Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a privilege—sorry, let me just start that again. I move, That the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

Now, apologies for the initial confusion there, Madam Speaker, this is new territory for me. Unlike some fortunate members in the House, this is my first member’s bill, after nearly nine years in this debating chamber, so it is a pleasure to have the opportunity now to speak on what I believe to be an important member’s bill. I look forward to gauging support across the House and I understand there is a good support for this proposal.

I’ll outline some of the aspects within this particular member’s bill, but before I do that, I just want to start by noting that New Zealand has a very proud history of military service: over 180 years’ worth since our initial militia was set up—now, of course, the New Zealand Defence Force. We have deployed all around the world in conflicts: of course, World War I and World War II, where we lost 18,000 New Zealanders and 12,000 New Zealanders respectively between those two conflicts, but indeed many conflicts since that time as well, and that’s the really important part that I want to highlight. Indeed, we did highlight that just recently with the passing of the Anzac Day Amendment Act, which sought to broaden the scope of that piece of legislation beyond those two world wars and a few subsequent conflicts—actually right up to modern environments.

Many people may not actually be aware, but we have a lot of Defence personnel right now all around the world in all sorts of deployments, doing all sorts of amazing things for the safety and security of New Zealand on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand. I want to thank and acknowledge all of those Defence personnel currently offshore and, indeed, all of those currently serving, and of course the veteran community as well, which is the crux of this piece of legislation.

Of course, here we are in the House on 1 April. Now, later this month, we will be commemorating. I’m sure all members in this House will be getting up bright and early for dawn services to commemorate on Anzac Day around the country. Indeed, that’s one of the particularly special parts of the role for me in the Waikato electorate. It’s always a challenge to get around to the different events that are happening from an Anzac Day perspective, because there are so many in a large electorate—as I’m sure you can relate to as well, Madam Speaker. But it is one of the best parts of the role, to go around and see genuine community members out taking a moment, particularly at dawn services, to put themselves into some slight imposition by getting up early and going along to commemorate those who have served on behalf of New Zealand and, in many cases, made the ultimate sacrifice.

Now, we owe a great debt to those people. I think pretty much every member of the community understands that and wants to acknowledge that and demonstrate their respect for that service. This is part of the challenge that’s led to this member’s bill, because we have, unfortunately, some people in New Zealand who like the idea of that recognition, of being honoured in a fashion that veterans are, without actually having done the service, without actually having earned that respect. That is, really, the crux of the member’s bill that I bring forward to the House today, around what’s often called “stolen valour”, where you get a person representing themselves as having served, wearing an array of medals on Anzac Day or at some other function when, indeed, they have not earned those medals or been awarded those medals. I find that particularly egregious, and I think most Kiwis do as well, because it belittles the experience of those that did genuinely serve and did genuinely receive those medals; those declarations as a result of the sacrifice that they made away from their family, from their friends, on behalf of the country. That should never be undermined.

There has been, of course, a piece of legislation here. The original Act was developed or passed into law in 1918—so that’s a wee while ago now, as members of the House would appreciate. That’s why we need to bring forward this modernisation bill, because, actually, within the Act as it stands now, one of the penalties is a fine of a maximum of £20. That’s somewhat outdated in the context of New Zealand in 2026 and forms part of my logic for bringing this bill forward.

It’s an interesting one because, as I said, I think everyone agrees that that’s a pretty terrible thing for someone to do—to portray themselves as having earned or received those medals or decorations when, indeed, they have not. But there’s some nuances around that too, because there are also situations where someone may have served and may be a veteran and may have medallic recognition, but not necessarily for all of the medals they’re wearing. Unfortunately, we see that sometimes too. It is, on occasions, veterans themselves who dress themselves up to be more than the service that they did would allow. That is a concern, as well, but it’s on a gradient. I think that’s where the details of the bill—and I’ll get into the particulars of the change that I’m proposing, shortly—will allow for some flexibility.

You also have a situation where there are unofficial medals that have been presented to a member of the defence force, they may already have their medals, and then they have an unofficial medal that they are not entitled to add to their medal rack. I’ve got some examples here—that could be the United States Antarctica Service Medal, it could be the Australian Chief of Defence Force Group Commendation. It’s possible for a New Zealand serviceperson to be awarded that, but not to add it to their other medals that they have. In some cases, though, they do. That may be a bit of a protest vote—there may be any reason in behind that. Again, that’s not allowed, but that’s part of why there needs to be a bit of flexibility in how the penalties are put out under this legislation.

The anticipation has been building, I know. In terms of the actual changes that I’m proposing here, what we’re looking at is under section 4A, which refers to the “(Offences in respect of military decorations)”—actually, take away the piece that says “ ‘and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $500’.” Then down in section 6, under “(Penalties)”, “replace—‘section 4 with ‘section 4 [and] 4A’;”—so that encapsulates that previous piece I just mentioned. And then change the fine, under section 6, from “20 pounds” to “$10,000”. That is a more accurate reflection, I think, of where the fine should be set this year and then doesn’t make the distinction between decorations and medals and badges and the likes under this legislation. It’s just a simpler approach within that. I should clarify that is a maximum. There is discretion within that, as I said—depending on the severity of the offence—to increase or decrease the fine.

The other piece that I want to modernise, while we’re at it with this 108-year-old piece of legislation, is to change in section 4A(2)(a) the word “himself” to “themselves”, because, actually, it’s not just men that serve in the New Zealand Defence Force; we have women who do an incredible job with the Defence Force as well.

I actually want to take a moment now to acknowledge some of the service in this debating chamber, because there are actually 10 currently serving MPs that have served in the New Zealand Defence Force. I think many members of this House wouldn’t actually realise it was that high. I suspect that’s the highest it’s been for quite some time. We have one in the Labour Party, who I’m sure will be speaking shortly; one in New Zealand First; and eight in the National Party. I think that’s a really impressive step to have. And look, that’s not the crux of why I’m bringing forward this bill, but I think it demonstrates that we care deeply about the military, we understand some of those challenges, and that’s why this piece of legislation is coming forward.

The aim here, obviously, is modernising this legislation, but, really, we don’t want to be using this legislation. I would love for this change to act as a deterrent so that we don’t see these people making these bad decisions and turning up and misrepresenting themselves. Unfortunately, we have seen cases of it, and members will have seen media over the last few years where this occasionally pops up—an RSA president, for example, down in Rolleston, I believe it was; some of these situations that are not great. Hopefully, the intent here is that this acts as a deterrent, stops some of that terrible behaviour from happening, and enables us to have more confidence in supporting our veterans.

I look forward to the select committee process. I welcome submissions on the bill, and I’m open to improvements as we go. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill tonight. Thank you for giving me space to talk to this.

At the outset, I can say that it is important to acknowledge that we do support aspects of this bill, particularly the move to update the language so that it is inclusive and reflects the reality that military service is not limited by gender, just as we need toilets for everyone. However, the central issue is whether this legislation is necessary and proportionate. The evidence suggests that it’s not.

The behaviour that this bill seeks to address is that people falsely claiming military honours appears to be an extremely rare occurrence in Aotearoa. What is the problem that we’re trying to deal with here? The fact that there has been only a single prosecution under this law in over a century indicates that this is not a widespread or growing problem requiring legislative action. Good lawmaking should be driven by a clear need. In this case, there is very little to demonstrate that the current settings are failing or that stronger penalties are required to deter offending.

I acknowledge that we have a number of members in the House who have served in the armed forces, but I don’t really think that nostalgia is a reason why we should legislate. While the current fine may be outdated in pure monetary terms, as we’ve just heard, increasing it significantly does not solve a clearly identified problem. There is a question of proportionality. As my colleague Greg O’Connor noted, a jump to $10,000 for a fine is substantial, particularly when we compare it with what the original penalty would equate to today—as my colleague just mentioned, around $2,000.

More broadly, Parliament’s time and resources are limited. It’s important that we prioritise legislation that responds to real, pressing, and widespread issues affecting people. This bill does not meet that threshold, and for those reasons, while we support the inclusive language and the changes thereby, we don’t support progressing this bill as a whole. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am not quite sure what I just heard from the other side there but I think it’s completely rude and disrespectful to every single person who has served, who is serving, and for all of these plaques along this wall that have encouraged us as a country to be democratic and allow members of the Parliament to be elected to be in here—comes about from all of those people who have served and given their life.

I rise, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the ACT Party, more explicitly on behalf of Mark Cameron, an MP who’s unable to be here this evening because of an illness and who would like me to speak positively on this bill, and respectfully for all of those people who have served and continue to serve for democracy in New Zealand.

The Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill, I believe, is needed. I would like to commend my colleague from the National Party, Mr Tim van de Molen, for bringing this to the House for us to vote positively on and to support. What this bill does, at its core, is ensure that the law properly reflects the value that we place on service and on sacrifice.

The principal Act, which dates back to 1918, was designed to protect against people falsely presenting themselves as recipients of military decorations or distinctive badges, and that protection still matters. When someone wears a medal pretending that they earned it, they’re not just telling a lie, they are trading on the courage, on the hardship, and on the sacrifice of others. Instances of that behaviour are fortunately rare in New Zealand but rarity does not mean irrelevance.

Updating the penalty to a modern level of up to $10,000 ensures that the law carries genuine weight and reflects our expectations. The bill also makes a small but meaningful change to reflect that military service is no longer only for men. I still am quite perplexed as to why the Green member Scott Willis thought it was important at that stage to talk about toilets, when we’re talking about modernising—that service is no longer just for men. That amendment acknowledges the reality of modern service and the contributions of women in uniform. It’s a modest drafting change, but symbolically it’s very important.

I just want to point out one minor thing that may warrant further consideration at select committee. In the principal Act is section 4A. That section has been in place for decades and that places an evidential burden on the defendant in certain circumstances. If we are revisiting this Act, it is appropriate to ask whether that remains consistent with the values that we seek to uphold, requiring a person to prove their innocence rather than the Crown proving guilt engages a fundamental principle of our legal systems. The men and women whose medals we are protecting served a country founded on the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, and so I encourage the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to also consider this.

Finally, honouring veterans is about more than ensuring that medals are not misused. A medal is often only part of a much larger story. We honour service not just through protecting decorations but through properly supporting veterans and their lives after service, and through preserving our military history and heritage in museums, collections, and the artefacts that do tell us the full story of their sacrifice.

This is a narrow bill with a worthy purpose, which ACT looks forward to engaging constructively with through the parliamentary process. On that note, 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.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. I do want to commend my gallant friend who brought this bill to the House for his exceptional work.

I do want to talk about the bill and what this means and share a couple of stories if we get time, but it would be remiss of me not to just take a moment to respond to what I want to say is the worst speech I’ve heard from a Green Party member, but it’s not. It was woeful. Scott Willis stood there and said that this bill was about nostalgia—veterans are just about nostalgia, and medallic recognition for those who serve, those who go to war, those who lay their life on the line is simply nostalgia. That shows you what the Greens think about our military. That shows you the respect that they have for our service people in New Zealand.

I bet you, if you go to their Instagram pages—go to Scott Willis’ Instagram page and look up 25 April last year, I bet you he was getting a selfie at his local Anzac Day parade. To turn up here and say it’s just nostalgia—Anzac Day is just nostalgia! This is one of the most fundamental days of our country; 6 February, no doubt, but 25 April 1915 as well. How can we forget? I see other members from the Green Party holding their heads in shame. I bet they were embarrassed about what they heard come out of Scott Willis’ mouth. I have spoken with other Green Party members that I’d like to think actually have a different view. At the end of my speech, I will yield the last 20 seconds if a Green Party member wants to stand up and say, “Actually, we support this bill; we think veterans are worth more than nostalgia, and we will support them.” I will give my time to let someone stand up and do that. I think there are one or two that might even take that opportunity, but I challenge them to come and do that. There is time for them to come down to the House if they’re not here already and make that contribution.

This is far more than nostalgia. These are the same people that want to defund the Police. These are the same people that campaign on that and think that’s worthy. The person who said that got promoted to No. 3 on the party list ahead of some very good MPs—I’m looking at one. That’s the kind of thing they value. Let New Zealand take a look; let New Zealand take note of what we heard today. The one good thing he said from the bill was that it changed “himself” to “themselves”. It was a gender thing. How can you be so out of touch as this Green Party to think that that is the good thing in the legislation? Of course there are men and women and all sorts of people who serve in our military, but that’s not what this is about; this is about recognising service, honouring service, and ensuring it gets the respect it deserves, and I see none of it—none of it—from that corner of the House.

OK, I’ll take a deep breath and try to say what I was going to say. This is a good bill to talk about. I brought my—I happened to just get them out to take back for Anzac Day [Holds up medals]. I’ll be speaking at various services this year, but I bet you, at the civic service in Paraparaumu at 9 a.m., I will meet the great-grandson of Keith Elliott, who won the Victoria Cross in World War I. He wears his great-grandfather’s medals, but like everyone can, and still can under this bill, they wear them on the right-hand side. It’s a way of saying, I want to honour those who went before me. It might be a great-grandfather, it might be a mother, it might be a sister, it might be a son, but they can still wear other people’s medals.

That’s not what this is about. This is about the people who wear them on the left. If you’ve seen the great Australian music video—I’m not going to pass judgment on it in this House, but you wear your medals on the left if you earn them yourself, and it’s about those who choose to do it. Now, I kind of just don’t get it, if I’m really honest. I served in Afghanistan with someone who won—earned—a Victoria Cross. I can’t comprehend someone else wanting to do it. The thing I struggle with on Anzac Day actually goes in the opposite direction. I stand up and I think, “I’ve got eight medals here. My grandfathers both got five in World War II; they deserve them more than me.” I feel like an imposter, and to think that someone would go the other way, it kind of blows your mind to think that people would do that.

The other point I would just make, and the last thing—and if I get an indication that someone wants to take the call, I will yield—is that these medals mean what they do to the person that earned them. [Points to medals] Those two are for service in Afghanistan. Now, I worked with people who didn’t earn the Victoria Cross, but I say they earned their medal more than me. The situations they were in—I think of people like Jamie and Steve; I think of Pup, I think of Vic, I think of Shep, I think of many people. As our commanding officer over there said to us when they handed them out, “You know what you did to earn this. This is what it means to you.” I can’t imagine anyone who would want to go in the other direction. If they do, $10,000 is the least they deserve. I commend the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’d firstly like to congratulate Tim van de Molen for having this pulled out of the legislative lotto that happens every fortnight. People will make comments on the importance or value of the bills; this is one that has come out and provides an opportunity to address some clearly anomalous situations. Congratulations also to Dan Rosewarne, who I haven’t had a chance to welcome in. I wasn’t here when he was sworn in, so welcome. It is great to have another person with military experience and background, and we’ve heard from some of them tonight.

I’m not going to speak for too long. As the defence spokesperson, this is the first time I’ve spoken, and it is indeed an honour to represent a part of Government responsibility that is important for our whole country. As we move towards Anzac Day, I acknowledge that importance. I received a letter from someone, who I’m not going to name, who was pointing out that service in Malaysia at a certain time wasn’t acknowledged, and access to a medal for that service has still not been acknowledged, and it’s a point that he thinks I should take up.

Now, without getting into the detail of it, it once again emphasises the importance of acknowledgment and medals. In fact, the Labour Government, going back, did acknowledge service for many, many people. I remember presenting a medal in the Motueka RSA to someone who was well into his 70s or almost 80s, I think, and him crying. He was so emotional that for the first time, he had received acknowledgment for his commitment to our country. It reminded me, and I’ve never forgotten that incident, of the importance of, as I say, having access to medals, acknowledging service, and then, of course, respecting those medals.

This bill addresses the very rare occasions—certainly, one incident over many, many years would indicate that it’s very rare that anyone would fraudulently display or claim the medals. Indeed, I, like probably many others, have received medals from family members who have passed away, and people thought I was the most appropriate person to take those. I’d never thought it was appropriate that I should wear them. This was not someone that close to me. There are, however, others who have close family members and grandparents, and who are legitimately able to wear the medals as a sign of a family member who has given that commitment. It’s so far removed from myself, I don’t feel that way.

The point is that most Kiwis, whether they’ve been in the military service or not, do acknowledge—not just on Anzac Day—and respect the importance of medals. Indeed, my cousin Greg O’Connor tells me the police force was a high-risk occupation. I’m not quite sure, but it is another area of commitment and risk—just as the fire service is as well.

Labour supports this bill as an opportunity, through that legislative lotto that delivers for some and not for others—but, none the less, it’s an opportunity to address some issues that can be improved for New Zealanders. Kia ora.

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. It’s an absolute pleasure to take a call on the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge the gallant member Mr Tim van de Molen for getting his bill drawn out of the ballot and, indeed, the rest of the gallant members within this Chamber, and, most importantly, the veterans who have earned these medals as part of their service.

People often ask, “How would you possibly know that someone has not earned a medal?” Well, if you’re a veteran, you know relatively quickly. Here’s my medals here, and as Mr Costley mentioned, you wear them on the left-hand side. Now, there’s several ways that they are mounted. These ones are court mounted. You can also get swing mounted, where they hang low. You’ll see a lot of the World War II vets, Vietnam vets, will have them swing mounted. You’d usually have the New Zealand Operational Service Medal at one end, the black and white one, and then you’ll have your campaign medals. From there, you’ll tend to have your UN or your NATO medals. In this case, it’s the NATO Non-Article 5 ISAF for Afghanistan. Then you have your long-service medals with your bars, and then you have your New Zealand Defence Service Medal recognising three years’ service. Now, this is probably the most important medal because it marks the three years that you’re subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act and it’s an acknowledgement that you actually signed that dotted line and decided to complete that service—so I’ve always seen that one as the most important. You’ll also see that the name and the registration number is engraved on the side of the medals. So if you ever find some, you look round the side and you’ll find the names and the registration numbers engraved.

Now, if someone isn’t meant to be wearing them or they’ve added a few on, you might get a mix of swing and court mounted on the left-hand side of the chest. You may also get these medals not in the right order—you might get a long-service medal tagged on to the side or they’re mixed up around. That’s how a veteran can, usually, spot someone that’s wearing them that is not entitled. If you do see that—usually most veterans will actually willingly tell you about how they earned these medals. I particularly enjoy it when kids come up to me and ask me about them, and any veteran will be more than willing to, you know, explain how they earned them.

Mr Tim van de Molen is absolutely right, it can be a slap in the face to veterans and also their families because it’s the time away from home, the time away from helping out with children, and all those things that come with not being there as part of that family unit—so your family’s, essentially, kind of, in a way, earned these medals as well. It can be a slap in the face to the families of veterans if they see people wearing them that aren’t entitled to them.

So what’s changed with this bill? It’s the deterrent and the financial penalties. They are outdated; they no longer reflect the seriousness. And so this bill that’s been introduced today is an acknowledgment of that seriousness. For that reason, we commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): It’s the member’s right of reply.

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