2. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) Link to this
to the Minister of Defence
What agreement has been reached with Viet Nam veterans’ organisations to address grievances arising from their service in Viet Nam?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) Link to this
I am very pleased to advise the House that a full agreement has been reached between the Government and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and the New Zealand RSA over resolving longstanding grievances on the part of Viet Nam veterans. I am particularly pleased that this has been achieved in the Year of the Veteran, and that 34 years after the last serviceman left Viet Nam a strong foundation has been laid for at last resolving those grievances and for bringing closure.
We have received a very positive response from the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and the RSA. Chris Mullane, from the Ex-Vietnam Services Association, has described the package as “fair and sustainable”, and John Campbell, the president of the New Zealand RSA, has praised it as “a comprehensive and reasonable package”, which is “worthy, just, and fair”. I am also pleased that, by and large, there has been a positive response from all quarters of the House, where parties have heeded the request of the veterans’ organisations that there should be bipartisan endorsement for this policy and that this issue should not be made into a political football.
Judith CollinsWhy has the Government refused to fund the annual medical check-ups for Viet Nam veterans, and refused to refund the tax that Viet Nam veterans paid while on active service for their country, as was recommended by the joint working group?
If the member reads the document carefully, she will see that there will be a comprehensive medical check-up provided for all veterans free of charge, and a specialist visit provided. The member is guilty of what she was nodding sagely about before—that this issue should not be made into a partisan issue. I do not intend to make it into that, but no member with a history of her party’s should indulge in hypocrisy, either.
Madam SPEAKER
Gerry BrownleeMembers will please be seated. I did not hear the accusation because—and this is the last time I will say this to members—it is very hard to hear when members start barracking. Everyone is on his or her final warning.
The package is in three parts. Each part, firstly, acknowledges the past; secondly, puts things right; and, thirdly, improves services for veterans. Amongst its most important provisions—and there are about 25 of them—are, firstly, an apology for, and an acknowledgement of, the legitimate grievances of those veterans that have been ignored for far too long; secondly, a whakanoa, or a welcome home, by the New Zealand Defence Force to make up for the fact that there never was a proper welcome home for these veterans; thirdly, financial compensation for those suffering from prescribed medical conditions—that is, conditions related directly to their service in Viet Nam; and, fourthly and lastly, an endowment fund of some $7 million, the interest from which will provide assistance to veterans and their families who are in need, notwithstanding whether that need was directly as a result of service, indirectly related, or for some other reason.
Why has the Government still not implemented many of the recommendations made by the Health Committee—a multiparty recommendation—2 years ago following its inquiry into the effects of Agent Orange and other defoliants in Viet Nam?
Again, the member seems not to have heard the description I quoted from the two organisations representing the veterans—unless she believes that she can better represent them—saying that this is a fully comprehensive package and that it is a fair, just, and full package that adequately and sustainably meets the critical needs of veterans. That member and her party did nothing in the decades in which they were in office, notwithstanding that it was the party that sent veterans to Viet Nam.
Ron MarkWhat lessons can be learnt from this issue, considering that it has been 41 years since the first Kiwi soldier was sent to Viet Nam; that it is about 17 years since Geoff Braybrooke, a Labour member of Parliament, brought a member’s bill to the House to address the problems facing Viet Nam veterans; that it is about 7 years since the shonky Reeves report came out, which was influenced by the National Government of the day; that it is about 5 years since the shonky McLeod report came out; and that it is 2 years since the Health Committee reported to the House—
—what lessons can be learnt to ensure that travesties such as these never ever blight this country’s record again?
I will restrict myself to two lessons that I think can be learnt. Firstly, the Viet Nam veterans themselves were blamed for the war in Viet Nam. That was not a decision of the veterans; they were simply professional soldiers who followed the instructions of the Government of the day that sent them to Viet Nam. It was unfair and unjust that they should have been blamed for that decision. The second lesson is that the veterans were sent into a toxic environment. There were inadequate provisions for taking account of the dangers and the risks to their health, and check-ups before and after. I am pleased to advise the member that the modern New Zealand Defence Force is far more attuned to the needs of veterans, in checking and warning veterans, and in ensuring that when people come back from deployment they receive full medical check-ups.