Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Veterans: I move, That the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, can I thank all the parties in the House for their unanimous support for this bill and for the constructive kōrero conversations that have been had with members opposite on the issue, in particular the Hon Maggie Barry, the Hon Judith Collins, the Hon David Bennett, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, the Hon Nathan Guy, and the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Following the discovery of an unintended drafting error in section nine of the Veterans Support Act 2014, the priority was to get this resolved as quickly as possible with cross-party support to ensure minimal disruption for veterans or for Veterans’ Affairs and their work programme. The speed with which we are fixing the issue is an example of good governance operating in a bipartisan and cross-party manner. Can I thank the Social Services and Community Committee for reporting back on this bill in quick time and to the four submitters on the bill.

It’s noted that the committee considered that the bill as introduced needed no amendment. On this basis, the Business Committee has determined that, following the second reading, the bill will be set down for third reading immediately and without debate. Again, the Minister would like to thank the Business Committee for this decision, as the longer the Act had been left unamended the longer many of those whom it was intended to benefit wouldn’t have been able to access its support.

As was covered in the first reading speech, we know from the documents at the time of developing the primary legislation that the intention of the 2014 Act was that declarations of qualifying operational service could be made at any time before, during, or after deployments, and that’s how it has been interpreted since it was passed. So we had to get this fixed to clarify the status of the 14 retrospective declarations that have been made since 2015, covering multiple missions and geographical areas, and affecting approximately 675 veterans and their spouses and family members, including families of service personnel who were killed in action. When the bill is passed, the Minister will be particularly pleased that the work of Veterans’ Affairs will be looked at again, at previous deployments, and can restart, with 39 deployments currently being reassessed, in three geographical areas, potentially extending entitlements to around 1,600 veterans. The Minister looks forward to further recommendations coming forward for consideration.

Can I emphasise that one of the Minister’s primary areas of focus has been on improving the wellbeing of veterans and their families. This bill aligns with that intent by ensuring that all those who have served New Zealand in situations where they were put at risk of serious harm are treated equitably. I commend the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In support of this bill I rise, after the eloquent member who’s just resumed his seat, Hon Willie Jackson, has run through the reasons why this bill is important. Not all bills enjoy cross-party support, but at a time when the defence Minister, whose responsibilities for veterans are included, invited us from National to talk with him about the need for addressing this more quickly than other mechanisms could have done, like a statutes amendment bill or something of that kind—if we had gone down that track, which was one of the initial options, that would have taken quite a lot longer, and by the time you get 10 to 20 pieces of minor and technical amendments together, it would have meant that the veterans wouldn’t have got what they needed in a timely fashion.

Because of the level of interventions that Ministers have had to make since the passing of this bill in 2014, it’s very important, I think, that we retain the spirit of what was originally in that bill, and that we also do not delay in giving the veterans their entitlements and the things that they deserve. Of course, at the time that we took submissions, there was a level of excitement among veterans that this might be their only opportunity to let the Minister and the wider public know of their wider concerns, but this is a very narrowly focused bill that only seeks, really, to correct an anomaly that went into that first legislation. Various individual groups such as the Veterans’ Association strongly support the intent of the amendment. That was very much the theme of all of the submissions. There weren’t that many, actually—under 10—but some of the veterans thought they might be able to open it up more widely and consider whether the time of engagement could be brought back to prior to 1974. That may well be able to be discussed in the wider review that the Minister’s conducting.

Ron Paterson has put together a comprehensive look at the range of issues that veterans need to establish, and so those issues, which include how you define a veteran and the level of engagement and service and what taking the oath really means—what are the level of entitlements, and so forth—those will be debated in a wider arena than this, and the Minister has undertaken that he will allow veterans the time for proper consultation. Our understanding was that, until this was passed, it would hold up the body of work that more veterans require. So, from our perspective, there didn’t seem to be any need to waste any time on this particular thing. The original bill, which was about 170 pages or so, had a lot of very good elements within it, but because of that anomaly and the 14 historical declarations Ministers have had to make since 2015, when it came into force, that interpretation of section 9 has been troublesome. So, without further ado and taking up further time in the House, I will commend this bill to the House, and we fully support it. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, this feels a bit like a Thursday afternoon debate but, tragically, it’s not Thursday afternoon; it’s only Wednesday—oh, no, I don’t mean “tragically”, because I always miss the House so much when I leave on a Thursday afternoon, but the reason that I said that it feels like a Thursday afternoon debate is that we’ve got consensus amongst the parties in the supporting of this bill.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Ron Mark, as the Minister responsible for this legislation, in garnering that support. It’s not always easy, but I guess it was less difficult, less challenging in this instance because this is not a bill that is full of complexities or policy challenges; it’s a bill that just rectifies a drafting area—error. I’ve caught the Willie Jackson disease, saying “area” instead of “error”. It corrects a drafting error in section 9 of the Veterans’ Support Act, passed in 2014. This was, obviously, an Act that was passed under the previous Government, but my recollection from the debate then was that it had support from all the parties in Parliament as well.

It’s really important that we do progress this legislation at a good pace, and I’m pleased that that’s what the House has been doing, and the reason for that is that, at the moment, even though veterans have been advised that the bill is going to be progressed, they’ve heard the debate at the select committee, and, as the Hon Maggie Barry mentioned, there weren’t very many submitters but there was a lot of interest from around—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Nine.

Nine or 10. The Hon Maggie Barry recalls the exact number, but there was a lot of interest from veterans around the country, who are not confident about the outcome of this. Nobody can ever guarantee what the outcome in Parliament is going to be, so a lot of veterans are saying, “Once the law is passed, we will be assured of what our entitlements are.” And, of course, this is important not just for veterans but also for their families. They need to have certainty about their entitlements. The agency that administers the veterans’ entitlements also should be confident about what they’re doing in future. There are processes, there are mechanisms, and there are basic administration issues that will need to be put in place to ensure that, when these changes are made, when this drafting error is corrected, the agency will be able to carry on with the administration.

What happened in 2014 is that the Veterans’ Support Act changed the criteria for determining whether a veteran who was, obviously, serving on behalf of New Zealand can receive support or services if they’re injured or become ill because of the nature of what they have been exposed to during their time serving New Zealand. It’s obvious it was something like that, and with the passion that most members—probably all members—of Parliament feel in terms of respect for our veterans, it’s obvious that that support was going to be ensured. But this section of the legislation had a drafting error in it, so it didn’t deliver what Parliament expected. For the Government of the day—and if members refer to the Hansard of the debate at the time; late 2013 or early 2014, from my recollection—the intention of the Government was to allow the declaration of qualifying operational time, the time of the service, to be made at any time before, during, or after the deployment. So that declaration could be at any one of those three times. That’s how it’s been interpreted since the legislation was passed.

So, as a result, since that time—since 2015—when the Act came into force, a number of deployments which didn’t meet the previous criteria have been reassessed. That had to be done to make sure that all those who have served, particularly on high-risk deployments, are treated equally and consistently. So there’s been an interpretation of the legislation, there’s been an understanding of members of Parliament who were involved in the debate and the discussion at the time, and then there’s been the actual legislation, which haven’t all matched up and, obviously, in order for our agencies to be seen not to be complying with the intent of the legislation but actually to be complying with the letter of the legislation, this correction needs to be made.

So, throughout that process—throughout the interpretation of the legislation—the understanding of Parliament, and the sharp eagle eyes of somebody who’s been looking at the actual wording—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member. That was so interesting, but the House is suspended for the dinner break. We will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I wouldn’t always take the remaining time, but I have to say that I was so encouraged and enthused by your lovely words prior to the dinner adjournment, and I want to thank you for that commendation.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is like a Thursday afternoon.

It is like a Thursday afternoon! As I was saying before dinner, the reason that I had said that it was like a Thursday afternoon is because we have cross-party agreement on this bill. The Minister Ron Mark deserves support and praise for his ability to discuss the issue that we are now progressing in legislation with all the other parties in this House, and get what I understand will be unanimous agreement. Perhaps it’s not the biggest challenge that he’s had, because this is just fixing a simple drafting error. But regardless, I think that the respect that a Minister gains when they’re able to work collaboratively, and also commendation to—I know the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Maggie Barry were two of the former Ministers who were involved, and I think we should also commend them for their willingness to put party politics aside and say, “For the good of veterans, we should just get on and do this”.

I know that the Hon Ron Mark has a particular passion for veterans, and that, I have always assumed, is because of his time in the military. I want to say that I share that passion. It’s not because I have spent any time in the military myself, but because I was brought up as an army brat. I was born not far from this fair building in a place called Naenae. I don’t know if that’s in Ginny Andersen’s patch, or Chris Hipkins’ patch, but I was born in Naenae. But I had the foresight, at the age of just 2½ months of age, to leave Naenae. But unfortunately, where I next resided was Waiōuru. It was cold, it was damp—it’s a delightful place. Then we moved from there to Linton, just out of Palmerston North.

Every single one of my family is born in a different army camp. My mother was born in Auckland, my father was born in Dunedin, and my siblings and I were born in army camps in between. So I was brought up to “Reveille” and “The Last Post” and Anzac Day parades, and used to being surrounded by people wearing uniforms because that was our life. So I have a personal passion and understanding for the work of veterans. Melissa Lee, my colleague across the House, has shared Korean Day with me as I honoured those who fought alongside my father in Korea. Melissa was quite surprised to hear, potentially, something good about a Labour MP that she agreed with! But she and I have often exchanged those discussions at Korean Day events and subsequently. My father also served in Japan and in Egypt, as well as Korea, but, fortunately, was one of the people who came home without any physical injuries, unlike some of the some of the people who are impacted by this bill.

I want to acknowledge that even though this is a bill being progressed by, obviously, the Government of the day, it originally had its intention from a previous Government. The error that’s in it is one that’s easy to understand and explain. But it does put at risk decisions that have been made in terms of recognising deployments and the entitlements that those that were deployed are now receiving. I think about 15 deployments have been recognised in this way. This correction means that that recognition of those 15 deployments will be valid. At the moment, they’re up in the air, and that’s certainly not what we want to do.

I am delighted that the House has also agreed to the quite rapid progress of this legislation after the second reading. The longer it’s left unattended and uncorrected, the less certainty there is by veterans and their families, as well as the agency who administer it. They deserve to be treated better. The people that serve us so proudly overseas do so often at great personal risk. Some, of course, we know, have lost their lives, but, fortunately, not so many recently. But that danger that they put themselves in is for our betterment. They are our veterans. They have served us well, and by correcting this drafting error, I think that we will do them proud, as they have done us proud in their deployments.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I rise to take a call on this Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill, firstly, because I was part of the Social Services and Community Committee in which the bill came and progressed through. But secondly, like many of us, I imagine, that will also have previously shared this, I will share in this House our commitment to ensuring that our veterans who have sacrificed and served our country will, obviously, always get the support of those across the House, and across Parliament as well.

Can I acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark for this bill. Though the changes that are being made here are small and technical, and, sort of, drafting errors, there is just one area that I think that I’d like to raise with the Minister, which I’m sure he would agree with. What has been raised in some of the submissions during the select committee process was just in regards to the declaration of deployment, which I’m sure the Minister has heard on many occasions from many of the RSAs. I want to acknowledge those of my local RSA, the Te Atatū RSA—Richard Paterson, Bob Pettis, Stephen Erceg—who made representations to me in this regard, to highlight this as an area of concern. Now, their areas obviously, in lobbying, have been around medallic recognition. That’s outside of the scope, but what is inside the scope is the whole aspect of the declaration of deployment, which actually relates to that area of concern that has been raised.

So I know that, and I note that in the Veterans’ Support Act, what it does allow, and has always allowed, is for the discretion of the Minister. So in this case, I would petition and lobby the Minister on behalf of those who have lobbied me, that as the Act allows for, that he too—and I know that there’s currently a review under place. I do hope that the recommendations that will come out of that review will give a positive pathway forward, so that it will allow for those who’ve served in many situations, and, as this bill will attest to, it’s actually making an acknowledgment, and a recognition of their current deployments that have not been recognised. I would simply say to the Minister, there are many more, and I’m sure that he knows of this, and I hope that after the review there will be the opportunity for those that would lobby, and continue to talk about deployments, as far as South-east Asia, for instance, during the conflict there, those who were serving in naval service there. Those in the ANZUK as well, another group who’ve talked about their service, which is the Australian, New Zealand, and the UK servicemen which are all part of veterans, and who are deserving of their support, as those, in those 15 years of deployment, will be recognised through this bill as well.

So I, along with this House; we commend this bill. We think it’s timely. Again, we’ve all agreed that, actually, we need to progress this as quickly as possible. There was no opposition to that. That’s the only thing I would say, again, just to the Minister, to put my 10 cents’ worth, alongside those that have served faithfully in our country for many years as well. My final remark is that on many occasions, when I’ve been there, especially during the Anzac services, there’s a nostalgic return of another generation because when many of our servicemen came back from war, especially the Second World War, many of them, because of the PTSD, the post-traumatic stress disorders that many of them had, didn’t often tell their stories. It was the proceeding generation, the second generation, that began to hear, and understand.

So there are many who have come to support the role of our servicemen in the past, and even in the present, in the roles that they play. So I hope that, again, this bill serves as a way of indicating that in this Parliament, we all uphold service to Queen and country—we don’t often say that. I’m sure the Minister maybe says at different times that we do serve as part of a Commonwealth—to our best abilities to uphold the rule of law, and also to a democratic nation as well, which is what this bill will do: acknowledge those in 15 areas of deployment who’ve certainly served faithfully and willingly, and given, in some occasions, their lives. This will allow for their families to also be recognised and have some recognition in that as well. More importantly, it allows for the narrative, the stories, to continue to be told—that service to country is the highest that one can give and offer as well. So along with us on this side of the House, we support this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I won’t take a long call, but I do want to stand and give some acknowledgment. I firstly want to acknowledge the work of my officials and those people who so studiously study legislation as a consequence of decisions that are reviewed based on requests or submissions put by veterans, which, in this case, if I remember correctly, it was Mr Ian Stobie who asked them questions. And through that questioning and through the consideration of his questions it became clear to some people that we had something of a problem with the legislation in 2014 that was passed by the previous Government.

It was not an intended problem. Going back through the Cabinet papers, going back through the discussion papers, going back through the select committee phase, it was always very, very clear that what the previous Government had intended to do was give the Minister powers to review operational deployments, with a view to ascertaining whether or not there were circumstances that warranted the changing of the designation of active deployment. To most people outside of the Chamber and who are not involved with veterans’ affairs or the military, they probably wouldn’t understand what that means. When a deployment is declared as an operational deployment and given that status of recognition, it immediately makes those individuals who deployed veterans, with all of the benefits that being a veteran brings. It’s not just the benefits or the services or the support that has accrued to the veteran that matters; it’s that which is available to the veterans’ family, to the veterans’ spouse, partner, husband, or wife.

When the case was brought to me, it was put to me very clearly that the Crown Law opinion had re-confirmed that there was an error in the drafting, and that 14 declarations that had been previously made were potentially illegal. That created a circumstance where there would be an argument that those benefits that had been accrued might have to be recovered—particularly where it was fiscal. Well, that was a situation that was just simply untenable, particularly considering that it was out of sync with what the previous Government had intended the Act to reflect.

So two of those declarations were from myself; 12 of those declarations were from the Hon Craig Foss. It occurred to me, when we looked at the legislation, that we needed to move with speed. In order to be able to move with speed, it was obvious that I needed to have conversations with all of the former Ministers for veterans’ affairs. I want to thank the Hon Nathan Guy, the Hon David Bennett, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and the Hon Judith Collins. The only one who I think wasn’t in the room was the Hon Craig Foss because, of course, he’s not a member of Parliament any longer. All of those former National Party Ministers of veterans’ affairs came to the office. We had a conversation.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah we did. It was a good chat.

Yeah, it was a good chat, and thank you, Mr Nathan Guy. It was a good conversation. I’m very thankful to all of those members—and I had a conversation with the Hon Gerry Brownlee later on, on the phone, who rang just to see how the whole thing had gone and to give me his views.

It didn’t end there, because I had conversations with the Green Party and then my people had a conversation—I think one of my team caught up—with David Seymour’s staff. I was very pleased and grateful that every one of those political parties agreed with me that we needed to progress this bill swiftly.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their work, for their diligence. I want to thank the Business Committee, the whips and the Leader of the House, and shadow Leader of the House for agreeing that this matter needed to be dealt with urgently. So here we are today, and, inshallah, we’ll move straight through the third reading very quickly and we will have resolved the problem collectively as a House, in the interests of the veterans and their families.

Operational deployments are difficult, we all know that, and I know that there’s not a member in this House who doesn’t recognise that and value that. I only have to travel around the RSAs. Recently, I was at Te Awamutu and—oh my gosh. I’m embarrassed now because I’ve forgotten—Louise—?

💬 Hon Members: The Hon Louise Upston.

The Hon Louise Upston was there with me, and we commemorated Victor 3’s anniversary.

There have been many other occasions where I’ve stood alongside of the Hon Megan Woods, in Christchurch recently on Anzac Day. There is not, in my view, an MP in the House who does not support our veterans and does not believe that they are deserving of the recognition for the service that they have done their country. That’s the way it should be, because every day we sit in this Chamber—no matter what we are discussing, no matter what our philosophical and our political views are—we are surrounded by reminders on the walls: El Alamein, Crete, Fortress Europe, North Africa, Sidi Rezegh, Battle of Britain, Atlantic, Greece. All of these names—Vietnam, Afghanistan, down that corner—are there for a purpose. They are there to remind us who it is we have to thank for our freedom, for our liberty, and for the democracy that we enjoy and hold so dear.

So for everybody who supports our veterans—and I do specifically want to mention Melissa Lee. I have always been astonished by the Korean community’s support to our Korean veterans—even when I was not in Parliament, and I was simply attending the Papanui RSA on Anzac Day as one of my five RSAs that I would visit. The Korean community support for those Korean veterans—and one of them was my uncle Billy—was astonishing in its generosity. It always has been and it’s only got better and more generous as the years have gone by and numbers have dwindled. It doesn’t matter whether it’s in the community at the Papanui RSA, or up here in Wellington, or even when I meet with the ambassador or visiting dignitaries, they never forget—they never forget. That’s the only thing that veterans and their families ask, really.

Madam Speaker, I have used all my time, it would appear, and I had not intended doing that, but I could not let this moment go without letting the House know how grateful I am for the unanimous support of the House and the way in which all political parties have rallied to the cause and supported. With respect to the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s questions around future considerations of deployments, as soon as this legislation’s through and passed its third reading and receives its assent then all of those reviews that are currently frozen will continue, and that’ll be a good thing. I have no doubt that as the research is done and more evidence is revealed, there will be some positives. They won’t all be positives in the eyes of some people, but that’s just the way it is. But none of that would be possible without what’s happening here tonight. So on that basis, I simply want to say kia ora koutou. Thank you very much. It’s very much appreciated. If I might be so bold and take the liberty to thank you on behalf of all veterans for the support and the honour you’ve done them collectively here this evening. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. A very heartfelt presentation and speech by the Hon Ron Mark, and thank you for that. I too am very pleased to be standing in support of the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill—the first time I’ve been involved in a bill that’s going through all stages as quickly as this one is tonight, but as we’ve heard, there is a huge amount of support for making sure that this wording in the original Act of 2014 is clarified, because there was absolutely the intention to be able to declare those deployments to be qualifying operational service deployments. So it’s up to us to actually rectify that and make sure that the wording allows for the retrospective declaration of those servicemen and women. Myself being an army mum, you know, I understand the value of supporting our veterans and the sacrifice that everyone who is deployed makes on behalf of this country. So there is absolutely no doubt that we were going to have 100 percent support across this House for this legislation.

There were some questions, and, you know, the select committee did scrutinise the wording of this bill quite thoroughly. I have to acknowledge the three advisers that serviced the select committee—three very capable women. It did make me think that if you have something that needs tidying up, and with a bit of empathy—certainly the women were very capable of delivering on that—but also their passion for correcting this and making sure that the veterans that we were focused on were actually best served by this amendment to this bill.

One of the questions that I actually raised with the advisers was around how we determined those people who were on qualifying operational service, because it had been raised with me about servicemen that serve under another country’s banner. So we were assured that even though they serve under, say, the Australian banner, as long as they did that and were directed, seconded, or co-opted, they actually did qualify. So there was conversation around whether those servicemen or women have taken the oath, and it seems that the oath was not a necessary part of that, as long as they were there under the direction of the Defence Force.

So there were a few minor tweaks that we did make in light of some of the submissions. There were only four. It was a very truncated process, because we do want to make sure that the Minister can continue to make those declarations. I think that we’ve well canvassed the amendment tonight. I take the opportunity too, as the Minister has tonight, to thank all our servicemen and women for their sacrifice for the country, and I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to begin, really, my contribution to the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill by just, I guess, commenting on the fact that colleagues from both sides of the House today have given such heartfelt and poignant speeches about both the amendment but also—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we just have—sitting, please? Thank you.

—about the broader contributions that our servicemen and women make to New Zealand and, indeed, contributions around the world. I just want to say that I, unfortunately, haven’t had the privilege of growing up in a family where my parents have served, but I have met many current servicemen and women who are deployed overseas and working here in New Zealand as well. I guess, over the course of various select committee meetings, where we’ve considered different bills and had former veterans come in to tell us about their experiences, it’s evident the amount of trauma that many have gone through and the support that many require when they come back from having served, both injuries that are physical but also injuries that are long-lasting and cannot be seen—the PTSD that the Hon Alfred Ngaro spoke about earlier in his speech as well. So I too, as speakers before me have done, want to thank them for their service to our nation.

I also want to thank the officials, who went through quite a few different scenarios that were brought up at select committee. Maureen Pugh has mentioned in her speech a point that she brought up, which was really good, and it was around additional people, I guess—so journalists, for example, who’ve been on deployments and whether they would come into the ambit of this bill as well. They were very patient in the way they took us through the changes that were made, the submissions that were made to the select committee as well, and explained why there were no recommendations for amendments.

I’ll get to that in a minute, but just getting back to the bill, which is a technical bill—it aims to correct a drafting error in section 9 of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. I say it’s a technical bill, but it’s actually also quite an emotional one, as we’ve canvassed previously. Now, there was a flaw that was identified, relating to that particular section of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. Section 9, which is the section that we are considering today in terms of the amendment, empowers the Minister of Defence to declare deployments of New Zealand Defence Force personnel that meet certain specified criteria to be qualifying operational service. The reason that’s important is because for veterans who have come back and who have been injured or become ill as a result of their service, they’re only eligible for support if they’ve come from qualifying operational service, and so that’s why that tweak is really important. The previous Act that the 2014 Veterans’ Support Act replaced—that was the War Pensions Act from 1954—was quite limited in the deployments that could be considered qualifying operational service, as far as I understand. But the 2014 new Act broadened that criteria and it included quite a few different types of deployments.

Now, we were told at select committee by officials that if this change wasn’t made—so that’s the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill, the change to section 9—it could mean that previous—and I think the Minister mentioned there were 14 retrospective declarations that were made that cover multiple missions, various geographical areas, and that the declarations there affect about 675 veterans. Now, officials at select committee did tell us that if this particular amendment doesn’t pass, that could mean legal challenges to the support that those veterans received, and none of us, I believe—I don’t believe any of us in this House want to see that happen. That’s why there is urgency when it comes to passing this bill. It’s to ensure that we give some certainty to veterans who’ve already received the support that they are entitled to. It was the policy intent of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 for those veterans to receive the support that they have, the entitlements that they have, but it’s just because of a drafting error that that could actually come into legal challenge.

So that’s why there’s a huge amount of camaraderie, in a sense, across the House, in recognition of the service that our veterans have provided. I just want to thank the Minister Ron Mark at this point, as well, for laying out in his speech the process that was undertaken to get to that point of agreement across the House. I think it was very beautifully laid out, and it’s actually really important, because those who may be watching through Parliament TV generally get to see only the most adversarial parts of the House, and I think it’s incredibly important that people realise that, actually, there’s a lot of working together across the House to finesse bills and make sure that legislation that this House passes, that has such an impact on people’s lives, is the best piece of legislation that can be passed. So I thank you, Minister. I thank the Minister for his contribution and for the clarity with which he laid that out as well, and also, of course, all members, the Minister, former Ministers, and members across the House, who worked collegially to get to this point as well.

I just want to touch, in the time that I have remaining, on one of the recommendations that came out of a submission that we spent a fair bit of time on at the select committee to discuss. So out of the four submissions that were received on this bill, three expressed outright support for it. There was one submission that brought up an issue and wanted the bill to be extended to allow Ministers to declare any service that took place before 1974 as qualifying operational service. Now, that was considered. Officials went away, came back with advice, and clarified for members that, actually, there’s nothing in the bill or the amendment as it stands—or actually, in fact, the Veterans’ Support Act 2014—that restricts a defence Minister’s ability to retrospectively declare deployments that took place before 1974. So while that was a really good submission, we did get clarity that there’s nothing to preclude that from already happening, and therefore there was no change needed based on that submission.

Can I also take this opportunity to thank those who submitted. It is always heartening to see, I guess, the democratic process being followed or being taken up as people submit to bills that they have a passion for, and that was no different in this case as well. So I think the point has been made that this is a tweak, this is a drafting error. While it is quite technical and it’s quite small in a sense, it is significant, because it has bearing on the lives of, already, 675 veterans and their families, but also many more, potentially, if this change was not to be made. So I just want to say that this is an excellent bill. I commend everyone who’s played a part in getting us to this point today and commend this bill to the House.

I’ve decided to be very nice to the Hon Ruth Dyson tonight and make this a very short call, both in honour of your good self, but also there’s such comity in the House. The Minister, unfortunately, stole my lines, which was to acknowledge, actually, the wreaths and ferns around the House. I often tell visitors from my electorate or friends and family visiting that this Chamber is not only a house of Parliament but, actually, a war memorial, and in some ways it’s no more fitting a place than to acknowledge our veterans who have served Queen and country.

Look, Minister, this is a good bill. We acknowledge your work in shepherding it through the House and, I think, the humility to acknowledge that this has been something that is cross-party and that many people have had a hand in. But I think it’s important to acknowledge that it’s you that tonight leads this through the House, and I think it’s a mark of respect from all here that after the second reading it will move speedily. So in honour of our veterans, those who have served, continue to serve, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just wish to correct the record. The National Party member of Parliament who accompanied me was Barbara Kruger—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kuriger.

💬 Hon RON MARK: —Kuriger—who’s the MP for Taranaki - King Country, who was the person accompanying me at the Te Awamutu commemorations.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this, the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill. I’d also like to begin by acknowledging—

Oh, sorry. This is a split call.

💬 JAMIE STRANGE: Thank you. I’d also like to begin by acknowledging the honourable Minister Ron Mark. His passion for veterans is absolutely commendable. I know that the Minister has served our country, and as I travel the country, I constantly hear people speak highly of the Minister because he is able to relate on a personal level with this portfolio. I’d also like to join the chorus of those who have honoured those who have served our country. From a personal point of view, my father-in-law served in Borneo, Malaya, and Vietnam. I’d like to particularly spotlight those who served in Vietnam because, as some people will know, when they returned from service, they returned under a cover of darkness. They did not receive thanks at the time for the service that they’d undertaken. They were not honoured at the time, and it was very difficult for those soldiers.

War is confusing at the best of times, but the Vietnam War was certainly very confusing for many people. Consequently, in the early 2000s, the Government did right that wrong and acknowledge them. But I’d like to particularly acknowledge my father-in-law, who served in Vietnam. My great uncle lost an arm in World War II. He was captured by the Germans and he was repatriated. We don’t really know exactly the details around that, but, for some reason, he was repatriated, probably to do with him losing his arm. Now, this bill has been well canvassed around what it does. It simply fixes a clerical error to ensure that those who are entitled to the various benefits receive those, and, basically, it gives the Minister the ability to ensure that those qualified under operational service—that people receive the entitlements that they’re entitled to, allowing the Minister to make retrospective declarations.

There are a number of health issues and challenges that our veterans have who have served. For those like myself who have never served in a war, I will simply not know what that’s like for those who have served. It’s up to us to, certainly, honour them but also to provide that support, because there are not many more challenging things that people have to do than serve in a war. It’s important we don’t take our peace for granted. I was recently talking to some Europeans around the issue of Brexit, and they said the key thing for them was peace. We always strive as a country for peace, and we certainly strive as a global community for peace, but at times we do need to stand up for things that we hold dear in terms of our freedoms, and we certainly do that.

I’d also like to acknowledge Melissa Lee, and I know she’s been acknowledged before, but from a personal point of view, I remember sharing some time with you in Hamilton recently with the Korean community, where they honoured the Korean veterans, and I think the Hon Tim Macindoe might’ve been there as well. The Korean community absolutely do a wonderful job of honouring those who have served us, and I’d also like to acknowledge them around that.

We have Anzac ceremonies, which are certainly well attended. As we go to these ceremonies, we notice that those who fought in World War II, their numbers are becoming less and less, but it’s important that we constantly remember those people who have served, whether they’re family members like mine or whether they’re people who we know of—you know, we know their stories. I think that, generally, we do that well as a country, and this is just another example of us doing that well, of us recognising that, look there’s been a clerical error here. The intentions were good, the error has been fixed, and there’s cross-party support.

So I’m hopeful tonight that all those veterans who are watching on TV or listening on the radio do feel supported, because as a Parliament as a whole, we certainly honour you, we thank you, and we show you our support tonight. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with humility that I stand in support of the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill. This is a short call, but that is in no way a reflection of the importance of this bill. It is with immense pride and humility that I look on the efforts and the bravery and the sacrifices made by our veterans that enable me to stand for you today. It is with equal pride that I think of the Samoan, Tongan, Niuean, and Cook Islanders who joined our New Zealand contingents in putting their lives on the line for the freedoms we enjoy today. Many of them have been, rightly, recognised with veterans support for their service to our country, and for veterans of subsequent deployments, the purpose of the 2014 Act was to give qualifying operational servicemen and women access to the entitlements the Act intended to deliver. Unfortunately, the tight wording of section 9 of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 saw a number of service people excluded for their historical deployments to operational service, particularly where the definition of operational service has been clarified by the current Act to cover a range of operational and environmental threats, including non-State actors and security forces.

I’ve been heartened by the contributions from both sides of the House today, and I believe that this amendment bill will enable consideration of pre-2014 deployments for those who have put themselves in harm’s way for our security and for the betterment of the world we live in. In one submission that I just had a quick look at earlier today, just a short submission from Mark Treadgold: “I think … this is a great improvement in the way we look after … men and women who serve our country.”—short, but it actually is what this bill is about. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I just say to the member, because she is new we have been careful to not criticise her for reading her speeches, but the time will come shortly where you will be, as you get more confidence.

Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m indeed honoured, as a daughter of a Korean vet, to stand here, and I acknowledge my namesake Melissa Lee across the hall, as a proud daughter of a Vietnam vet, in making a small contribution to the second reading of the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill.

Can I commend the hard-working Minister of Defence and acknowledge—we feel the love in the Tai Rāwhiti of this Minister. I understand the Prime Minister launched a vessel in the navy just the other day which will find Tai Rāwhiti as its base, but I want to acknowledge the Minister in his recent travels to Tai Rāwhiti with the launch of the Whitiki! Whiti! Whiti! E!: Māori in the First World War book launched on C Company, that, Madam Speaker, you’ll be very familiar with at C Company in Gisborne, Tai Rāwhiti.

So it is indeed an honour to stand and support this bill, that is extending and making a small amendment to the Act, that other speakers have addressed, that acknowledges all our hard-working servicemen and women who have served, obviously in the great battles but who just serve our country with such pride and dignity whenever they travel to overseas missions. This bill is making those support mechanisms available to them by making this small amendment.

So I’m proud to stand in support of the bill and in acknowledgment of, like I said, our hard-working servicemen and women—for some that are no longer with us, perhaps a tad too late, but we’ve also got to look on the positive side in that not only were we extending it to make it very clear on who should be entitled to support but it also is wrapped around with this coalition Government’s commitment to mental health. We’ve heard many tragedies of our hard-working servicemen and women that have returned back from overseas engagements and battles who suffer from the impacts of serving their nation. So this bill, in tidying up this amendment, which is section 9, which simply empowers the responsible Minister to declare deployments of New Zealand Defence Force personnel that meet certain specified criteria to be qualified and operational for the purpose of this Act.

In addition, I just wanted to acknowledge the $1.9 billion that the coalition Government has committed to mental health and that our servicemen and women throughout the country and overseas will also feel the love from this coalition Government, the importance that we wrap around mental support for those that need it. So this bill should be seen as part of a bigger commitment of this coalition Government towards the mental health and wellbeing of all our citizens, but in particular to this Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill, we are talking about our servicemen and women that serve our country proudly.

It is such a small bill, but it’s an important bill. We’ve talked about the amendments to section 9—others have canvassed this. It is making it a lot clearer, but the message from me is to acknowledge our servicemen and women, those that are currently with us, and also to send a clear message as a preferred career to our rangatahi. Again, I want to acknowledge the Minister in his work around Limited Service Volunteers, but for those that may be thinking of a career in our military, in our defence force—that they know that their rights and their support from this Government, through this bill and through this amendment, is a real commitment to them. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start by acknowledging all of those veterans that have provided such a wonderful service to New Zealand, and in particular to all members who have served in the New Zealand Defence Force. In tonight’s context, I’d particularly like to acknowledge my colleague and friend Chris Penk, MP for Helensville, for his service to both the New Zealand Defence Force and the Australian Defence Force, and, indeed, the current defence Minister for his service as well.

Now, the amendment here to section 9 of the Act clarifies, as we’ve heard, the drafting error that could potentially have excluded previous deployments from being captured by this legislation passed in 2014. Now, one of the aspects that I particularly wanted to touch on in my brief contribution—I had been approached by a constituent who’d raised concern around the ability for people who had been involved with deployments prior to 1974 to be captured under this and whether, indeed, there should’ve been additional scope under this piece of legislation to look at making some adjustments to those classifications as well. We’ve heard some previous comments around that in terms of the qualifying operational service being able to capture that time period. I think the concern, as I understood it, was that for some of those earlier deployments, it was the definition that was used and therefore the entitlements that were available, so to qualify in routine service prior to 1974 had a different set of entitlements to what we are now considering would be available to veterans as qualifying operational service. So the concern there was that that provided a different level for veterans who had, effectively, performed or provided the same service to our country.

But it was encouraging to hear that the Social Services and Community Committee looked into that and sought advice from officials, who had confidence that this actually did allow for the Chief of Defence Force to provide a recommendation to the Minister to then make acknowledgments of those operational service deployments prior to that date, irrespective of the fact that they may already be covered under a qualifying routine service, for example. So that, hopefully, allays those concerns that were raised by some veterans and former members of the New Zealand Defence Force.

So, look, I see no need to continue to extend this. It’s great to see that we are putting this through in a reasonably hasty process, and whilst I have hesitation at recommending that as a standard within this House—we have seen it used in a number of instances where it wasn’t appropriate, but this certainly is, for a relatively minor technical change which will recognise appropriately the service of those veterans to our country. So I commend the bill to the House.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Āe, he tū poto tēnei ā muri mai i tēnā kaikōrero, Tim van de Molen; tēnā pea ko ahau te kaikōrero whakamutunga mō tēnei pō, mō tēnei pire.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te tū ki te whakawaha ake i ētahi kōrero mō tēnei pire. Ko te kaupapa o tēnei pire he tautoko i ngā hōia e tūroro ana, e māuiui ana i tō rātou mahi mō Ngāti Tūmatauenga, mō Te Tauārangi o Aotearoa, Te Tauā Moana o Aotearoa me Te Ope Kātua o Aotearoa. E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki a rātou katoa. Ko rātou te ope e manaaki nei, e tiaki nei i Aotearoa, puta noa i te ao.

Nō reira, ko tēnei Ture he whakatikatika i tētahi wāhanga e āhua āwangawanga ana, e āhua rangirua ana he aha kē te ture ki te whakatau i te penihana mō rātou kua tūroro, kua māuiui i tō rātou mahi hōia mō Aotearoa nei.

Nō reira, ko tēnei pire he whakatikatika i te wāhanga tuaiwa, arā, te section 9 i roto i tēnei Ture kia mōhio mārika ka tāea e Te Minitā te whakatau ngā penihana mō ngā hōia, mō tō rātou haerenga ki tētahi kaupapa atu, tono atu ki tētahi kaupapa, tētahi haerenga, kua hipa tērā. Koirā te tino kaupapa o tēnei.

E mōhio ana ahau, kua pānui ahau i roto i tēnei pire—kua whakatau e Ngā Minita 14 wēnei momo whakataunga mō ngā tāngata. Neke atu i te 675 ngā hōia tawhito, ō rātou hoa rangatira, ō rātou whānau anō hoki ka whai pānga ki tēnei kaupapa. Me rātou hoki kua mate i roto i tētahi pakanga, tētahi haerenga, me kī, mō Ngāti Tūmatauenga, mō ērā atu o ngā tauā.

Nō reira, ko te kaupapa o tēnei pire—ahakoa, tēnā pea e hē ana tērā i raro i te ture, ko tēnei ka whakatikatika ake i wērā whakataunga.

Nō reira, e tautoko ana ahau i tērā tū āhuatanga pau te kaha. E mōhio ana ahau te tirotiro i ētahi atu o ngā haerenga kua hipa. Mehemea ka whakatau tēnei pire ā te pō nei, neke atu i te 1,600 pea ngā tāngata, ō rātou hoa rangatira, whānau anō hoki ka whai pānga ki tēnei ture.

Nō reira, e tika ana me whakatikatika tēnei wāhanga i roto i te ture kia mōhio mārika ko wai ngā tāngata e āhei ana ki te whiwhi i te penihana mō ā rātou mahi hei tiaki, hei atawhai, hei manaaki i a tātou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare, puta noa i Aotearoa. Nō reira, e Te Mana Whakawā, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, this is a short address following on from the last speaker, Tim van de Molen; perhaps I am the last speaker on this bill for tonight.

I wish to stand and add some commentary around this bill. The purpose of this bill is to assist soldiers who are infirm, who are unwell as a result of their belonging to the army, to the air force, to the navy, or to the New Zealand Defence Force. I want to acknowledge them all as the people who look after us, who keep us safe here in New Zealand as well as around the world.

Therefore, it is necessary to amend a section of this Act which is currently troublesome and confusing, as it tries to provide for the entitlements of those who are unwell as a result of their time spent as soldiers in the service of New Zealand.

Thus, this bill seeks to amend section 9 in the current Act so that the Minister will be able to give certainty around benefits for soldiers, so that they can go about their business on a variety of fronts. That is what this is all about.

I am aware, I have read it in this bill, that Ministers have addressed 14 of these kinds of amendments. Currently, around 675 former service men and women, their spouses, and their families are all affected by this matter before us. In addition, there are those who died while in a conflict, on a mission, or on the business of one or other of the defence forces.

Hence the purpose of this bill—since there has been a drafting error that has been identified, it is necessary to make the appropriate amendments.

I therefore give my wholehearted support. I know that this will be passed. If it is passed here tonight, approximately 1,600 people and their spouses and families will be able to benefit from our efforts.

It is obvious that this section must be appropriately amended to give assurance to those whose eligibility for the intended entitlements is unclear, even though they have had the role of maintaining the security of those in this House, indeed of everyone in the country. Madam Speaker, thank you.]

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading