Introduction
The NZDF recognises that compensation will be an integral feature of the new Act both as a means of financial support and recognition of service, and therefore believes that adequate compensation must be guaranteed at least to the minimum ACC standard for all service-related impairments.
Service members take an oath of allegiance under the assumption that they – and their families – will be taken care of as members of the greater NZDF family. They accept the inherent risks of military service knowing that in the event of disablement or death the Crown will do whatever necessary to ensure their quality of life or the quality of life of their surviving dependents. The availability of adequate compensation through the new Act is therefore critical to maintaining a confident and capable Defence Force.
While most Focus Group participants felt that the ACC standard would be adequate compensation, they also supported the concept that those who suffered impairment due to qualifying operations should be entitled to a bit more than the average citizen as recognition of the service they performed or the hardship they endured. Therefore the NZDF recommends that the issue be explored of whether death or impairment that occurs on qualifying operations should attract additional entitlements as recognition of increased exposure to uncontrolled risks.
Additionally, as with the current Act, provision must be made for impairments related to service that manifest themselves later in life. A strong theme among Service personnel is that care should be ongoing, rather than a one-time payment.
Question 32
Do you think present day levels of compensation payable for incapacity are fair and reasonable? If not, what do you think would be fair?
The ACC standard for all impairments attributable or aggravated by service should be the minimum. The NZDF acknowledges the argument that additional compensation or recognition should be considered for qualifying operational service.
Question 33
Do you think that future veterans should access ACC compensation payments plus an additional component to reflect the fact that they have been put in harm’s way by the State? If so, how much extra should a veteran be entitled to?
Service members should have as a minimum access to the ACC scheme on the same basis as all other people in New Zealand. ACC coverage should be the benchmark for future rehabilitation and compensation.
The fact that the NZDF exposes its personnel to uncontrolled risks provides a strong argument for extra recognition, in some form, above the standard entitlements, for qualifying personnel.
Question 33 Personnel Feedback
Focus Groups While most participants felt adequately compensated, many struggled with the idea that they should be entitled to more, but did feel that those who had served on qualifying operations definitely deserved compensation above the average New Zealander as recognition of service. In a sense, participants did not ask for more for themselves, but were willing to ask for more for others.
Question 34
Do you think future veterans should be entitled to a lump sum compensation payment or periodic compensation payments? Why?
The NZDF has identified a preference in favour of periodic compensation payments but would not exclude concept of providing for lump sum compensation payment in some circumstances. Where a lump sum compensation payment is made, support should be provided in the form of financial counselling or guidance to assist Service members in making informed decisions regarding the use of their compensation payments.
Question 34 Personnel Feedback
Focus Groups The majority of focus groups came to the consensus that a combination of lump sum and/or regular payments would be best, acknowledging the benefit of the lump sum to ensure well-being or quality of life (i.e. modifications to home or vehicle or to set up a business). They also acknowledged, however, the risk that lump sums could be irresponsibly spent, leaving the Service members unsupported and the Defence Force seemingly at fault, thus the recommendation to provide the option of regular payments to support long-term care.
Question 35
If extra money becomes available, should first priority be given to (a) higher compensation payments for those medically assessed as such; or (b) by higher general levels of payment to all veterans?
Rehabilitation to restore the quality of life for Service members and their families should be the highest priority, combined with ongoing care and treatment for Service members. Provided quality of life is addressed, any additional available funding could go towards additional compensation for impairments aggravated by or attributable to qualifying operational service.
Question 36
Which of the options outlined in this chapter do you prefer for future veterans?
ACC equivalent with additional entitlements – NZDF has identified a strong line of argument that military service deserves recognition in some form above the entitlements of other citizens, in particular for qualifying operational service. This could be through financial compensation or non-monetary recognition.
Question 37
What about veterans currently receiving a War Disablement Pension? Should they move to one of the options outlined above?
A single system (that will be the most administratively efficient) is preferable provided no one is disadvantaged.
Question 38
How do you think changes in a person’s level of impairment should be dealt with in a new system?
New requests could be assessed under the new system.
Question 39
When do you think approved payments should commence under new legislation?
New entitlements including payment should commence as soon as possible, under new legislation.
Question 40
Are there any circumstances in which it might be appropriate for new legislation to provide for the backdating of the commencement of payments?
In formulating the content of the new Act, it may appropriate to consider back-dating to the date of diagnosis.
Question 41
What rules might apply if an earlier application was denied as a non-attributable condition, but later medical evidence accepts it?
Section 65 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 provides that the corporation may revise a decision at any time. This revision can go in either direction – i.e. the granting of cover or entitlement or the revoking of cover or entitlement. This approach would be useful for the War Pensions Act. If new information is available then the claimant could apply to have a decision reconsidered in light of the new information.
There must also be a process for closure to prevent multiple applications where there is just dissatisfaction with the decision and there is no new information. The ACC scheme provides for a person to review a decision within 90 days of the decision being issued. Then there is a process for independent review of the decision which either confirms or revokes the decision. Currently, this can be appealed to a District Court. The new legislation should be consistent with the ACC legislation and provide no fewer rights to the claimant.
Previous | Contents | Next