Release of the Law Commission’s Report on the Review of the War Pensions Act 1954

The Law Commission’s report R115, A new support scheme for veterans: A report on the review of the War Pensions Act 1954, was tabled in Parliament today.

In releasing the report, Law Commission President, Sir Geoffrey Palmer said that this report proposes a new approach to assistance for New Zealand’s veterans.

The proposed approach honours our remaining veterans from wars and emergencies that occurred prior to the mid 1970s with financial and practical support.

It also proposes a modern rehabilitation-focused approach for our recent and currently serving veterans.

After releasing an Issues Paper in July 2008, the Law Commission undertook a comprehensive consultation process. This involved meetings at 12 RSAs throughout New Zealand and at New Zealand Defence Force camps and bases.

We received 139 submissions on the Issues Paper. “The feedback we received from consultation and submissions was helpful for highlighting the issues that are important to the veterans who benefit from a veterans scheme”, said Sir Geoffrey.

“The War Pensions Act 1954 has been a neglected area of the law. The Act is more than 55 years old. Most of its language and concepts date back even further than this. It is old, outdated, inaccessible and badly in need of review.

Our recommendation is that the War Pensions Act 1954 must be replaced in order to provide suitable support for elderly veterans and to cope with the modern service context.”

The report proposes the introduction of new legislation with two separate schemes.

Sir Geoffrey said, “The first scheme would be largely consistent with the structure of assistance provided under the War Pensions Act 1954 and would apply to all veterans and military personnel who served prior to 1 April 1974, the date from which the ACC scheme applies.

The second scheme would apply to veterans with qualifying operational service who serve after this date.”

“It became apparent to us that the needs of these two different groups of veterans could not be addressed through the same legislative scheme. These groups are in very different legal positions because ACC applies to one and not the other.

There are modern ideas and principles that we believe must shape the package of assistance available for veterans injured in the course of duty. However, applying these to older veterans, many of whom are elderly and have been in receipt of their current entitlements for decades, would cause them unnecessary disruption and uncertainty.”

In the past six years, new legislation has been introduced in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. In each case the modern legislative schemes have been applied only to recent veterans while older veterans continue to receive assistance under a traditionally structured veterans’ scheme. “We consider that the same approach should be adopted here. New Zealand has an advantage in that, given our military and legislative history, it is straightforward and rational for the start date for the new scheme to be set as far back as 1974”, said Sir Geoffrey.

Among the report’s 170 recommendations, the Law Commission recommends that, in regard to the scheme for older veterans:

An increased income compensation entitlement for working aged veterans who are prevented from working because of their service-related impairment;

A shift in focus away from the Disablement Pension as the primary assistance for elderly veterans, to improved medical benefits and assistance to maintain veterans’ independence;

Wider eligibility for the Veterans’ Pensions and Surviving Spouse Pension.

The scheme for modern veterans would build on what is provided under ACC legislation, while providing veterans with a margin of advantage above ordinary New Zealanders. Recommendations include:

A primary focus on rehabilitation from service-related injury, including facilitating early intervention and promoting return to work;

Generous income replacement payments for veterans who are rehabilitating or unable to rehabilitate from service-related injuries;

Lump sum payments for permanent service-related impairment;

A transition assistance programme for all NZDF military personnel that builds upon the NZDF’s existing services;

Holistic assistance for families.

“We are recommending that both schemes benefit from:

Clearer provisions and language;

Maintaining relaxed evidential provisions equivalent to current levels and at the same time simplifying decision-making by introducing decision-making instruments, such as Statements of Principles, that translate the beneficial evidential standard into research-based rules that apply to all veterans;

A statutory expert medical panel that is responsible for research-based decision-making and advice;

A streamlined process for decision-making on claims that will reduce delays while ensuring rights of review and appeal.”

“We think that any new veterans’ legislation should be introduced as a “living statute”, meaning that there is a statutory requirement for regular review so that the legislation can be adapted to changing needs,” said Sir Geoffrey.

“It will be some time before a new veterans’ system can be in place. Even after new legislation is passed, it will take time to set up the new bodies and systems required and to introduce regulations.”

“One of the principles at the heart of New Zealand’s veterans’ legislation is that the community owes a debt to veterans. It is important that new legislation preserves veterans’ dignity by continuing this principle. We believe that the legislation we propose would accomplish this while bringing veterans’ legislation into the 21st century.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media