Introduction
Consultation has clearly shown that ‘veteran’ is an emotive term. It means different things to different people, often conjuring up the image of a former military member of the Armed Forces who has served overseas in an armed conflict such as World War II, Korea, Malaya or Vietnam. In focus groups people often sub-categorised the term veteran into groups such as “War Veteran”, “A Veteran of Operational Service” and “Veteran of Service”. In addition, participants who met the definition of ‘veteran’ admitted that they did not consider themselves to be because they had never seen the action that they believe characterizes veterans of past conflicts. This shows that the term veteran is complex and attempting to define it within the context of this legislation could detract from the mana of the term. Therefore, we suggest that the term veteran be omitted where possible and that the Act focus instead on military service, defined by service to the NZDF in a military capacity through both non-operational and qualifying operational service.
Question 1
Is the picture painted of the veteran community in this chapter accurate in your view?
Yes.
Question 2
Do you think anything should be added?
Yes:
- Territorial Force Personnel: Special recognition needs to be given to the increasing role the Territorial Forces have in delivering operations, though this may be covered in the new Act by referring to the Defence Act 1990 provision on the constitution of the “Armed Forces”, which incorporates the Reserve Forces and the Territorial Forces. In recent qualifying operations members of the Territorial Forces have generally transferred to the Regular Forces for the period of deployment. It is, however, possible that members of the Territorial Forces will be declared liable for continuous service in New Zealand or overseas by proclamation of the Governor-General.
- Civilians: There is support among currently serving personnel for an expansion of the coverage of the Act to include NZDF Civilian personnel employed by the NZDF on qualifying operations.
Question 3
Do you think the general principles we have identified as underpinning the review are the right principles? If not, what other fundamental principles should the review be based on?
The NZDF supports the current principles and notes that they are compatible with the current strategic themes of the NZDF. The term affordability can be expanded to sustainability or resource efficiency so that it can be considered in the context of other non-fiscal factors.
Question 4
Are there any other purposes you think should be reflected in a purpose clause in the new legislation?
The answer to this question will be governed by whether the scope of the new legislation is to be widened. This in turn depends on policy decisions addressed further below.
Question 5
Do you find the War Pensions Act 1954 difficult to understand?
The War Pensions Act 1954 is written in a style that was common in legislation drafted in the 1950s. The Act has undergone a number of amendments, some of which have resulted in a lack of clarity and some disharmony between provisions. This is particularly so in respect of the relationship between entitlements under the Act and cover under Accident Compensation legislation. This makes the Act difficult to understand, particularly for lay people.
Question 6
Do you think a new Act should be written in plain English?
Plain English drafting is now a requirement for all legislative drafting, but is of particular importance in respect of legislation which will be consulted by non-legally qualified and possibly unrepresented members of the veteran community seeking to establish what their entitlements are.
Question 7
What do you think the new legislation should be called?
The title of the new legislation should reflect the fact that payment to Service members is an entitlement arising from the services that they have provided for their country, rather than a benefit, or act of grace and favour by the Crown. NZDF favours a title that removes the word ‘veteran’.
Question 7 Personnel Feedback
Focus Groups have shown that the term ‘veteran’ evokes a specific image of someone who has served in World War II or Vietnam, which causes currently Serving members to assume that the Act does not provide coverage for them. Because this is not true, and is not likely to be true of the future Act, we should consider following the Australian’s and move away from the term ‘veteran’. i.e. Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, or Military Rehabilitation and Entitlement Act.
Previous | Contents | Next