KEY POINTS:
A damning draft report has found that the Government organisation representing the interests of veterans is poorly governed and fails to listen to many of those whose interests it represents.
The draft report, commissioned by the NZ Defence Force, noted that the overall service quality to veterans had improved since the inception of Veterans' Affairs NZ (Vanz).
But it said Vanz - a body within the Defence Force that advises on and attends to the needs of veterans through entitlements and care - would struggle to cope with future needs without urgent change.
Vanz is semi-autonomous and is funded through the Veterans' Affairs portfolio, which has total appropriations of $259.8 million.
It relies on the Defence Force for support systems and the Ministry of Social Development for the payment of war pensions, but the report criticised this dependence as blurring the lines of responsibility and accountability, leading to poor governance.
The main criticisms include:
* Veterans had limited access to Vanz information, and there was a lack of consultation on key issues. Their suggestions were treated dismissively
* The split responsibilities of Vanz and MSD made it difficult to assign financial accountability, which affected the delivery of services caused a rift between the two bodies.
* Vanz is not subject to State Services Commission guidelines, has inadequate mechanisms for monitoring performance, and efforts to improve its systems had been met with 'defensiveness' by its staff
* There was an "undesirable" over-concentration of power in Vanz director Jessie Gunn, who also holds the statutory positions of Secretary of War Pensions and President of the War Pensions Advisory Board. This limited the scope for debate and change.
National's veterans' affars spokeswoman Judith Collins said the situation was unacceptable.
"Vanz is not operationally efficient, because it doesn't actually work with its major stakeholders, and veterans are suffering from that.
"If I was the director of Vanz, I would now be considering my employment options, and if I was the [Veterans Affairs] minister, having stood by their comments despite repeated criticism from stakeholder groups, I would also be updating my CV."
Ms Collins said she knew of a case where a veteran had to wait nine months before his pension was approved, and he died near the time it came through.
"It was unbelievable. There are numerous delays and whenever we ask about it we're told everything's fine and there's no reason to be concerned.
"Vanz needs to stop being so defensive and become far more operational."
RNZRSA chief executive Pat Herbert declined to comment as the consultation process of the report was still being processed.
But he added there had been some glaring oversights in regards to the treatment of veterans, and that he was confident these would be fully addressed in the wake of the finalised report.
The Defence Force also declined to comment until the report had been completed.
The draft report said there are "significant issues around governance and relationship management that urgently need addressing", and that Vanz needed to "become much more strategic and proactive in its dealings with veterans".
"There is a theme within Vanz that other parties do not understand its business. The inability to connect with stakeholders appears to be a major reason for the public and private criticisms levelled at Vanz."
"A consistent theme from veterans relates to the delays in getting war pensions approved," the draft report said.
Part of this was due to War Pensions Act, which requires a separate claim for each condition for which a pension is sought. The act is being reviewed.
The draft report criticised the lack of clarity at the top level.
"The relationship between the Chief of Defence Force and the director of Vanz is not clearly defined in any of the accountability documents. CDF is in the position of having overall responsibility for Vanz's performance with no suitable way to monitor or direct it.
"There are no performance measures in place, and therefore no platform for reviewing the director's performance."
Vanz and its stakeholders cited a lack of cooperation by the other party, suggesting major differences of perception from both sides.
"Very often the concerns of one party are mirrored by the other, effectively contradicting the claims being made.
"Both Vanz and MSD are seeking to improve processes and service delivery around War Pensions, yet both claim the other party resists all attempts to consider proposals for change".
Vanz considers War Pensions Services, an arm of the MSD, "to be inefficient and resistant to change. Requests around specific clients or to amend process are often ignored and the unit is considered a barrier to effective service delivery".
There was an agreement from all parties that the War Pensions Advisory Board - set up to advise the Veteran's Affairs Minister on matters affecting entitlements - was "defunct".
"It meets only intermittently, is under resourced and lacks proper focus."
While noting a perceived conflict of interest in the many positions held by Ms Gunn, a crown law office opinion noted the conflict was "theoretical, not actual".
The draft report recommended aligning Vanz completely with either the Defence Force or MSD, noting no preference, so that one body had end-to-end responsibility.
The stakeholder groups are currently making submissions on the draft report and are awaiting responses over the next two weeks.
The draft report noted the Government's commitment to making a role for veterans' groups when reviewing legislation and looking at pension eligibility.
A spokesman for Veterans' Affairs Minister Rick Barker said the minister could not comment on the report until it had been finalised.
He said Vanz do a good job overall, but the minister wanted to ensure the service "is the very best which can be provided, and this is why he asked for the review to be carried out".
In a speech to the RNZRSA in November, Mr Barker said Vanz needed to shift the focus of pensions away from specific disabilities to promoting overall wellbeing.
"This will involve realigning and strengthening existing resources to enhance the current case management system. The focus will be on empowering veterans by providing them with the support that allows them to make choices.
"The goal I am aiming to achieve is to have all veterans who seek services individually case managed by 2010."
