6 October 2008
RNZRSA Questions for Parliamentary Political Parties
The National Executive Committee decided that for Election 2008 it would
put a series of questions relating to matters of interest to veterans,
to the political parties.
Note: The responses are shown in the chronological order that
they were received.
Legend:
The Progressive Party
The UnitedFuture Party
The National Party
 The
Green Party
 The Maori
Party
The New Zealand First Party
 The
Labour Party
Preamble
In association with the Crown's Memorandum of Understanding with veterans
of the Vietnam War, all political parties supported the recent apology
in the House by the Prime Minister. Also a part of that MoU is a commitment
to re-write the War Pensions Act 1954, which has served well over the
years but is now very tired. This task has been given to the Law Commission.
The Commission released its paper "Towards a Veterans Entitlements
Scheme: A Discussion Paper on a Review of The War Pensions Act 1954"
on 31 July 2008.
In it the Law Commission states:
"As New Zealanders veterans are entitled to all of the benefits,
allowances and assistance to which every other New Zealander is entitled.
This should be accepted as the first principle underpinning veteran's
entitlements."
"The second principle is that veterans who have suffered
as a result of being put in harms way deserve to be recompensed over
and above the entitlements of ordinary citizens who are not veterans."
"The Law Commission believes that there is a basis for giving
veterans who have served in a hostile environment better treatment than
other New Zealanders."
The RNZRSA believes profoundly that as a result of committing them deliberately
into harm's way the State owes veterans a special duty of care. We therefore
support these principles; but they also require action by the Government
to give them substance.
Questions
Does your party accept the two principles stated by the
Law Commission above? If not, why not?
1. War Disablement Pensions (WDP) Rates
2. ACC and an Equitable Basis
3. Ex-Gratia Payments
4. Tax paid by Vietnam Veterans
5. Access to the Veterans' Pension (VP)
6. Support to the RNZRSA Welfare Infrastructure
7. A Medal for Service to the Nation
8. Medals Heritage
9. Defence Policy
10. War Veterans' Homes and Hospitals and Residential
Support payments
* Responses by Party
Does your party accept the two principles stated
by the Law Commission above? If not, why not?
The Progressive Party is committed to a fair go society in which all
citizens are equally entitled to share in the full benefits of living
in New Zealand and its communities. We are also committed to ensuring
that the community looks after those who have been disadvantaged either
by birth or by accident (including injury in military activities) and
we accept that there is a general responsibility regarding such citizens.
We fully endorse the principles enunciated by the Law Commission therefore
as the basis for the treatment of our veterans.
Yes, UnitedFuture supports the principle that veterans who suffered from
being in harms way deserve to be compensated over and above the entitlement
of non-serving citizens.
Yes. The National Party recognises the special status of war veterans
and is committed to recognising this status within legislation and honouring
their contribution. National has welcomed the discussion paper produced
by the Law Commission and is awaiting the result of the consultation process.
Green Party policy in this regard was developed before the Law Commission
reported its Discussion Paper "Towards a Veterans Entitlement Scheme".
Green policy is to ensure that veterans who have served in conflict and
emergencies receive adequate, fair and appropriate support, including
income support and treatment and compensation for injuries, psychological
and emotional health problems and occupational diseases acquired as a
result of their service.
This policy is supportive of the Principles developed by the Law Commission.
Yes.
New Zealand First accepts the two principles stated by the Law Commission.
—
Back to Questions
1. War Disablement Pensions (WDP) Rates
1. Notwithstanding changes to the general social security environment
over the years, would your party agree at least in principle that the
current WDP rates need to be adjusted to a "deemed to be fair"
level relative to the average wage?
2. Would your party keep previous Government promises of regular indexation?
The benefits received by any New Zealand citizen should in our view when
totalled be sufficient to support the recipient at a decent level of comfort
and one which allows the fullest possible and desired participation in
the affairs of our communities. War disablement pension rates should reflect
that principle.
We endorse the principle of indexation of benefits although the level
at which such indexation is set and how it is calculated depends on the
level of resources available to the government in office. Clearly, for
example, if taxes are cut then the level of those resources is commensurately
reduced.
1. Yes we would agree in principle that War Disablement Pension Rates
should be at a level "deemed to be fair".
2. Yes.
Question 1 and Question 2
National's policy is to remove the 70% War Disablement Pension requirement,
thereby opening up entitlement to all veterans with qualifying operational
service.
1. Green Party policy is to ensure that social security entitlements
are linked to a percentage of the average wage. That logically extends
to the War Disablement Pension. The Green Party would therefore support
a one-off adjustment to the level of the War Disablement Pension to bring
it closer its 1954 percentage of the average wage.
2. The Green Party supports the War Disablement Pension being regularly
adjusted by indexing the rate to a basket of food, energy and housing
price indices and legislating for a floor to ensure it cannot fall below
a fixed percentage of the average wage.
1. Yes. There is an urgent need to increase rates, over and above inflationary
adjustments.
2. Yes.
1. New Zealand First accepts that War Disablement Rates need to be 'deemed
to be fair' relative to the average wage, subject to the determination
of the 'average wage'; and
2. Ensure that pensions maintain relativity.
1. In September 2007 this Labour-led government directed the Law Commission
to undertake a review of the War Pension Act 1954. In July 2008 the Law
Commission produced a comprehensive discussion paper entitled 'Towards
a new Veteran's entitlement Scheme: A discussion paper on a review of
the War Pensions Act 1954'. Submissions are being taken until 28 November
2008, at which point the Commission will produce a final report to be
tabled in the House of Representatives.
The Labour-led government is committed to ensuring that the care and
services we provide to veterans is of the highest possible standard, and
the legislation which underpins this effort needs to reflect the changing
face of our veterans' population and take a more holistic approach to
the welfare of our veterans.
The overall rate of the War Disablement Pension is an issue that is being
examined as part of the review and rewrite of the War Pension Act, currently
being undertaken by the Law Commission.
2. Yes, Labour reintroduced CPI indexing after it was cut by the National
government in the 90s. When it was reintroduced it resulted in a substantial
increase in the level of War Disablement Pension, and now indexation is
carried out on an annual basis by this government.
Back to Questions
2. ACC and an Equitable Basis
Given the two principles stated by the Law Commission, does your party;
1. Agree that all veterans with attributable conditions should be treated
in the same way regarding compensatory payments for these conditions?
2. Agree that a good starting point would be entitlements equivalent
to those under the ACC.
3. Agree also that veterans should receive those ACC-level entitlements
plus a veteran increment?
The Progressive Party sees injuries or disabilities sustained in military
operations as in principle no different to any other accident and it is
therefore consistent to match the benefits received with those available
under Accident Compensation. We do not believe, however, that the case
has been made for a veteran increment.
1. Yes
2. Yes support a no-faults regime to deal with this - ACC or equivalent
entitlement for veterans.
3. Yes
National doesn't want to prejudge the consultative process that the Law
Commission has started. We are supportive of the review and RNZRSA members
can be assured that we will be giving full weight to the final conclusions.
1. Yes.
2. Yes. Green Party policy supports moving towards a greater emphasis
on social justice and equitable compensation for all people suffering
impairment, regardless of the causation of that impairment.
3. The Green Party does not have policy specifically directed to a veteran
increment additional to lump sum compensation at an ACC level. We would
be open to argument in support of this.
1. Yes. The current system of compensation does not give justice to veterans.
There are differences in the compensation available for Vietnam veterans
as opposed to other injured soldiers; and further, differences in compensation
under the War Pensions Act and under ACC also disadvantage veterans.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
1. All veterans with attributable conditions should be treated in the
same way; and
2. & 3. are determined under the Law Commission's first and second
principles.
The relationship between ACC and the War Disablement Pension is also
an issue that is being examined as part of the Review and rewrite of the
War Pensions Act. The Law Commission has stated that the Act does not
adequately take into account that some Veterans will qualify for ACC while
others will not.
Labour is committed to ensuring that any compensation scheme for veterans
is as fair and equitable as possible. We look forward to receiving advice
from the Commission on these issues.
Back to Questions
3. Ex-Gratia Payments
1. Does your party agree with the principle that veterans should be
paid a lump sum commensurate with the ACC total impairment scale as well
as their periodic WDP payments?
2. Would your party include the two cancers prostate and lung as qualifying
for ex-gratia lump sum payment conditions as per the MOU? (This applies
specifically and only for Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange and
the toxic environment in Vietnam.)
Injuries or disabilities clearly resulting from whatever source as a
consequence of military service in Vietnam (including cancers) should
be treated as accident conditions for compensation purposes.
1. Yes
2. Yes we would support any afflictions that had sufficient evidence
of association with Agent Orange and the toxic environment in Vietnam.
Questions 1 and 2.
It was a National Party MP, Judith Collins, (currently our Veterans' Affairs
spokeswoman), who initiated the Health Select Committee inquiry in 2003
into the use and effects of Agent Orange. Although the Labour Government's
Memorandum of Understanding with the RNZRSA and the EVSA has been promoted
as a $30 million package, we understand that veterans groups estimate
that only 100 of their estimated 2,700 members will receive any compensation
for the five medical conditions prescribed. National believes that the
MOU should be endorsed as a living document which is capable of further
enhancement to meet changing circumstances. We also support Vietnam Veterans
having free annual medical checks and enhanced medical care for offspring
suffering from Agent Orange-related illness. We are also committed to
an ongoing review of international research relating to the effects of
exposure of Agent Orange to ensure the established list of Agent Orange-related
illnesses is updated on a regular basis.
1. Yes, the purposes of lump sum compensation and the periodic War Disablement
Pension are different, so the Green Party does not believe receipt of
one should impact upon entitlement to the other.
2. Yes, provided the epidemiological evidence supports on the balance
of probabilities a causal relationship between Agent Orange exposure and
prostate and lung cancer.
1. Yes. The Maori Party has consistently raised the need for equity in
the pension payments and compensation available to injured veterans.
2. Yes. The Maori Party has worked consistently to uphold the calls from
Vietnam veterans to advocate for their concerns.
1.Yes, given principle 1 whereby veterans should be entitled to at least
those benefits available to the general population.
2. New Zealand First would support ex gratia payments for any conditions
that the medical evidence showed to be strongly associated with exposure
to Agent Orange.
1. This is an issue that is within the scope of the Law Commission review
of the legislation. Veterans should make submissions to the Law Commission.
Labour looks forward to receiving advice from the Commission on these
issues.
2. Ministers and governments need to rely on expert advice when dealing
with matters such as these. Ministers have been guided by the United States
Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (IOM) list. The IOM is a non-profit
organisation created specifically to offer science-based advice on all
aspects of biomedical science, medicine, and health. It is the acknowledged
leader in this field. The Institute works outside the framework of government
to ensure scientifically informed analysis and independent guidance. It
provides unbiased, evidence-based, and authoritative information and advice
concerning health and science. The United States, Canada, and Australia
all take their guidance from the IOM.
If the science in the future is able to find a link between Agent Orange
and particular forms of cancer, and it is placed on the IOM presumptive
list, New Zealand would immediately provide the enhanced support that
would follow from this.
The government is in the process of making arrangements for the establishment
of the expert panel provided for in the MoU with Vietnam Veterans signed
by the Labour -led government in 2006. The panel will comprise medical
and other experts convened to consider relevant medical research and to
make recommendations to government also. It is an issue that the expert
panel could consider.
Back to Questions
4. Tax Paid by Vietnam Veterans
1. Would your party support a project to determine the historical facts
in the matter once and for all?
2. If the result shows that the Vietnam cohort was not treated fairly
in accord with precedent would your party support making a generic payment
of $8,000 to each Vietnam veteran (including estates) in line with the
JWG's recommendation?
This matter, as your letter sets out, was the subject of debate during
the Joint Working Group but no agreement could be reached. Nevertheless
the RNZRSA put its signature to the agreement in total and we are disappointed
that notwithstanding this the matter - which we imagined was closed by
the signing - has been raised once more. That said, if any claimant can
produce new and significant facts concerning it the Progressive Party
would be agreeable to this specific matter being re-opened without commitment
to the outcome.
1. Yes
2. Yes
National accepts that it is of great importance to Vietnam Veterans that
the historical facts of this matter are determined. We note that the MOU
did not conclude that there should be payment. National was not party
to the information that the Labour Government had when it decided not
to agree to an ex gratia payment to our Vietnam Veterans. We will determine
our position once all appropriate information is received.
1. Yes, the Green Party believes that this is a grievance that needs
to be fully investigated to ensure that Vietnam Veterans have been treated
fairly and legally with regard to income tax liability.
2. The Green Party would support equitable compensation being paid, including
to estates, if it is found that Vietnam Veterans have been treated unfairly
with regard to income tax liability. We would not want to make a commitment
on the proposed level of compensation until this issue has been fully
investigated.
1. Yes.
2. Yes, if there was sufficient support for this sum from Maori Vietnam
veterans.
1. New Zealand First has continually sought to have this issue settled.
With the granting of a Vietnam Medal (Warlike) we consider the theatre
to have been confirmed as 'operational'. We would support an investigation
of the historical facts of the income tax and the deferred pay; and
2. If the results showed that the Vietnam cohort was not treated fairly,
an adjustment made to veterans and estates to bring about equity.
1. The government's position on a universal tax refund to all Vietnam
veterans was clear from the outset. From the 1950s, veterans from other
conflicts have not been afforded such reparation. The decision not to
designate South Vietnam an operational area was a decision taken by the
government of the day. While many veterans disagree with that decision,
the fact remains that no operational commitment since the Vietnam War
has been treated any differently with respect to the payment of income
tax.
2. The MOU focuses on providing assistance to veterans and their families
whose health has been damaged by exposure to a toxic environment. This
is clearly justified. What made the Vietnam War exceptional was the indiscriminate
use of chemical agents, and the long-term impact of that use on many of
those who served there. The Select Committee did not recommend nor did
the government ever agree during the Joint Working Group process that
universal payments were appropriate.
5. Access to the Veterans' Pension (VP)
1. Does your party agree that to require a veteran to have a WDP of
70 percent or more before he or she qualifies for a VP is discriminatory;
and that, unlike NZS, it implies a compensatory element in the VP?
2. Would your party agree with RNZRSA that all veterans on obtaining
the age of 65 should automatically qualify for the VP in place of NZS?
The Progressive Party does not have a policy on the questions raised
under this heading but is ready to discuss the points made on their merits
if returned to government.
1. Yes
2. Yes
National's policy is to remove the 70% WDP requirement, thereby opening
up entitlement to all veterans with qualifying operational service. National
agrees with the RNZRSA that all veterans on obtaining the age of 65 should
qualify for the Veteran's Pension in place of New Zealand Superannuation.
1. Yes, the Green Party believes there is little point in restricting
Veterans' Pension entitlement according to the level of disablement of
the veteran, and such a restriction is discriminatory.
2. In accordance with the Green Party social security principle of universality,
all veterans should qualify for Veterans' Pension upon reaching the age
of 65.
1. Yes
2. Yes. The Maori Party supports increased access to the Veterans' Pension.
1. & 2. Agree in principle that a Veterans' Pension should be granted
to those who have been put in harm's way during their service.
The role and structure of the Veterans Pension, as well as its relationship
with New Zealand Superannuation is being examined in the War Pension Act
review and rewrite. Labour looks forward to receiving advice from the
Law Commission on this issue.
6. Support to the RNZRSA Welfare Infrastructure
1. Does your party agree the need for assistance to be given to the
RNZRSA for its welfare support work to the 60,000 veterans of the nation,
and their families, as a cost-effective NGO service provider?
2. Would your party provide annual funding on an ongoing basis of an
appropriate sum?
The case for continuing funding of the services provided by the RNZRSA
and the level at which any such funding might occur would have to be the
subject of a case to be made by the RNZRSA subsequent to the election
and prior to each annual Budget, taking into account the priorities and
preferences of the parties forming a government. No government of whatever
complexion can give a commitment to continuing funding of a non-governmental
organisation on an open ended basis.
—
Yes. National agrees that the RNZRSA must be given assistance to continue
its welfare support work to the 60,000 veterans of the nation and their
families, and we support the ongoing annual funding announced in the Budget.
1. The Green Party, recognising that projects and programmes must have
infrastructure support to be sustainable, believes that government funding
to NGOs should cover an equitable share of all necessary overheads. The
RNZSA provides an invaluable welfare service to veterans and their families,
and should receive Government support for the infrastructure and administration
of this service.
2. Where a voluntary welfare programme is ongoing, the Green Party believes
the default position should be three year funding, subject to normal accountability
requirements being met, and to changes that may occur in the external
situation.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
1. & 2. New Zealand First would continue to advocate for the RNZRSA,
as it did in 2008 when it secured the grant of an additional $1m in the
budget, in recognition of the work done by the RNZRSA on behalf of its
members.
Labour absolutely recognises the need for Veterans to have access to
a well organised welfare network. In Budget 2008, the Labour-led government
gave $1m to support the RNZRSA Welfare infrastructure. This funding has
been spread across four years, a decision this government is fully supportive
of. Labour will be interested to see the improvements that are achieved
and will take this into consideration when assessing the need for on-going
funding.
7. A Medal for Service to the Nation
Would your party support the award of a medal recognising non-operational
service in the NZDF since WWII covering regulars, territorials and CMT/NS?
The Progressive Party does not support the issue of a medal on such an
indiscriminate basis for service alone. Medals are by definition an acknowledgement
of service beyond the ordinary.
It is a UnitedFuture policy to institute a New Zealand Defence Medal
to be awarded to all those who have served in the New Zealand Armed Forces
or the New Zealand Defence Force, including operational and non-operational
roles, for four years after 2 September 1945, and a New Zealand Service
Medal for those who have completed National Service or Compulsory Military
Training.
National endorses the RNZRSA proposal to introduce the NZ Defence Medal
recognising service in both regular and non-regular services, with appropriate
qualifying periods of service.
The Green Party does not have a definite position on this issue but will
consider the arguments in support of this put forward by the RNZRSA.
Yes.
New Zealand First accepts in principle the award of the New Zealand Defence
Medal, and supports the recommendations of the RNZRSA on this issue.
The Government's view is that a blanket award - whether for three months'
or for four or six years' service - is not the optimal means of addressing
outstanding medallic grievances relating to historic non-operational military
service. The Government does, however, recognise that some specific, historic
non-operational service may warrant medallic recognition. Accordingly,
the New Zealand Defence Force is to review historic non-operational military
service to determine if any such service, including conscripted military
service under the Compulsory Military Training and National Service schemes,
merits medallic recognition.
This review is consistent with the medallic initiatives which have been
undertaken by the Government since 1992, and which have systematically
addressed historic medallic grievances relating to operational and special
service. This approach has seen careful consideration given to the necessity
and desirability of instituting any new award, and the effect which it
might have on existing New Zealand military awards.
The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), in consultation with the RNZRSA,
is currently drafting the terms of reference for the forthcoming review.
It is anticipated that the review will take approximately nine months
to complete. During the review relevant veterans' organisations will be
consulted.
8. Medals Heritage
Would your party support the strengthening of the criteria to prevent
the sale or disposal overseas of Orders, Decorations and Medals awarded
to New Zealanders?
The Progressive Party does not believe that any political party can credibly
claim that they have the power in practice to prevent the sale of decorations
and medals by the recipients or their families, no matter how reprehensible
we consider this practise to be. We would prefer a situation in which
the medals were either retained by the family or returned to the government
for safe keeping (especially the latter in respect of medals of historical
significance). We do not believe that this can be achieved by compulsion.
Yes we would look closely at measures to keep medals awarded to New Zealanders,
within New Zealand.
Yes. National would support the strengthening of the criteria to prevent
the sale or disposal overseas of orders, decorations and medals awarded
to New Zealanders.
The Green Party is committed to preserving New Zealand's heritage, of
which this is an important part. We would therefore support strengthening
criteria preventing service medals etc being disposed of overseas.
Yes.
New Zealand First would accept in principle the strengthening of criteria
to prevent the loss of our medallic heritage.
Under current legislation there is provision under s22 of the Protected
Objects Act 1975, for the Governor-General to specify that medals which
would otherwise fall outside of the Act's scope because they are less
than 50 years old, but which hold special significance, to be given protection.
9. Defence Policy
Would your Party support the proposition that our defence policy leans
too heavily upon our friends and allies to provide combat capability?
The Progressive Party has a comprehensive defence policy which is available
on www.progressiveparty.org.nz
Broadly it is a policy based upon the philosophy that a peacekeeping role
for our military is the principal guarantee of security in our region.
This does not rule out a combat capability but recognises that a small
nation needs to marshal its resources in the most efficient and effective
manner. We do not see our defence capability as little more than a small
cog in a much larger whole.
It is UnitedFuture policy to reach a multi-party accord on ten year defence
and capital equipment funding for the New Zealand Defence Force so that
it is well equipped to meet peacekeeping, peace building, humanitarian
and disaster relief operations.
We like the concept of having, 'the best small integrated defence force
in the world'.
Historically, New Zealand has always relied upon its friends and allies
to help defend our country. Though the Defence Force has equipment for
low-level contingencies in the Pacific, its recent report pointed out
the major issues facing the NZDF. On broader security issues, New Zealand
will always be part of a large multilateral force, and therefore we provide
highly focused capabilities, which can include combat capabilities. Our
friends and allies, such as Australia, enhance our own, and the region's,
security.
The Green Party believes New Zealand should ensure that its armed forces
are capable of performing across a range of operations: from peacekeeping,
disaster relief and resource protection through to defensive combat operations.
New Zealand should develop an independent defence policy, but remain capable
of cooperating with neighbouring countries as appropriate as well as being
familiar with key operational areas.
No. The Maori Party supports the need for a peacekeeping force.
Yes.
Labour believes that our armed forces are very well respected internationally
and we work closely with our friends and allies. We do not support the
proposition that we rely too heavily on others. New Zealand defence forces
are highly valued internationally for their professionalism and ability
to operate throughout diverse areas and amongst diverse peoples. Labour
remains committed to rebuilding our defence forces to meet New Zealand's
needs in the 21st century. We have actively and successfully recruited
defence force personal, not just to maintain numbers but to rebuild and
grow the Defence Force and as such the defence force is at its highest
number of staff at 13,889, since 2001. Labour has committed New Zealand
to an independent defence policy which reflects our commitment to be a
good international citizen.
10. War Veterans' Homes and Hospitals and Residential
Support Payments
1. Would your party agree that the current qualified and restrictive
loans should be converted to grants? (Among other things, this would erase
the discriminatory cut off at WWII.)
2. Would your party support the reinstatement of regular veterans' residential
support payments to veterans' homes, and accredit their purpose as providing
special services to veterans?
Mr Anderton as leader of the Progressive Party played a central instrumental
role in ensuring the continuing existence of the veterans' homes and hospitals.
The basis of their survival was negotiated with those with extensive military
experience and a central interest in the retention of these facilities,
and there has been no indication that we are aware of that the people
concerned are dissatisfied with the outcomes. Until the case is made for
a change the status quo should prevail.
1. We would be open to reclassifying the loans as grants in this situation
and definitely remains aware of the implication that non- WW2 vets are
of a lesser status.
2. Yes
National supported the loans made to three war veterans' homes and hospitals
and we support the ongoing role as Centres of Excellence. Our Veterans'
Affairs spokeswoman has visited two of the homes and is aware of the planning
and work being undertaken to retain and to improve services available.
National supports these efforts and is keen to work with the homes to
provide what assistance we can.
1. The Green Party can see no justification in requiring loan repayments
by Veterans' Homes when the last World War II resident leaves. These facilities
provide a valuable service, and the Green Party believes Government should
support them through the provision of a sustainable funding path.
2. While the Green Party supports the provision of a sustainable funding
path for the five War Veterans' Homes, we are open to suggestion as to
the best mechanism to achieve this.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
1. It is not current government policy to fund retirement homes for capital
works, which are what these loans supported. The assistance that has been
provided to the homes by the government has been given on the basis that
the government of the day wished to take account of the service given
by the residents of the homes.
If government was to fund veteran's homes, consideration would also need
to be given to the numerous requests that not-for-profit organisations
make to the Ministry of Health for capital works funding for other retirement
homes.
Many veterans do not become residents in veterans homes and hospitals.
Many choose private residential care facilities and some remain in their
own homes. Labour is committed to the fair and equitable treatment of
all veterans.
2. This government provides funding through the Ministry of Health to Veterans
homes through the residential care subsidy. In addition Veterans Affairs
New Zealand provides funding through an attendants allowance for residents
with high needs care.
Responses by Party
To open the following PDF Documents you require an
Acrobat Reader
|
(PDF Document 52k)