Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 22 June 2020.

The bill which has come before the House today is designed to make a number of changes to the current law that relates to veterans. Most of the changes respond to recommendations that arose out of the review of the operation of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 that was conducted by Professor Ron Paterson in 2018. Our veterans’ support legislation underwent a sea change in 2014; a new Act was passed with multi-party support. It was very different from the Act that it replaced, that being the War Pensions Act 1954. For this reason, a requirement was built in which meant that its operation had to be reviewed as soon as practicable two years after it had come into force.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before the member gets any further, I do want to check whether, in fact, it was his intention to give the full notice with regard to the sitting of the House and outside of Wellington on Fridays. The member’s required to at the beginning of a speech—so he’s early enough now.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had a run sheet which had it the other way around.

I move that the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 22 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Continuing on?

💬 SPEAKER: If the member wants to; he can sit down if he wants to.

No. So, as I said a little bit earlier—and forgive me; my run sheet had it the wrong way round—the bill that has come before the House is designed to make a number of changes, and I’ve spoken to those. And these are on the back of the Professor Ron Paterson report, in which he made 64 recommendations. His report was entitled Warrant of Fitness: An independent review of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. I do want to acknowledge, at this point, that when this legislation went through the select committee in the last term, it was due to the credit of the Māori Party, who actually teamed up with Labour and with New Zealand First to ensure that this review was cemented into the legislation—a post-implementation review. It’s on the back of that decision and that support that this bill is now before the House at this time.

It’s been two years since that report was completed. New Zealand veterans have been hoping and expecting that action is going to be taken to address the recommendations that came out of it. This bill is doing that. Things haven’t stood still. Since I received the Paterson report in 2018, I am pleased to say that a number of its recommendations have already been implemented by Veterans’ Affairs; they have done that by taking administrative action where they could do this without the need for a law to be changed. Not everything can be done so simply. There are some recommendations that require the law to be changed; that is what we’re now proposing to do.

This bill focuses on increasing the wellbeing of veterans and their families by making it easier for them to access support and services, and making delivery of these fairer. It will be addressing what Veterans’ Affairs has identified as a short-term improvements programme. What is being improved are priorities for veterans. This bill, if passed, will provide immediate improvements in fairness and equity. Its provisions would improve access to services for veterans, improve support to veterans’ families, improve the support available for veterans and their families at the end of the veteran’s life, and remove provisions of the Act which have been or have the potential to be unfair to veterans who have loyally served their country.

More still remains to be done. A medium-term improvements programme has also been identified, and, beginning in late 2020, this will address more complex issues. There will be time for consultation on these issues, and, once that has been done, a more thorough revision of the Act may well follow. In the meantime, however, we can and we should get moving to progress the areas that Professor Paterson identified as priorities. The bill now before the House proposes a number of changes to the present situation. Some of those changes would improve how mental illness is addressed for veterans. The bill would improve recognition of psychological illness and give Veterans’ Affairs the ability to fund private mental health services for veterans needing this help urgently until their eligibility for public services can be established.

It would also extend some services to the families of veterans. The present Act doesn’t recognise some of the impacts that a veteran’s illness or injury has on their families; this bill would change that situation. It would include families in needs assessments and rehabilitation support plans for veterans and extend counselling services to qualify veterans’ families. Families of veterans may also benefit from an extension of the children’s bursary to post-secondary vocational training, and the children of eligible veterans living overseas. The bill would abolish the five-year restriction that the Act currently places on childcare assistance.

Some definitions in the legislation will be modified, including the definition of “child”. The new definition in the bill would cover, for example, a child whom the veteran is a guardian of, and a grandchild or whāngai child of the veteran if the veteran has acted as that child’s parent or guardian.

Other Paterson report recommendations that the bill addresses include continuing for a transitional period to provide support and services under the Veterans’ Independence Programme to the spouse or partner of a veteran when the veteran goes into long-term residential care; easing access to the surviving spouse or partner to the pension, and funeral expenses; giving Veterans’ Affairs the ability to fund treatment and rehabilitation services when a veteran is imprisoned, until alternative arrangements can be made; extending grace periods on death; allowing discretion to consider entitlement when a veteran’s injury, illness, or death occurred when they were briefly absent without leave, or committing a minor offence; supporting families of imprisoned veterans; and improving decision making by Veterans’ Affairs.

There are two other measures in the bill that do not arise from the Paterson report. One is a proposal for the responsible Minister to have discretion to approve the granting of entitlements to a very small group of service personnel who serve in operations that are not gazetted for security or operational reasons. These are sensitive operations. At the moment, veterans only become eligible for entitlements once the deployment that they took part in has been declared as qualifying operational service and notice is published in the Gazette. Including this provision in the bill is a matter of fairness. It aims to make sure that New Zealand service personnel who have been injured or become ill as a result of service on sensitive deployments are eligible to receive support and services from Veterans’ Affairs even though their mission hasn’t been publicly declared. This is something that is long overdue. I’m pleased that we now have an opportunity to do something about what is a major, although unintended, unfairness in the 2014 legislation.

Finally, the bill also gives us the opportunity to streamline the process for publishing adjustments and abatement of veterans’ pension rates. It is proposed that this should be aligned with the process of reviewing the rates of all other veteran support entitlements. This is a simple proposal that makes very good sense. I look forward to seeing the report back from the select committee on all of those proposals.

I want to conclude by saying: to all the veterans out there who made contributions and submissions to Professor Ron Paterson’s report, thank you. To all those who have been inquiring as to how we’re progressing, well, here it is here now. I am hoping that this House will enable this legislation to be passed before the election, to give our veterans and their families and dependants certainty into the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise and take a call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), and I’d like to start by acknowledging our veterans spokesperson, Chris Penk. He is a fine member of our team and has, actually, himself served in the New Zealand and Australian defence forces, so he is very happy to see this coming before the Parliament and he supports it, as does the rest of the National Party. So I’d like to put that on record to start with—that we will be supporting this.

I’d also like to start by acknowledging all of those current and former servicemen and servicewomen in the New Zealand Defence Force. The work that they do is impressive. It’s at times tough. It’s at times horrific, and it is absolutely vital that we respect that service and we put the right measures in place to support them when they come back and need it. That transition can be difficult, and, unfortunately, we see many instances where there are mental health issues that arise as a result of service undertaken on behalf of our country, and this in particular addresses some of those aspects. I think that’s an appropriate measure.

Look, over the last few years, we’ve seen an increasing focus and awareness, understanding, of the impact of mental health issues on the broader population, and so it’s appropriate to see that picked up here as well. But I’d also like to acknowledge Professor Ron Paterson for, obviously, undertaking the review that he did, delivered in March 2018, after consulting widely. That’s an important, critical aspect, right? It’s got to be consulted widely, and it’s encouraging to see that that did take place. Whilst we are having a truncated select committee process, which I’ll always have some concern with, I am glad to see that there was broad consultation undertaken before this report was actually published. So that is good to see.

There’s a few elements, and the Minister has done a good job of traversing the key aspects in this, but I particularly wanted to just touch a bit more on that mental health aspect, not just for the veterans but, actually, extending that now to include family members is an appropriate recognition that the impact can be much broader than the individual who has served. So we do need to take account of that broader impact on their families too.

There are a number of aspects that, for the average person reading this bill, may seem reasonably trivial, but, actually, these changes are going to make a real difference for some of those veterans, and that is absolutely important for us to do—things like extending the definition of “child” to be encompassing any veteran who has been a guardian of a child or young person. So that is, again, a nice way of providing just a little bit of extra support. These aren’t massive things individually but, added together, they can make that big difference, and so it is absolutely critical that we support that wherever we can.

So, on that basis, we are supporting it through to select committee. As I said, it’s a shortened select committee process, which by rule I don’t generally agree with, but in this instance I think there is still a window of opportunity there for submitters to have a voice if they choose to, and I would encourage them to do that. Any veterans who feel like they would like additional changes made can bring those forward. I’ve been approached by some within my own electorate in the Waikato who have shared some views on what changes should be made, particularly around the “qualifying operational service”—that’s the official term. Interestingly, the Minister noted as well that until that is determined as such by the Minister, they’re not eligible. And, for some of those operations where they have been withheld for operational sensitivity purposes, that has presented a problem—so, looking to address that here as well.

All in all, it’s an important step. When we last considered this—the Veterans’ Support Act, rather—when it was passed in 2014, it had cross-party support at that time. So it was great to see broad recognition of the important role veterans have played and the importance, therefore, of supporting them post their service. And so I hope that we will see the same support again this evening, and I look forward to canvassing this more in the select committee process. So, on that basis, the National Party supports this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin my short contribution by saying that it’s an absolute privilege to be a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. While I’ve had immense respect for veterans and those who serve across our Defence Force, I must say that this role and the opportunities that the Minister Ron Mark has provided, really, to MPs to be able to go out and learn a bit more about the risks that face our veterans—all who serve across our Defence Force—and the sacrifices that they make has been a huge learning experience for me. Last year, I got to travel from Wellington to Auckland on HMNZS Wellington and spoke to those who’ve been serving on behalf of New Zealand and protecting us, and that’s given me a much better understanding of what they face.

So it’s such a privilege, really, to be able to make a short call to support the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), because this bill will provide our veterans with the support that they need, both in terms of the broader health space but also in terms of accessing support for mental health. Also, a number of our veterans are over 70 years in age and, therefore, are particularly vulnerable given the COVID-19 pandemic that we’re facing at the moment, and many have complex medical needs as well. So the changes that are being proposed through this bill will have an immediate impact on improving the wellbeing of our veterans.

And so I just want to thank again the Minister and all those who have worked—Professor Ron Paterson as well, because I know that the recommendations that came out of that report, many of them are in this bill, really, as well. So can I just thank everyone who’s been involved with this bill to date, and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. A pleasure to take this call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), and it is a pleasure—it is indeed a pleasure—to take this call. There wouldn’t be anyone in New Zealand who does not feel grateful or indebted to our wonderful veterans and pleased to see this bill come into the House, which, ultimately, provides additional strength and support to the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, which gained cross-party support.

I’d like to particularly acknowledge the veterans and their advocates who made contributions to the report and particularly also to commend, as has been acknowledged already in the House, the work, the dedication, and the commitment to this from Professor Ron Paterson. The Paterson report, of course, laid out some really significant concerns and the issues that veterans have faced in accessing their support entitlements, and so I’m pleased that, back in 2014, it was the National Government that commissioned Professor Paterson to undertake this work, and so pleased to be here to see it being processed through.

As I stand in support of this Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), I cast my mind back. I’ve heard fantastic stories of ancestors of my children who made contributions in the two World Wars, and it is with pride and humility that I look on those efforts that those people made that enable me to stand before you today. Also, as the associate spokesperson for Pacific Peoples, it is with equal pride that I think of the Samoan, Tongan, Niuean, and Cook Islanders who joined our New Zealand contingents, putting their lives on the line for the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy today. And I acknowledge our veterans today, the men and women that have served in various theatres in recent years and should rightly be supported in their later years.

I do, though, have to express a little bit of disappointment that it has taken the length of time it has to get this bill back in front of the House, given that we’ve got a very short window of time left leading up to the election. The Paterson report, a review required of the original 2014 Act, was undertaken and tabled in 2018; yet here we are in the midst of—still—a lockdown period event, two years later, only just addressing the issues that report raised.

That said, I am pleased to see that the recommendations of the Paterson report were largely adopted by the Minister, and this bill today pretty much reflects much of that. I’m also pleased that the consultation process with the veterans and their families is under way. That’s very important that they have the opportunity to voice their feelings, to share their stories, and to add into this. It is a testament, of course, to the power of good legislation, when a full parliamentary process is followed. The report-back period is critical to the passing of good legislation. This bill and the process we are following stands as an example of proper legislative reform. Perhaps there’s a lesson in this for all of us in this House.

So I’m pleased to see that this bill picks up much of what has been proposed, and I’d just like to highlight a couple of those recommendations from the report. One in particular was giving Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand the ability to fund mental health services—a key, crucial area established—and the ability to fund treatment and the rehabilitation services when a veteran is imprisoned, and the addition of extending the limited entitlement to treatment or counselling to the veteran’s spouse, their partner, their children, their dependants, and any other person providing non-professional support. I’m very pleased to see the extension of the children’s bursary to include industry training organisations in New Zealand or overseas. And I’d just also like to note the abolishment of the five-year restriction on childcare assistance.

So I’d like to acknowledge you, Mr Ron Mark. We are here now, and what a great day to be able to progress through for those veterans that we are very indebted to. I commend this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my great pleasure, actually, to speak on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2). While I won’t be on the select committee that considers this bill, I was the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs when the Veterans’ Support Act was passed in 2014. So I do have a very deep understanding of some of the complexities of legislation of this type, where we want to make sure we have good black-letter law that supports our veterans.

I recall, actually, in my first reading speech when that bill was introduced, in July 2013, looking around this House at the recognition of the many theatres of conflict that are memorials to not only the considerable sacrifice of New Zealanders over 160, 170 years but, actually, the burden of responsibility that this place has in making decisions that send our soldiers and Defence Force personnel into conflict. I was delighted to note that we have added three more insignia to that in the last few years: Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and missions in support of peace. And that latter one, particularly, is both an appropriate recognition but also part of the conundrum that the Minister has—not a conundrum but a challenge—in recognising things that are not traditional conflicts in the older definition of the War Pensions Act. And that, to a large degree, we have addressed not only through the 2014 Act but the legislation that was recently passed to provide clarification of that, although I note that, in the Ron Paterson report that has informed this bill that we are giving effect to, the question of eligible service was outside the scope of that.

I think that is an ongoing body of work that is very important to recognise that so many of our Defence Force personnel are put into situations that can have negative effects on their health, not only at that time but for many, many years or decades to come, not the least of which is the mental health and the post-traumatic stress disorder that we know so much more about—not only when the 2014 bill was passed, actually, but I think there was a much lesser understanding, when I was Minister, of how widespread that particular condition is.

Now, I’m not always in the habit of disagreeing with my colleagues, but I am going to, in a nuanced way, give a slightly different message to that of my colleagues Mr van de Molen and Ms Loheni. Agnes Loheni indicated something of a disappointment that it’s taken so long for the recommendations of the Paterson report to come into this House in the form of a bill. I understand that sentiment, but I’m a little, perhaps, more empathetic with the Minister, given how long it took to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission report, which was started in 2007 under the Clark Labour-led Government. Recommendations came back to the Key Government in 2010, and it wasn’t until, I think, July 2013 that I was able to bring a bill to the House. There were 130-odd recommendations. This is giving effect to a good number of the 62 recommendations of Professor Paterson, whom I know well from my time in the health sector—a very, very good and sensible fellow—but, actually, the reason I’m perhaps a little less critical of the time taken by the Minister is because taking a recommendation and building a bill are two quite different things, and it is a very, very complex process.

The other issue is I also understand the shortened report back and have some sympathy for it, as Mr van de Molen says, but I worry that this is far too short, and I will speak more about that when we consider the motion on the report back, and, indeed, I can indicate to the House that I will be tabling an amendment to that motion, one that I have raised with both the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs and the Leader of the House, that I believe is necessary to give the select committee the most time to consider this bill and to still have it passed before the House rises for the 2020 election. But I’ll elaborate on that when that motion is raised. I do, though, want to acknowledge the Minister and Veterans’ Affairs and the other people who have been involved in translating what are very sensible recommendations into what I think is a sensible bill. I think it would be naive to think it’s perfect in all respects, and I worry about a very shortened select committee process with a bill so important but also that can—the devil is definitely in the detail. I will, as I say, elaborate on that at the appropriate time, but I do join colleagues across the House in commending it.

I just wanted to take a brief call to commend this bill to the House. It is a good bill. It is a bill that is long overdue, in my opinion, and I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that the Minister, the Hon Ron Mark, has placed in this. His commitment to veterans in this country should be acknowledged, and with that note I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2), and I do apologise for my tardiness in coming in and out. I’ve just been talking to some of my veterans of the local Returned and Services’ Association (RSA). So I want to acknowledge the members of the Te Atatū RSA, the Henderson RSA, and the Swanson RSA as well. And, just in having a conversation with them, this bill is actually critically important to them. I know the Minister will know that.

I want to acknowledge Richard Paterson, otherwise known as “Banjo”, back in the RSA. He was just furiously calling me and he just wanted me to put on the record, especially in regards to this bill—I know the Minister is aware of this. I suppose what’s come up is that there has been the aspect that relates to this bill around the recognition around pre-1974 service of veterans. So I just wanted to announce that, as an advocate for our community, I had to go out and take a call. They did ask that, in this House, to the Minister, I would put that forward. It does relate to this bill and to the amendments that have been made. So I just want to put that through and particularly around their status. There’s also, too, that they have put in a submission in regards to the years of 1966 to 1975.

So, as the Minister will know, one of the big challenges is that when people put their lives on the line, when they serve King and country—or Queen and country, in this case—they do so with the belief that they are doing it for the good of the country, its people, and with a huge amount of patriotism and loyalty. And, in some cases, they just want to be acknowledged for that service. I know the Minister knows this. So I want to put in the fact that I commend the Minister for this bill, the amendment that’s come out of this, that then precedes the Act of 2014. And I just want to highlight those issues that have come before them as well.

One of the things that I believe is important—as you become part of the stories on a Friday night, just before the 6 o’clock bell and the recitation of the ode, then you sit often long into the night and you hear the stories of old and the importance of that and the impact that that has. And I think the Ron Paterson report begins to unveil some of the challenges from that. Probably the most significant challenges are around the trauma that they’ve had to experience while in either the conflict of war or in situations where they’ve found themselves in confrontation. And so I want to recognise that, in the report, it actually talks about a further recognition around post-traumatic stress disorder. And I know my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has talked about this, but this is a very real issue. Many of them have talked about the impacts on them, their family, and their children as well.

In fact, the interesting thing is that they were only able to tell their stories not to their children but often to their grandchildren. And I just want to recognise that, in the provisions of this bill, it will start to look at some of the recommendations there and in particular around improving the recognition of psychological illness, often the long tail that precedes from that, and the impact often on the children, not so much on the grandchildren, because finally, after a generation, they begin to tell their stories. They want the generations to know. And that’s the reason why we will see the number of attendance by families now coming in; children wanting to hear the stories to recognise the service of their grandparents as well. So I want to acknowledge that’s in there as well.

One of the other things that is really important that’s highlighted in this report, and often you hear in the RSAs the veterans talking about it, is the legacy they would leave behind for their children and their grandchildren. So I want to recognise also, too, in the recommendations from the Ron Paterson report, extending the time limit, entitlement for treatment of counselling, but also for the bursary to include industry training organisations in New Zealand and overseas. That’s critically important as well. I know that I’m helping one particular family, one of the veterans whose grandson, unfortunately, hasn’t been able to be successful in things academic. But all of a sudden he’s found the opportunity. So we’ve got him into a trades training scheme. And this sort of approach, this sort of support, will be just so welcome to them. They’ll see this as a great pathway to helping them sort of pursue that. And, again, when I look at this recommendation, I hear the word “legacy”, and that’s what they look for. This is an opportunity to know that, for their service, they’re now being recognised and their grandchildren now can take that on board as well. And I think that’s really important as well. Also, too, abolishing the five-year restriction on child care assistance, I think, becomes important, especially those that are also part of that conflict and have been previously.

One of the other things that was mentioned, and I know my colleague Agnes Loheni talked about Pasifika being actively involved, and I, on Anzac Day, now attend five services. The fifth one in the afternoon is in South Auckland, and I especially recognise the contribution of a number of our Pasifika communities. In particular, even though I know it’s Samoan Language Week, it’s one of the things, as a Cook Islander, that we can be proud of—that we actually were ahead of the Samoans. There were actually 500 Cook Islanders in World War I that were there. But it’s just a wonderful time for them to recognise the importance of their grandfathers and even, in some cases, of their fathers and think about the importance of that service. And, when I looked down at this report, I begin to see how the supporting families of imprisoned veterans—you know, this is such a wide-ranging report, and I just welcome the amendments to the Act. It begins to be able to look at how we can support the broader aspect of the impact of that.

Especially when I’ve heard the stories, when those have come back with—and we couldn’t name it back then—what it was—but now we can. It is post-traumatic stress disorder. And now it’s about an awareness that, actually, you can talk about that. But then often the people who bore the impact of that were the families, were the wives, were the children. So that’s why I want to speak to this recommendation and just wholeheartedly endorse the support that they will give and the understanding about what they’ve gone through. And, hopefully, into the future, then, the impact of this will say that when we do—I mean, war is war and, unfortunately, it has casualties to it and the conflict can be devastating and far reaching.

But I remember the reasons why the whole thing around the First World War—you know, the greatest of all wars that was meant to be—taught the lesson about rest and recreation—right? So they actually learnt that you couldn’t just continue to go on and be in battle in the conflict of war without actually being at a point where, actually, you need to have some time. And so that was a lesson that was learnt. So I hope that that also, too, is one of the lessons that we’re learning now that we carry on into the present—because the unfortunate thing is that human nature is such that this won’t be the last of conflicts that even in this House adorn the walls, talking about the conflicts that, as a country, we’ve been through. So what will be some of the learnings that we can take? So the Paterson report, I believe, is indicating some of that learning. How do we need to support those people during that period of time as well?

I just want to finally acknowledge the Minister’s declaration of a deployment as qualifying operational service is to be published on an internet site maintained by Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand rather than in the Gazette. I think, again, that’s activity and participation that’s broadened that out. Rather than a centralised approach, it’s getting a little bit more local to our communities as well.

So I’m pleased to be able to speak on this bill. I’m glad that I was able to take the call outside so that Banjo, who’s watching now tonight—so that I could advocate on his behalf some of the things that he was so passionate about and, at the same time, too, just wholeheartedly endorse these recommendations that I believe are just so important to recognise the service and the sacrifice that has been made by many of our veterans. I just want to commend the Minister on this bill as well. Thank you.

💬 Marama Davidson: Madam Speaker?

Well, are you calling?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really pleased and proud to be able to stand in the House tonight and support the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2). It’s about manaaki. It’s about care of our people who have afforded this country their service. But it’s also about whakapapa. It’s actually recognising that the care doesn’t just stop at that one particular person. And it also doesn’t just stop at that one particular generation, of any generation who have served. This bill is about recognising—and the proposed changes through this updated amendment bill recognise even better—that the trauma and the harm, while it was faced perhaps physically by one person, impacts over generations as well. And some of those proposed changes come through very clearly.

My colleagues have spoken remarkably well, of course, on the content of the first reading of this bill, and I also, too, support the first reading of the bill and just wanted to dive a little bit more into the review and into Professor Ron Paterson’s review and the report that began in June 2017—and it was into the operation of the original Veterans’ Support Act 2014. I wanted to acknowledge the work that was done behind getting this amendment bill to this House, because it’s really important how it sets up the changes that came through. It was to check whether the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 was working as well as it should be and was working in the way it was set up to work. The original was, of course, the War Pensions Act 1954, which then became the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. And the purpose of the new 2014 Act was to make sure how we’re providing rehabilitation and support to veterans who have been injured or become ill as a result of being placed in harm’s way in service. And so Professor Paterson, of course, travelled the country and sought submissions, which are the stories from around the country.

I actually was going to ask—what came to mind, reading through this bill—if the Hon Ron Mark had ever come across the fantastic novel, written by our hallowed writer Patricia Grace, called Tu. It talks about exactly what this bill is trying to address. It talks about particularly the mental and spiritual wellbeing of not just the person, the individual, but how it impacted across the community and actually impacted across generations. It came to mind, and I hope that you either have a copy or we’d better get you one.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: She’s my cousin.

You’ve got one. In reading through this bill tonight—of course the member does. Of course the Minister has a copy.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: I’m a Grace.

Of course. So the terms of reference for that and the sorts of areas considered in the report to bring this bill to pass were looking at where more clarity is needed. Well, this is what has come through in the proposed changes. We’re looking at where the needs of veterans could be better met. That also has come through in these changes. And also wanted to look at whether the new Act was flexible enough, and an example of that is modernising the definition of the term “child”. Whānau can mean all sorts of things. So I was really pleased in particular to pick up on that change that came through in the areas that were considered. Is it flexible? Can it evolve to meet the purposes? Is it fit for purpose as the context changes?

I did want to mention that it was overseen, I understand, by Vice Chief of Defence Force Air Vice-Marshal Kevin Short. And, in tonight’s speeches, I did hear the Hon Michael Woodhouse refer to—yeah, in this very Chamber—the fact that we’ve got all the plaques acknowledging the various conflicts. But the most recent one was actually the New Zealand Wars plaque that we only—gosh, was that last year? It was only last year that we all woke up really early and had a wonderful opening to add the New Zealand Wars plaque just behind me. It got me thinking about how I hope we can, through the passing of this bill, ensure that we are talking about how to take care of all of the conflicts that our people of this nation have been involved with.

I did want to pull out, in particular—so there’s a 15th change that was not itself part of the Paterson report, I believe, but it is proposed for inclusion in the bill, and it would allow the Minister to declare deployments qualifying operational service. I’m pleased to affirm that the intention of the change is simply to ensure that all veterans who qualify for entitlements are able to receive them. That was an assurance that I thought was important—so even in cases where their service cannot be publicly recognised for security reasons. And I do think the Minister may have referred to that somewhat in his initial speech tonight.

So I thought those were some of the main points that I wanted to pick up in my speech tonight. As I said at the beginning, this is about veteran wellbeing, but it’s about whānau and community wellbeing, which is why the proposed changes do things like extend service access to families and extend the children’s bursary. It’s about understanding the impact is on us as a nation, in fact, and never just left with that one individual person who gave so much. The wellbeing impacts are felt across communities and felt across generations, and so I’m very pleased to see this bill come to the House. I congratulate the Hon Ron Mark, and I am very pleased that we are showing some manaaki and care for veterans. Thank you.

Kia ora. Thank you. In taking this call, I’m very privileged to speak to this Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) 2020 and, accordingly, I acknowledge Minister Mark. Undoubtedly, you are feeling a sense of pride but also privilege and humility as well. So, accordingly, I acknowledge you, Minister.

Madam Speaker and members in the House this evening, and whoever may be viewing out there in our homes, in our kāinga, our whare, I stand and reflect on where I am standing in addressing everybody this evening—and I always do when I enter this Chamber—because the walls are adorned with a memorial and plaques and wreaths, which is an acknowledgment of those who have gone before but also those who are still here, our veterans. I’m ever so mindful of that because these walls speak voluminously, and when I speak, I always factor that in. This is the Chamber in commemoration and in honour of those who have given their lives and those of our veterans who, in service, did put their lives on the line, and this bill is acknowledging, finally, a fuller level of support than before—Minister Mark has addressed the detail of that. So I would like to seize the opportunity just to talk about some memories associated with our veterans and those who have given service, lest we forget.

I stand and often speak in this House in the debates associating where I come from, who I come from, and those relationships. This week, I was honoured with the added responsibility as spokesperson for the National Party around the Māori-Crown relations. And so I speak about the relationships in the way that these walls do, in honouring and acknowledging those who have given service. For those of past generations, we look around for those who have given service: World War I; World War II; of course, going back to the New Zealand Māori Land Wars. And then, of my generation, I see over here the plaque of those who gave service at Korea; then just over here, Malaya, Malaysia, Vietnam, Timor-Leste, Afghanistan. And I know people who have died but also those who are still living, having given service, and those who are our veterans.

And when I am at home—and also I harken back to when I was a child. The memories I have—although I was young, but I did accompany my father to the battalions, the meeting places of our veterans at the army halls, at the Returned and Services’ Association (RSA), and have done that ever since I was a child. And, as I stand and speak this evening, in relation to this veterans’ support bill, my childhood memory is of the regimental sergeant major of the 5th Battalion in Wanganui, since passed, Toko Samuels. Toko’s son David is now the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri, and David was a childhood friend of my brother Waata, and they both served as New Zealand Army officers, as did Minister Mark—and they are veterans.

However, we have veterans who are associated with a different generation, my father’s generation. My father was also a military serviceman with the New Zealand Air Force. My great-grand-uncle was a pilot with the RAF, the Great Escape. They are all veterans—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do want to be respectful to the member—

I’m coming back to the bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: —but we are discussing a bill, not the wider, general debate.

We are, and it’s appropriate that I acknowledge the veterans who have given service. And it’s appropriate that this bill is now acknowledging those veterans who are still living and that it stands in support of them.

As is well known, and I’ve been reminded, the first reading of the bill is talking about the detail of what this is about. So I now turn to this. There was a review that had been commissioned and undertaken by Professor Ron Paterson. And, again, the relationship: Professor Paterson was a former law lecturer of mine. The last time that I spoke with Professor Paterson, he was also part of the mental health inquiry, and I spoke with him of Wanganui. So the correlation, coming back to this bill, is that this bill also addresses and provides support for our veterans in terms of the trauma of the battles that they encountered and part of that trauma as well—and Minister Mark well knows this—is that often many of our veterans battled with the State and battled with the system in terms of entitlement of support.

So, without going into detail about this, this bill is about that: the purposes, the implementation of some of those 64 recommendations that Professor Paterson, in terms of his engagement with the people, has reported back and are now being implemented in this bill. Some of the details around that—and I do hearken back to the RSAs throughout the decades that I’ve been there, and I’ve listened to the veterans, because the RSAs are a gathering place. They are like a marae. They are also a place where there are not only just the friendships of those that they fought with, but family members go there, and it is the sharing of and an outpouring of memories. But also the RSAs, to some extent, in the absence of any proper therapeutic intervention around what is now known as post-traumatic stress disorder—back to World War I, World War II, shell shock—became places of therapy to deal with those traumas, sometimes not so appropriately, but certainly and many times the camaraderie is long lived and continues. So this bill talks about that—Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand now having the ability to fund private mental health services until eligibility for public services is established. And so I talk about the RSAs as a place of gathering where that was addressed and dealt with.

I also talked about the families who are spouses and children. And I know families. I know children, actually, who are the result of agent orange and the Vietnam War. And so this bill will also address, when it becomes law, the easing of access to the support and the medical treatment. And I talked about those who have died. So when our veterans, men and woman, do eventually come to die, their surviving spouses or partners will have access to the appropriate pension and support and funeral services. It has been addressed in this House—the psychological impact on our veterans and on our families.

I would like just now to move to the impact of our veterans on the next generation. It is digressing from the bill somewhat, but it’s talking about those relationships which are so critical. This bill, soon to be law, is about the Crown’s relationship and the Crown’s duty and the responsibility to support and enable our veterans and their families to stand taller than what they have done. And the influence of the veterans: I look up here at the wreath and the memory of Gallipoli. My son, when he was in his last year at school, wrote an essay, and that was about the price of citizenship. That was the story as to why it was that Māori fought for their nation when they came from this level of oppression—I’m going back to World War I, World War II. As a result of that, my boy was part of the Prime Minister’s delegation to Gallipoli for the 95th commemoration. The Minister of Veterans’ Affairs at that time is now my colleague, former Minister Judith Collins. The impact that the veterans had on my boy’s life was life changing. The importance of this bill is that it is now life-changing for many of our veterans. It is about the easing of the way: our veterans, in imparting their stories and imparting their experiences, as devastating as they are, impose on the next generation the importance of other ways to deal with conflict.

In closing, such was the significance of my son’s engagement with the veterans in travelling to Gallipoli, but also attending other veterans at the commemoration of my great-grand-uncle, who was part of the Great Escape and executed—the veterans’ impact was life altering in changing my son, where now he gives service at a different level, in terms of addressing world conflict by means of peace. In concluding, undoubtedly this bill has the full support of the House. It has the full support of the National Party, and it has been a privilege to be able to address the House. In closing, may I just also refer to two sons—

The member’s time has finished.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll take a very brief call today to speak on the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to acknowledge the service that has occurred for generations in this country, and I’ve had the pleasure and the privilege of attending Passchendaele as a member of Parliament and speaking the ode under the Menin Gate. I have also had the honour and privilege to attend Anzac Cove, Gallipoli Peninsula, for Anzac Day last year. Those experiences change a person. It was an honour and a privilege, and what I would say tonight is that it is going to be an honour and a privilege as a member of the select committee to craft this bill on behalf of the veterans and get them the best piece of legislation that they can. With that, I’ll take my seat.

It’s an absolute pleasure to stand and be able to speak on a bill that enjoys cross-party support. But, above all that, it is an honour—quite undeserved, actually—for a civilian like myself, whose exposure to war and active conflict is limited to cinematic works and documentaries and news, and for a civilian who has been to military camps only on visits, with the last experience being to Trentham as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. So, quite undeservedly, I am honoured to be able to speak on this bill.

The cross-party support for the bill is proper. It is proper, as it addresses the amendments and improvements that the Paterson report has recommended, and it is inspirational as well, as we in Parliament lead the country in recognising the invaluable support of the veterans and the people in the Defence Force who serve now and whose contribution to New Zealand in the service that they have provided and provide allows us to live in the New Zealand that is now. It is through their struggle that we are able to live as we do now.

I focus my contribution on the recognition of the Paterson report that the impact of the veteran’s service lasts well beyond his retirement. I cannot imagine fear as they have felt fear. I will probably be in that privileged lot of an age that doesn’t have to see war and that hopes that the country we live in will never actually see war. Because of that, it is a privilege, and it is a privilege that we live here now through the work of others before us and the work of others who are amongst us. So, in recognising the effects of that staring in the face of mortal danger, which is unimaginable to an ordinary person like myself, that fear, once experienced, must certainly affect that person’s life throughout his life, and not just his life but for every member of his family and the people that he is close to. The Paterson report focuses on support for the family, which is undeniably so needed. It defines who may be considered children. It recognises the support of non-family, non-professional people who support the veterans.

Again, I just want to relish the fact that I am not—and, hopefully, probably will never be—in a position where I personally would be exposed to mortal danger. I can keep on and on and on in recognition and awe of the people who, on this recent trip to Trentham Military Camp, I met, who do so much, and who not only work amongst themselves but who impart their kind of life to others, because we visited a sort of boot camp—a training facility for vulnerable youth. It was a wonder to see and to hear their accounts of how difficult it is to deal with youth who are going through the difficulties that they face. They—as we are—are the same in the sense that we will never know fear in the way the veterans have known fear and have faced fear themselves.

Finally, I would like to commend the great work that was done in getting the Veterans’ Support Act into place and the great work that has now been done to get this amendment bill into place. We thank the veterans and the Defence Force and the service personnel who go through the dangers that they go through for us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This bill in support of veterans is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

I move, That the Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 22 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I am seeking a shortened select committee process because it has now been almost two years since the Paterson report was tabled in this House and because it is important that we improve the situation for veterans without further delay. There are aspects of this bill which have been strongly canvassed through Professor Paterson, and the veterans have indicated strongly that they have made all the submissions and are just simply wanting the bill amended. The measures contained in this bill will address priorities identified by those veterans in their feedback to Professor Paterson, as I said, when he reviewed the current legislation. They will provide immediate improvements to fairness and equity for these men and women and their families. I acknowledge and thank the Opposition and the whole of the House for the unified way in which members have spoken in support of this bill. I know that the committee will give it good consideration. The veterans of New Zealand have been waiting a long time for the improvements Professor Paterson called for—for it to be brought into effect They do not deserve to wait longer than is necessary.

This bill needs to be passed before the House rises at the end of this parliamentary term. Of course, I have had discussions with the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and I do understand and acknowledge the perspective that he’s about to voice. I would also acknowledge and state that, should there be any issue that is of concern to myself, that I don’t believe we could address swiftly, identified by the committee, the committee has the normal avenues of making whatever representation it feels appropriate to the Business Committee at that time. But I do emphasise veterans have been waiting patiently for a long time now, and they do want to see this bill passed.

I move, That the words “22 June” be replaced with “28 July”.

I think every member of this House supports the Minister’s desire and will work to the effect of having this bill passed in the term of this Parliament, which we know is likely to rise around 6 August. Now, the issue for me and for my colleagues—and I should stress that I have discussed this issue with the National Party spokesperson for veterans’ affairs, Chris Penk—is that while I accept the Minister’s point that there has been a very significant preamble in the preparation of this, there is no doubt in our minds that this remains a very complex piece of legislation, like its parent Act and, for example, other Acts that determine entitlements but have boundaries, like the Accident Compensation Act. There will always be people that fall on one side of the issue or the other.

Now, if the bill is referred to the select committee tonight/tomorrow and advice is called for, clearly, in the next week before the recess, it’s not going to be possible to do much more than call for submissions. Then we’re into June. We are, I suggest, in a very, very tight time frame to give effect to what I believe will be the many submissions that will be made, notwithstanding that the Minister has already consulted with key groups. But I know from experience that the veterans community is a broad one. It’s also very forthright in its views, and they often align themselves very much with the sorts of conflicts that they experienced.

Vietnam veterans, the nuclear test veterans, Korea, J-Force, and the very few World War II veterans that we have left are nevertheless very, very interested in the supports that are provided not so much for them but for the modern veteran. Indeed, the purpose of this and the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 was to update the Act in order to make sure that we have a broader net within which veterans are able to be captured, and in my first reading speech when that bill was first introduced, I made the point—I think it was the Hon Phil Goff who was the spokesperson for Labour in veterans’ affairs, and he agreed with the sentiment—that it was better to get it right than to get it early.

I have every confidence that the select committee is going to hear from a number of those veterans’ groups, whether or not they have already been consulted by the Minister’s office or Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand, to have their views heard. It behoves us to respect their right and what they will perceive as their duty to make a thoughtful submission, even if it’s in support of this bill. But I can see aspects of this already where there will be boundaries around qualifying service and the degree of entitlements that are going to mean that people will fall on the other side of that qualifying service.

There’s been reference, for example, to the fact that the Ron Paterson report did not include the definition of service in its scope. But we are, in this bill, as I understand it, changing that to, basically, put a blanket over any service prior to 1974, which is going to leave people like, for example, a close relative of mine, who served in the Sinai in the early 1980s as an Iroquois pilot, outside of the definition of that. I think he and his colleagues may well—he’s my brother—feel as though, while it is now, it wasn’t technically then so much a theatre of war or conflict; it was nevertheless a very, very active place and one that carried significant risk to both health and life.

Now, they will want to have a view on this, and what I have suggested to the Minister—and he was very receptive in this view—is that let’s actually use the time we’ve got between now and the rising of the House to give the select committee more time to hear from those submitters. As a quid pro quo, our members will work very hard to make sure that any improvements are supported and that when we get the bill back, in better shape, to the House—as I know there will be improvements to it—we will expedite that through this House in a timely manner. I happened to have occasion to speak to the Leader of the House tonight, who informed me that were that the case, were the Minister receptive to this amendment, he would use his best endeavours—and they were stronger words than that; basically, “We’ll make sure we get this through.”

So the question really is: having given the Government all of the time up until today, since the Paterson report was written, to get the bill shovel-ready and into the House, we give everybody else just three weeks, and then the Government then has another seven weeks in order to get the bill through. My amendment, effectively, says “You know what? Let’s give the select committee a little more time and the Government less time to bring it back, but with a commitment from us that we’re confident that we’ll get a better bill.” Nobody’s going to hold that up. We will support this, but I just feel we will get better legislation for these very deserving people if, indeed, we take just a little more time than the very short report-back period that the Minister’s motion gives.

All of that said—and I firmly believe that it’s necessary and appropriate to do so—the National Party remains supportive of the intention. I just hope one of two things don’t happen: firstly, that the select committee has to come back and ask for an extension from the Business Committee—that’s possible; we’ve seen it before when bills are given such a shortened report-back—and (2) we actually pass a bill into law that is subsequently found to have a gap or a hole in it. I don’t think, given the interregnum and the hiatus between now and the 53rd Parliament, that would actually be something that any of us would want to occur.

So I do ask the Minister and his parties around him to give careful consideration to enabling the select committee to give its best efforts in what is still two months and a bit. It’s still not a great length of time within which to be able to consider this legislation. As I say, I’m encouraged by the Minister, at least his willingness to listen if not yet to agree to my amendment. But I do commend it to him and to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, I’ve listened carefully to both the Minister’s reasoning for his proposed shortened report back and the amendment that has been put forward by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, in consultation with Chris Penk, our veterans spokesperson.

One of the things I learnt very early on in my time in the New Zealand Army was a phrase “Hurry up and wait.” And that was something we became very effective at doing. When I first enlisted, that was something we learnt, and when I commissioned as an infantry officer, I developed a slightly different view on that and it became more relevant, and I understood better why that was the case. It comes slightly to the planning and preparation, the mission analysis process you go through when you are assessing time and space in your deliberations. And, with that, one of the other rules of thumb we would always use is, when you receive your orders from a superior, you then determine the time frame that you have to work in within that—you allocate a third of that time frame to yourself for planning, and the other two-thirds goes to your subordinates for their planning and subsequent rehearsals and delivery of orders, etc., before implementing the plan.

I think it’s important to note that in the context of what we’re looking at here, the Paterson report came out in March 2018; that’s just over two years ago. I appreciate it takes time to get these proposals in the right space, but I’m heartened to hear that Mr Woodhouse has spoken with the Leader of the House, who has given his assurance or support for passing this through this Parliament. And I would be absolutely concerned if we weren’t able to achieve that, because I think it is important to do that. But perhaps taking an additional month to consider this in the select committee process would be appropriate, to give any submitters the opportunity to share their views on why they would or would not fit within what’s been defined within this.

When we look at some of the proposals in terms of a limited entitlement to treatment or counselling services for the veteran’s family members—spouse, partner, child, dependant—how limited, who potentially constitutes a family member within that, and the guardians, because we’re talking about changing the definition of child under this as well. So there will potentially be scenarios where someone doesn’t quite qualify for what is being put forward in this bill, and it would be a real shame to see them miss out because we thought we had it right and we didn’t quite give them enough time or space to submit and to clearly articulate their views to the committee and for the committee to subsequently consider that and report back to the House.

So, on that basis, I would like to support Mr Woodhouse’s amendment extending the report-back date from 22 June, as put forward by the Minister, out until 28 July in order to enable those veterans, their family members—or, indeed, any stakeholder who may wish to express a view on this bill—to do so in that period. Having the report back at that point still gives us then a sufficient window if we act efficiently—which is always the intent from a military perspective—to then process this bill through the remaining stages, in terms of the second reading, the committee of the whole House, and third reading, to enable it to receive the Royal assent and pass into law. Obviously, as we’ve heard tonight, that is the clear intent of Parliament—to have it passed in this term—and so, on that basis, I am very keen to support the proposal put forward and just wonder whether there is ongoing consideration of that, in terms of a position we reach in agreement with the Government on this particular piece of legislation.

So there is a lot to be considered, and, whilst the bill is not particularly robust, there are many, many pages to consider. They are important considerations that need to be made throughout. The assessment of that qualifying operational service, I think, is one of the key aspects, and Mr Woodhouse touched on that a bit earlier on as well, in terms of what does or doesn’t fit within that. And, again, different operational theatres we deploy to as the New Zealand Defence Force can change threat levels over time, and what may or may not be qualifying operational experience can therefore vary as well. And, of course, it’s not just direct military contact; that can be other aspects in terms of the nuclear components or a range of other environments that can be classified, at the Minister’s determination, to be qualifying operational experience.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That thirty seconds actually needs to be on a very tight—you do have a colleague who’s—

Yes, and so we look at those aspects because there are those range of different considerations around qualifying operational experience; the time frame to consider that and to enable those different veterans from different classes to put forward their submissions, to indeed work within their different groups. And, of course, the Returned and Services Associations—I’d like to acknowledge the great work that they do in terms of providing support to veterans, and I’m sure they will have a range of views on this and would like to canvass their members quite widely. That can take some time, but it’s an important process.

So, on that basis, I’m happy to go with the consensus between the Minister and Mr Woodhouse. I think we have reached a position here, and I look forward to seeing this bill progress through the rest of the stages this Parliament.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I move that the amendment in my name be further amended from the replaced words from “28 July” to “21 July”.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you’re seeking leave?

Oh, I’m seeking leave for that. Do I seek leave? I can seek leave if that’s the case.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the easiest way would be to seek leave to amend your amendment that’s on the floor of the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to amend the motion in my name to read now, “I move, That the words ‘22 June’ be replaced with ‘21 July’.”

So leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the motion in the name of the Hon Ron Mark be agreed to:

That the words “22 June” be replaced with “21 July”.