6 October 2008

	National President Robin Klitscher CBE, DFC, AFC

National President's Address to the 2008 National Council AGM

It has been my very great privilege to be the National President of the RNZRSA for the past twelve months. The organisation is an indelible part of the fabric of the nation, and to belong to it is an honour in itself, let alone to lead it, especially having regard to everything that is represented in the attendance here of you the delegates, and of the three current Badge in Gold holders who are with us today.

But at this particular time there are other things that underline the honour.

Over time – more than 90 years – RSA leaders have worked hard to achieve the best possible results not only for members but for all who have served the Crown, whether members or not, and their families. Indeed, a strong part of our founding ethic from the beginning in 1916 was to look after those whose loved ones would not return, or who had returned not the same. The obligation was caught well in few words by Abraham Lincoln:

"... let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan ..."

That wide range of endeavour has endured across the years. A succession of RSA administrations has built upon foundations laid by their predecessors to continue the work, and to maintain and improve the position of the organisation in our society.

Occasionally, however, extraordinary things happen. And something did happen in 2004. Something that is still ringing the changes in how matters affecting ex-Service groups will be dealt with in New Zealand.

In the mix was a Parliamentary Select Committee and a number of very determined individuals who had tried over many years to be heard and who, with others, had testified to the Select Committee.

The Committee found that successive administrations in New Zealand had misunderstood, or had not applied well, information about the after-effects of New Zealand's engagement in the war in Viet Nam. But initial responses to the finding did not seem fully to comprehend what had been said.

The Select Committee had finally arrived at a recognition of truths. This had been thirty years in the making. The mix then expanded to include a well-timed Open Letter. Even so, it took the combined credentials of the EVSA and the RSA, the latter with a testimonial a full 90 years long, to move those truths ahead. That is why I say it has been a privilege to be a part of events over the past few years, in being able to take advantage of the legacy that others had left behind.

What all this would lead to was visible at that time only in fuzzy outline.

There was the Joint Working Group with an officially mandated Terms of Reference drawing upon the findings of the Select Committee. It reported in April 2006. Then followed the Memorandum of Understanding between the Crown and veterans, in December. The JWG became the Joint Implementation Group, charged with translating the MoU into action.

But this wasn't about mere gasbag committees, or pieces of paper written in promises without substance. It was about Government approvals and action.

Not everyone agrees that what has been achieved goes far enough. But the balance sheet is a distinct advance. And the focus is no longer on the Vietnam group alone, but has broadened to all veterans.

Without the MoU we would not be introducing a new and expert system of assessing operational and environmental hazards - the Expert Panel. This will benefit all, including the present Defence Force and future. Indeed we should not overlook that we are still producing veterans, not in the same scale as in the 1940s, but steadily and continuously nonetheless.

Likewise, without the MoU there would have been no review of Veterans' Affairs New Zealand. The decision on placement has been taken. Now that a new General Manager has been appointed, the other points named in the MoU can be developed. Deliberate re-connection between Defence Force and veteran can also be given meaning. One obvious clue to the pathway ahead is in the regular and purposeful meeting now taking place each month with the Minister, CDF and National President of the RNZRSA; with staff present where called for.

Improvements in these things will take time. But there is one area in which we cannot afford time. And that is unacceptable delays in processing War Disablement Pension applications. Whatever the organisational changes may be, we must as first priority unblock the logjam.

Finally, without the MoU it would not have been accepted that although the current underpinning law dating from 1954 has served very well, it is now falling short in delivery to modern standards, and needs to be re-written from scratch. This is by far the farthest-reaching result. It is also by far the largest task faced by the RSA in two generations; and it will affect all who serve, and their families.

These three are major legacies to all veterans of all wars from the Vietnam veterans' campaign. They give us the machinery to deal with the present system's shortcomings, provided we are wise enough to use the opportunities well. They also underscore that the MoU is not full and final, but is a living document whose impact will be felt well into the future.

In going well beyond Vietnam issues and well beyond window-dressing, the undertakings are clear at the political level, and over the political spectrum - the commitments made across Party boundaries in Parliament on 28 May this year testify to that.

Before we get carried away with scratching our own backs, however, we need to remind ourselves that it takes two to tango. None of this could have been achieved without the government showing a willing ear. This government has been particularly sympathetic to guardianship of remembrance, to completing memorials both at home and abroad – the Unknown Warrior for example – and to encouraging many other forms of commemoration – including pilgrimages – honouring those who have served across time and across the globe.

There was also the excellent Tribute 08 and the Freedom of Wellington City, which affirmed public support for what had been recognised. As in other areas springing from the MoU, we hope to extend the lessons learned into more general application to help us connect with other veteran cohorts, especially later ones from such as Somalia, Bosnia, East Timor, the Solomons, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

But there has been much more to it than commemoration, remembrance, an apology and a parade. The government did listen, was convinced, and did act. The Ministers here on the platform today have raised the height of the bar. Importantly, and not without meaning in an election year, the uplift applies not just in the present but also is notice to future governments.

And it doesn't end there, either. In amongst all this, somewhere within the deeper mysteries of MMP, and with its coalition partner Mr Peters in play, the government included in this year's Budget a provision to meet Point Five of our Welfare Manifesto. This confirmed that the RNZRSA welfare structure can be seen in the role of service provider in delivering government services to veterans and their families, with funding support to that purpose. Similarly there are the recent extensions to the SuperGold Card; and the lift that will come to the Veterans' Pension from income tax relief.

Even so, there are some who prefer to dwell critically upon what could not be achieved rather than upon what has been achieved. The RNZRSA does not identify with the more extreme claims of dissatisfaction. But, as we notified in 2006, some issues we do need to return to. And so, as a cautionary addendum, let me remark that not everybody in government has been as convinced in all things as we would have liked.

The two main points to which we said we would return are income tax on active service, and the manner in which attributable life-threatening cancers, particularly prostate, are dealt with. There is also disappointment at a one-off rather than annual medical check.

The tax. That the matter of tax paid on active service in Viet Nam has rankled so intensely for so long arises from three things. One, earlier expeditionary forces had received the advantage of tax-free pay. Two, allies alongside whom we fought in Viet Nam received tax-free pay. And three, countervailing arguments seem to rest upon pointing out that the facts are not clear.

It is hard to believe that sufficient record of deferred pay, and related, is absent. We will continue to try to establish the facts, and will pursue the point where and if inequity is shown. Given also our strengthening linkages with the serving Defence Force, and on behalf of those now being put into harm's way, we would want to see the purpose and applicability of the still-existing tax exemption law greatly clarified.

On attributable cancers, given that these conditions are life-threatening, indeed life-ending, we said in 2006 that we believed they should be elevated to the presumptive list. A recent study under the Cancer Centre of the University of California at Davis indicates that Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange have increased risks of prostate cancer, and greater risks of developing the most aggressive form of the disease. This aligns with separate statistical research in Australia. We note, too, that in responding to our recent questionnaire to political Parties, all would support the proposition where there is sufficient medical evidence to do so. We believe it doesn't need the Expert Panel to decide this. We believe the medical evidence now exists to elevate prostate cancer.

And finally, defence policy. We made our statement in 2005. It still stands today. But let me pause to say something I've said before, and repeat in our Annual Report. We have the highest regard for the men and women of our Defence Force. To say that we suggest the present force is useless is untrue. Any misgivings we may have relate to the policies that set its tasks and capabilities, not to the soldiers, sailors and airmen who do their duty. We are in no doubt at all that the professional standards achieved by our forces are second to none.

I was recently in Townsville at the National Congress of the Returned and Services League. Mr Rudd chose the occasion to deliver a major statement on defence policy. Our two nations occupy the same corner of the world. We have very many interests in common. Yet we seem to come to significantly different conclusions on the security future. Now, I've been called a dinosaur often enough. But, I submit, even dinosaurs are entitled to be fed with reasons when such puzzles arise. Suffice it to say that we are troubled over whether we have things right. We asked questions in 2005, and we shall ask them again as White Papers are developed in the time ahead.

Before I close, let me return to the positive side of the ledger.

We are changing the way in which exposure to modern hazards will be assessed, a government department has been restructured, a process of re-engaging constructively with the Defence Force is under way, recognition that our welfare network should be supported as a part of the government's service delivery to veterans is in place, and we are deeply involved in a total replacement of veterans' legislation in this country. That's not a bad scorecard.

But there's more. The re-write of the Act contains many opportunities to bring to account several of our Welfare Manifesto points.

For example, Point 1 dealing with the current Section 23. Bringing this into line with modern standards is very much one of the most fundamental and important aspects of the re-write.

Points 3 (Surviving Spouse Pension), Point 4 (Access to Veterans' Pension), Point 6 (Funeral Grants and Lump Sum Payments), Point 7 (under-65 Veterans' Pension), Point 8 (Cumulative Disablement) and Point 9 (War Disablement Pension Rates), each and all are also bound up in the re-write.

Point 2 (the Veterans' Card) has some way to go - although as I said before we must acknowledge here the recent general extensions to the SuperGold card.

And the veterans' card brings me to my final point. Let's go back and look at what the Law Commission has said in its discussion document.

"The first principle should be that veterans are entitled to all of the benefits, allowances and assistance to which every other New Zealander is entitled.

"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."

These passages state an intent that we could hardly argue with. But we do need to bear in mind that it will not be the Law Commission that takes the final decisions. It will be the government. So, although we might very much approve the Principles as set out, we must also be prepared to argue them. It is vitally important that you get your submissions in.

The two Principles also raise questions, of course. The most obvious is, who is a veteran? In discussing this and in making submissions, let us not get hung up on dictionary definitions of the word "veteran". That's not the question. Rather the question we should be attempting to answer is "who should this new Act apply to?". And a related question might be something like "given that all who serve in the military face risks and accept the conditions of service, how should entitlements for those who have faced the enemy in harms' way be differentiated from those who have not?"

We are very impressed by the Law Commission's consultation document. It has to be the most thorough and most informative document on New Zealand's veteran support system ever produced. We have participated fully in its development so far. We must now make the most of its promise.

It raises other issues of fundamental importance. Retaining the principle of benevolent benefit of doubt in favour of the veteran, for example. Another is the retention of veteran influence in the decision-making process, at present expressed through war pensions panels. If the panels system is to be changed, what other provisions for veteran influence should replace it?

As I end, let me acknowledge some extraordinary contributions to this organisation, the RSA. We will do this more formally later in proceedings, but I wanted to note that at this Council we will be farewelling a number of people who have given much of their lives to the task caught in our motto, people helping people.

One of our Vice-Presidents will be retiring. Larry Boyle joined the organisation in 1946, and has been deeply immersed in it ever since. But there is another reason beyond his own considerable contribution for noting his moving on. He is the last World War II veteran still to be serving on the National Executive Committee. As he leaves office, we might reflect that the torch has indeed passed to succeeding cohorts.

It is also the case, however, that Larry is not the longest-serving on the National Executive Committee. That distinction goes to Denny Morris. And he has been with the NEC since 1981. Those who are not arithmetically challenged will have worked out that that adds up to a cool 27 years; an impressive contribution by any measure.

This year we also farewell Archie Dixon, who would not claim to match such longevity as the other two, but who could quite legitimately claim to have been a most effective - and most committed - Chair of our Pensions and Welfare Committee. Archie has decided to step down as District President, and we shall miss him.

Earlier in the year the health of Brian Bennett, our straight-talking Otago-Southland District President, hit a wall. His distress at having to hand on his post was greater, I think, than his concern at being unwell in the first place. We wish him every comfort.

Our Immediate Past President John Campbell will also come to the end of his tenure at this Council. History has not yet let on how much the organisation owes him. But it will. And we congratulate him on his ONZM in June. For him this is not a severance farewell, however, for he will continue with his work on the law re-write.

Finally, sad to say, this will be Pat Herbert's last Council. He has had some 18 years as our Chief Executive - which is an innings right up there with the very best of the rest. But his has been a most effective innings. We will be saying more about this tomorrow, but with all due respect to the elected folk I've just mentioned, it is Pat Herbert's deep well of knowledge that will be most missed. That and his ability to deal with the most complex and frustrating of situations without ever raising his voice. Thank you, Pat. Along with the others who are leaving, we wish you well at Waitarere Beach. And on behalf of delegates I give a commitment that we will continue your great work in advocacy on behalf of the ex-Service community.