Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill

Thank you. Madam Speaker. I rise, as the Labour Party spokesperson on veterans’ affairs, to speak on the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill. In acknowledging those in the House who have served—my colleague Dan Rosewarne only two weeks ago was still a serving regular force captain in the New Zealand Army, and so it brings home just how recently many of these military engagements that we are all aware of have occurred. I’m also aware that we are standing in a war memorial here in this Chamber, and I think many of us, on quiet occasions, have cause to reflect on those who went before us. As Tim van de Molen has mentioned, the fact of the proximity to Anzac Day—that he gets to read this bill for the first time—is somewhat serendipitous.

I had hoped at this stage to bring a medal of my own, which is my Police long service and good conduct medal. Yes, good conduct, Mr Bayly; I don’t like that quizzical look on your face—

💬 Hon Andrew Bayly: Yes, I’m surprised. Very surprised.

💬 GREG O'CONNOR: The only reason I didn’t have it here is that I wore it very recently at Government House, where my police cadet wing had a 50-year reunion. I noticed that many here, in the previous bill, were talking about being children of the 1980s. Many of you, with some mathematical ability, will work out that having joined the police 50 years ago, I probably am not a child of the 1980s. However, the significance of my decoration, that medal, became apparent. Many of my colleagues have left the police. That medal is not awarded in the police until you have 14 years of sworn service, and subsequently you get a bar for each seven years—I got to 41 years and nine months. I would have got my fourth bar on my medal; however, I couldn’t be a sworn member of Parliament and of the services at the same time, so I missed out by that three months.

However, we all fronted up at Government House, and Dame Cindy Kiro was very gracious in organising and inviting us there. We were the Sir Denis Blundell Police Cadet Wing, and being the wing sponsored by a Governor-General, he allowed us to become the first service of any of the forces not only to graduate but to ever march at Government House. Those members who didn’t quite make the 14 years who were there—and there were many of them—looked somewhat in envy, I suppose, disquiet, but certainly looked at those of us that actually did stay long enough to get our medals and felt that perhaps maybe they would like to have stayed a little bit longer. Certainly, I know the feeling they got, and that we all got, being among our peers, was that that was an earned medal.

Speaking on this bill tonight, I think it gives some context to how earned many, in fact all, of these decorations are. I’m sure my colleague on my left—having, I know, served in many of the more recent conflicts and war-like situations that Tim van de Molen spoke about, which the New Zealand forces are still in today—will perhaps be able to share some of his own experiences.

Given that context, that is why I think it’s very important that we take breaches of the wearing of these decorations so seriously.

In researching, even some of the rules in this House were actually set around pertaining to military service. One, you can’t call anyone a coward here. That’s because, for those who did go away to war, when they came back after the First World War and the Second World War, it was forbidden to actually refer to the fact that one of your fellow parliamentarians hadn’t actually gone away. Of course, that led to a lot of aggravation in the Chamber, disorder in the Chamber, so it was actually banned. Although I was looking for it—I knew that I’d seen it somewhere, but I couldn’t quite get to the—I generally know Speakers’ rulings, as you do, Madam Speaker, right down to the nth degree, but this one I couldn’t quite land on at the time. That gives some idea of how the military aspect of our lives is still very much here today.

In fact, this relatively small piece of legislation is, I see, increasing the fine. It’s interesting that we’re now going to $10,000 from £20. I just did a quick calculation. Allowing for inflation, the fine would actually only be about $2,600. That’s something that perhaps will be able to be sorted out—assuming that this does get to select committee, that’s something that we will actually be able to sort out. There may well be some rationale behind that hefty hike. I think it would probably be a relatively cold day that anyone would be fined $10,000, but I think, having been dragged before the court—and I know the case that Tim van de Molen just spoke about. I think it was someone from Levin, the head of the RSA, who had been brought to task—in fact, taken to court—and fined $500 for doing that very thing.

I think the mere fact of standing in a dock somewhere being so charged would probably be sufficient punishment itself, but certainly it doesn’t hurt always to revisit these things and just ensure that, as we discuss this in the House tonight, as we debate this in the House tonight, we do reflect on what these things mean to us. I think, as a New Zealand society, we are the sum of our component bits—those component bits as far as human occupation goes, from the 1200s, when humans first set foot here, to everyone that’s been here since. As we sit here tonight, we do represent all that came before us.

I’d like to think that this bill—and certainly Labour will be supporting it—will receive the support and acknowledgment of these military decorations and acceptance of the work and the relevance of the work we still do. There are a couple of other bills that will be before the House. This is one of three bills. The Anzac Day amendment bill, which Mr van de Molen—I don’t think I congratulated you on getting your first bill drawn in nine years. Having been lucky enough to have a couple myself, I know it’s a great feeling that day to hear when you’ve actually been pulled out. If luck goes, if you’ve got another one there, you’ll probably get another one next month, because these things tend to come in pairs.

There’s another bill: the Veterans’ Recognition Bill. There is some disquiet among our veterans community about just what recognition they do get. It’s the Sir Wira Gardiner case. Wira Gardiner was a very well-known New Zealander. He died of glioblastoma—Agent Orange—which has been pretty much recognised for those Vietnam veterans, which was another group that took a long time to get recognition when they came back. That has been a hard-fought case through the courts, and the veterans community are still awaiting resolution of that, just to see the tone or, shall we say, the way in which the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 is being administered.

Again, it gives me great pleasure to say that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill. There’s probably a little bit of work to be done at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which we’ll look forward to doing, to make sure that this bill and this particular part of the recognition of the military service—of those who went before us, those of course who gave their lives—is very much part of the way in which we recognise modern New Zealand. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

I want to start by congratulating Tim van de Molen for the bill and for having the bill drawn. This month, as he said in introducing the bill, we commemorate Anzac Day. Of course, it’s great to see the growing support again for Anzac Day commemorations because all of that is about honouring the people who have served our country. That really is what this bill is about doing: it’s about the integrity of the honour that we give.

Recently, of course, we had quite a discussion about the Anzac Day Amendment Act and that was all about broadening the recognition of those who put themselves in harm’s way on behalf of our country. It said it’s not just those who served in military, it’s also those who served in non-military uniforms—it might be nurses, it might be people in the Merchant Navy, whoever it might have been—who put themselves in harm’s way in the service of this country. Of course, at the time, I was very, very strong on saying I want to make sure that we don’t forget the recognition of those New Zealanders who also served effectively alongside our services, but in the colours of another country—fighting for the same purpose—that we don’t forget them because there are many, many thousands of Kiwis who did exactly that.

This bill, in part, is about expanding recognition, and we’ve already heard that expanding the recognition in its language to say it recognises that both men and women have served our country in times of war and in war-like situations. That is a very positive thing, but the bill is a relatively small bill. That would be quite nice, actually, to tie it in with the Anzac Day Amendment Act, but the main component there is updating the penalty for falsely claiming military honours.

The current Act, as we know, dates from December 1918, so the penalties are just a tad dated. We’ve already heard—you know, what does £20 equate to in today’s money? It’s interesting; we often have debates in select committee about penalties which are set at some point in time, inflation occurs, and then the penalties become completely outdated. Well, here is that in spades. We argue about that and we get pushback from the bureaucracy saying, “Well, we can’t really allow for penalties to be able to be changed by Order in Council.” But I think that is a problem because it means that every time we have to change any piece, any penalty, we come back and we’ve got to go to this whole process of a bill, which of course is a very expensive process, so I do encourage us to have a think about that.

If you look back at what £20 in December 1918 equates to today, it equates to something like $2,772, according to the Reserve Bank’s inflation calculator. It was interesting to see that inflation was running at 13 percent that particular year, so, clearly in wartime, it got a little bit out of control. Of course, we’re seeing a little bit of that kind of thing even though we’re not even involved in a war, but wars in other places affect us in terms of inflation rates. Then again, some of that came from the Green Party and they’re not particularly well acquainted with either economics or inflation.

You could argue that this is an offence without victims. You know, somebody’s wearing something, it makes them feel good; who’s worried about it? Quite clearly, that is wrong because, as we just argued at length in the Anzac Day Amendment Act, it’s important that we recognise the service that people have given. That’s the service where people have put themselves at risk. They might have seen friends and colleagues who are killed or seriously wounded. They might have been wounded themselves; they might even have been killed. That is a serious contribution to our country and it is something which is important that we respect and that we honour.

Somebody who is passing themselves off as having gone through that process and having served and having won medals or whatever it might be, who has not won that, who has not earned those, that is something that is severely disrespectful—we’ve already heard that in the introduction of this bill—to those people who have put themselves in harm’s risk for their country.

New Zealand First has always been a proud supporter of our Defence Force and of all those who have served and the recognition of those. We support that tradition, we honour that service, and we want to preserve the honour of those people who have worn our country’s uniform, served their country in times of war or war-like conditions, and that is what this bill is about.

Military decorations are revered representations of bravery, of service, and of devotion to our country. That is why false claims are so offensive, and we have seen a number of those happening around the world where people have been passing themselves off as having been someone they’re not, having earned medals they have not—and has genuinely caused deep offence. That is why I commend this bill to the House and thank Tim van de Molen for bringing this bill to the House.

💬 Hon Members: Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, the Labour Party sheet is incorrectly listed. So the next two speeches are inverted. Tim Costley.

Good evening, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure, as always, to speak on a bill on a members’ day—especially when it’s the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill in the name of Tim van de Molen. I congratulate Tim for having this drawn and for bringing it to the House. When Tim first spoke to me about this bill that he was considering doing, I immediately said, yes, this is an important thing to do.

One of the things that this bill does is increase the penalty for purporting to have something where you haven’t—stolen valour is one way of putting it. Increasing that higher than would be expected for just inflationary change, from £20 in 1918 to $10,000 now, is not merely saying that this is just an increase to a penalty; it’s another way of saying how much we value service. We value service so much that if people are pretending that they served, the infringement and the fine that they will get for that will be very substantial. Members across the House might not understand the importance of that and why that matters to veterans. I think it’s worth saying that if you do this, it is a significant event. It is a significant fine, and $10,000 is a lot of money for just about everybody. Yes, it has been noted that there’s only been one prosecution in New Zealand regarding this, but that doesn’t mean to say that there haven’t been more instances of this. They may not have made the media in the same way, but just because something hasn’t come through the courts does not mean that it’s not an important issue. That’s why it was quite ironic, actually, to hear squat—Scott Willis—

💬 Dana Kirkpatrick: Squat Willis.

💬 Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Squat Willis, sorry, Scott Willis—after we had just been debating the parody bill, which had no legal problems leading to its being brought to the House. To then say it’s not important to be discussing this bill, and, as my gallant friend Tim Costley says, for him to stand in a war memorial and say that this bill is about nostalgia was outrageous and quite despicable. If he was here, I would almost ask him to withdraw and apologise. I hope that he considers coming back to the House to withdraw and apologise for all of those people.

Tonight, we are discussing this on 1 April, not far from Anzac Day, and it’s appropriate that we have this bill brought in at this time. It’s also part of a suite of things that the National-led Government is doing to further recognise our veterans. We’ve recently had the Anzac Day bill that has been through the House and also there is the work that’s been done on recognition for veterans, which are separate items. There has been a lot of contention around how we respond to those who have served and those who have entitlements because of their service, and injuries or illness that may have been a result of those services. It’s important that we delineate those and don’t cross-pollinate, if you like, between those bills because they are separate and discrete issues; that’s why they’re not all brought together at once.

This is an opportunity to speak about the importance of medallic recognition, to what it means for our country that we value people who serve, and what it means to those veterans and to other people who are serving at the moment; that we do show that this has a real value and that it’s not just a token thing, and that the penalty is high and harsh for this kind of misdemeanour if it happens. With that, I, again, congratulate my colleague Tim van de Molen and commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, happy to take the last call here and can I start by thanking members across the Chamber that have spoken on the bill this evening. I think it has been encouraging, in nearly all cases, to hear strong support for the intent of the bill and the genuine approach that members are bringing to the consideration of this as it hopefully progresses through the subsequent stages: select committee next and then back into the House.

There’s a couple of things that I just wanted to note that I didn’t quite get time for in my first contribution and also in response to some of the comments. It’s been picked up by others as well, but the intent here is not at all to stop family members from recognising those that have served—grandfather, great-grandfather, parents, kids, whatever their example situation may be for them. As Mr Costley explained, they wear those medals then on the right-hand side to symbolise that it wasn’t themselves that earned it, but they’re wearing it on behalf of a family member. That is entirely appropriate and, indeed, we encourage that. It’s a great way for them to be able to share their pride in the service of a family member and also to commemorate that service in the community at Anzac Day and the likes. So not stopping that at all; it’s, really, just about ensuring that we are cracking down on some of that disgraceful behaviour that’s been canvassed across the House.

Now, there’s a comment around the level of the fine being above inflation. I thought Vanessa Weenink spoke quite well to that, and that, actually, the intent was to demonstrate that this is a valuable consideration for us. The value of the veteran’s service is a key part of that. Now, look, there’s also an element of, I guess, futureproofing within that too, right? It’s a maximum fine of $10,000, so there is discretion, but we don’t want to be coming back to the House every five years having to adjust that threshold to make it a reasonable deterrent again, so that’s the point there: it’s actually reasonably in step with comparable jurisdictions as well. I’m pretty comfortable with that $10,000 level, but, of course, open to hearing feedback on that from submitters through the process as well.

Now, we’ve also had a handful of people ask, “Well, who are these 10 MPs in the House, currently, that have served?” I think there’s been a few hints given out, in terms of some of the medal racks that have been held up tonight. I will name and shame, actually, and we’ll start with the most recent addition to the debating chamber—indeed, a welcome back to Dan Rosewarne from the Labour Party, great to have him back in the team and I acknowledge his service in the New Zealand Army; Andy Foster from New Zealand First who served in the New Zealand Navy; then, in the National Party, we have Andrew Bayly and Shane Reti, who both served in the army; Chris Penk who served in the navy; myself, Joseph Mooney, and Penny Simmonds in the army; Tim Costley in the air force, bless him; and Vanessa Weenink in the army. Sorry, just a little bit of banter there between services.

Look, I think it’s relevant to note that, actually, because it’s a really important part of the pride that I think each of those members brings and, indeed, that we are standing in a memorial here, acknowledging the service of many people that have come before us. I think it’s an important step to acknowledge and so I want to thank them for their service. Beyond that, as I’ve said, this is really about acknowledging the service of veterans across New Zealand and ensuring that we continue to do that in a respectful manner, to clamp down on those who seek to misrepresent themselves as something they are not, and to ensure—well, hopefully to act as a deterrent, so we’re not actually having to use this legislation in the first place.

I hope that over the course of this process of going through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and back into the House we may get support from the Green Party. I know it had some initial indications of support earlier on. It’s a shame to see they appear to have changed their view on that. Hopefully they’ll come back round and recognise that it’s not just about nostalgia, as Scott Willis horribly put it but, actually, it’s an appropriate recognition of what has been a very important service on behalf of New Zealand.

I’ll leave it at that, but thanks again to all members who spoke on this, I appreciate the contribution. I look forward to the next stage and welcome submissions from the community, as well. I’m really looking forward to that feedback on how we might be able to massage it and make it better, if necessary, and then come back to the House. I commend it and look forward to the next step. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee