Could I come back to the point about the definition of veteran and the issue that just being in uniform and being prepared to serve makes you a veteran?
In New Zealand, if you are in uniform and you're in service, you are treated similar to a civilian. If an accident happens to you, you'll go through the same system as a normal accident.... You'll have to show there was an event and a consequence of that event. You'll have to prove your case.
For a veteran who's done military service offshore.... We don't have much fighting in New Zealand; we haven't for 150 years, thank goodness. But for someone who's offshore, the theory is that you can be in a war zone and there's chaos. Things will happen to you for which there will be no medical record. The records might get lost. There could be a whole range of events that happen to you and the trail of proof is almost impossible. Therefore, we have the reverse onus of proof. We're saying that if you are in a conflict zone, we will give you a different standard or process to make these judgments by.
But if you're home in New Zealand and you have an accident, there's a doctor nearby, there are other people around--fire, crash--and all the reports can record it. And you're treated accordingly.
We give you a much lower threshold if you're in service, and that's what makes you a veteran.