was absolutely the right thing to do to get on and progress this legislation.

We do have some points of difference with the Government. Our first grumble, I suppose, is that it has taken a very, very long time to get to this point. The Law Commission did return its report early in the first term of this Government, and here we are, at the very, very last gasps of the second term of this Government, finally passing this legislation. I think it is a shame that it has taken so long, but let us not dwell on that too much. Let us celebrate the fact that we have made it this far and that we are very close to implementing this legislation at last.

There is an obvious point of difference, which has been a point of debate throughout the Committee stage and throughout the third reading of this legislation, and that is around the lump-sum payments and the accessibility of the veterans pension. We are very pleased that the Government has moved from its original position on the criteria for the veterans pension. It made really no sense at all that there was a requirement that a veteran demonstrate that they were 52 percent disabled in order to qualify for the veterans pension. That it is now universal will be very pleasing. But that is more symbolic than anything else.

Where the Government has not been prepared to move, sadly, has been on the issue of lump-sum payments. This is not an extraordinary amount of money. In terms of the decisions that Governments make, something between $7 million and $11 million per annum is not an extraordinary amount of money, and it is an amount of money that will decrease over time. That is unusual for Governments. Usually when you put some new spending into the baseline, you have to anticipate that there will be an increase in the actual spend over time. That is not the case here. Yet, sadly, the Government has decided not to recognise the contribution and sacrifice of veterans and their families by agreeing to the lump-sum payment upon the death of a veteran.

I appreciate what the Government is saying—that that money will not go to the veteran—but the truth is, of course, that the families of veterans made an extraordinary sacrifice as well, and in the case where a veteran is significantly injured and disabled as a result of their service, then often the family has an ongoing responsibility to support that person through their life. I think it is absolutely justified that we as a nation recognise that sacrifice and that support, as well.

In the legislation there is also provision for a code of veterans’ and claimants’ rights in their dealings with Veterans Affairs New Zealand. That certainly is something that came out of the consultation with veterans and their representative organisations. There need to be some fundamental rights that veterans have when dealing with veterans affairs, to ensure that they get a fair deal and to ensure that they get fair service every time.

Overwhelmingly, Veterans Affairs delivers a very, very good service for our veterans and, as a nation, I think we compare extremely well with some of the other Western nations around the world that send their people into harm’s way and then do not deliver when their veterans come home. This code of rights underpins that and ensures that all veterans get a fair deal. We do support this bill.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Veterans’ Support Bill. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that on 4 August we will mark the centenary of New Zealand’s entering into the First World War. We had 103,000 New Zealanders serve overseas, 59,500 casualties, and 18,200 New Zealanders who gave their lives for our country.

The history of this bill is really interesting, and I will go through it because I think it is important. We are here because in 2003 the Health Committee had an inquiry into agent orange, and it was very much inspired by our Viet Nam vets and the state of well-being of our Viet Nam vets. One of the recommendations from that select committee inquiry was for a review of the veterans pension.

What happened was that a memorandum of understanding was entered into by the Government, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association, and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. In 2007 the Law Commission was empowered to conduct that review. It had 170 recommendations, of which 132 were accepted. One was not, and I actually want to focus my whole speech on the one that was not. That was recommendation 95 and I would like to read it. It was that “All veterans with qualifying operational service should be eligible for the Veteran’s Pension, regardless of whether they have received impairment compensation.”

Currently, to receive the veterans pension you have to be 70 percent disabled. That translates through to the new legislation as 52 percent disabled. So if you are 52 percent disabled—or 70 percent disabled, as in the current legislation—you receive as a veterans pensioner, first, a community services card; second, payments continue if you have a stay of 13 weeks - plus in hospital; and, third, a funeral grant. Can I say that that call for all veterans to be eligible for a veterans pension actually came from the 1960s. The RSA has been calling for all veterans to receive a veterans pension since the 1960s.

It was interesting to read the Law Commission report because it actually said that the veterans pension was premised on four principles. One was about service to our country, the second was about actual economic loss, the third was about economic need, and the fourth was about disability. So of course disability was part of the equation, and I see the latest iteration of disability is that it is also an active responsibility of the Government to provide rehabilitation under this piece of legislation, which I think is an extension.

But if we go back right to the beginning of New Zealand’s history of providing pensions to our war veterans, it actually started in 1866. That legislation was called the Military Pensions Act. The Military Pensions Act was really interesting because what it did was have a panel of doctors who made an assessment about whether you were deserving or not. The really interesting commentary on that piece of legislation was that it actually had lower rates for Māori veterans than for Pākehā veterans, so it says something about the history of the time and how we regarded the different types of veterans. The ethos, as it was in 1590—I mentioned this in my second reading speech—was very much a charitable response by the Government. I picked up on that Queen Elizabeth I quote about “the fruit of their good deserving”, so we wanted to make sure that the deserving were catered for.

There was another iteration of the Military Pensions Act and that happened in the War Pensions Act 1915. In that iteration we actually created boards that decided whether people were eligible and what type of support they were eligible for. It was at that time that we corrected the differences between Māori and Pākehā pensioners and said no, they all deserved to receive the same level of support. Then in 1943 there was another update of the War Pensions Act, and we improved the rates and we improved the process. So there was an ongoing conversation between the RSA and the Government about the needs of our war pensioners.

From 1951 we integrated our response as a Government into the social security system, but it was interesting at that time because the veterans association, the media, and a commission of inquiry actually created the War Pensions Act 1954. The interesting thing about the history of the evolution of our recognition of the support that our war pensioners deserved is that it also gave rise to regulation 45 of the War Pensions Regulations 1956. In fact, that is where funeral expenses came from. That is where, as a qualifying veterans pensioner, you were eligible to get the funeral grant.

The commentary from the Law Commission is relevant because it said that our veterans deserve to be treated with a generosity of spirit in return for their sacrifice to New Zealand. The three things that they have got—the community services card, a continuation of the payment of their veterans pension if they go into hospital, and a funeral grant—were actually in recognition of the effects on the quality of life for veterans. It was not about the level of disability; it was actually about recognition of the sacrifice—being away from your family, being away from home, not getting further educated, the ongoing loss. It was a small token of appreciation, above anything else.

So what I find offensive, I guess, as a member of the Social Services Committee, is that during this process we have changed the criteria. We have said that now all veterans will get the veterans pension, so I think that this House has demonstrated that democracy does work. But with one hand we have given and with the other hand we have taken away, because now you receive that funeral grant only if you are 52 percent disabled. The rationale for that is money, pure and simple. It is all about the money, and I find that—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s all right. We won’t raise the pension age to 67.

Do you know what? You can get a veterans pension before 65, so age is irrelevant. What the issue is with what we are going to pass tonight as a Parliament is that we are going to say you all deserve a veterans pension but that there are aspects of qualifying for a veterans pension that mean that we will give you a funeral grant when you die but you have to be 52 percent disabled.

Like my colleagues, I support this bill 100 percent, and I want to thank the New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association for its hard work and dedication in getting us to this point in time. I would like to acknowledge Veterans Affairs New Zealand and all our officials, who have brought us to this point in time. I want to say that as a member of the select committee who sat through the submissions and who was formally part of this process, it has been a privilege to hear from the veterans themselves how important this piece of legislation is.

I know that on Monday all of us, wherever we are, will be acknowledging that it is 100 years since World War I started. It is slightly ironic that all of this is happening at this time. I do think that it is very mean-spirited of us to impose a new qualification so that some of those who receive the veterans pension will not be eligible for the funeral grant that has been in place and has been a part of that particular pension since 1956, as I highlighted.

I commend this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs. I know that he is a bit upset with me, but the reality is that for our side of the House—all of us from the Greens, Labour, and New Zealand First who sat on this select committee—this was one of the big issues that we tried so hard to get consensus on. To have failed to do that is, I think, commentary about the time and it is commentary about the prioritisation of this Government. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.