Third Readings 
Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20392] 
Third Readings 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Constitution Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Evidence Amendment Bill the Fire Service Amendment Bill (No 2) the Forest and Rural Fires Amendment Bill the Geneva Conventions Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 5) the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Amendment Bill (No 2) the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 4) the Land Transfer Amendment Bill the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 4) the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Amendment Bill the Racing Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) the Reserves Amendment Bill the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 4) the Telecommunications Amendment Bill and the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill be now read a third time.  
I thank the chair of the Government Administration Committee Dianne Yates and all the other members of the select committee for doing an outstanding job on this legislation. I also thank the Committee of the whole House for its help and its suggestions for improving the bill. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is a unique bill. It is an omnibus bill it can pass only with leave and it is constrained to being about technical and non-controversial matters. That does not mean to say that there is not sometimes controversy on such bills but it should not be the case. 
I want to respond to the point made by Lindsay Tisch in the Committee stage about Supplementary Order Papers coming in on this legislation. I note that the select committee’s report on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) states: “… we were continuously confronted with requests to have included in the bill further amendments to Acts.” It went on to make the point that this process could in fact erode good will. I took the committee’s comments very seriously. I have now changed the process for Statutes Amendment bills so that the amendments that can be expected to such bills can be corralled on to a single Supplementary Order Paper. From time to time departments and ministries find they want amendments made and on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) we found they were putting in their requests for Supplementary Order Paper amendments individually and separately. People had a flutter of paper arriving on their desks—day after day and week after week it seemed—requesting new Supplementary Order Papers. I have told them that we were not going to have that that we were would put up a Statutes Amendment bill and that if any subsequent amendments needed to be considered they would be on a single Supplementary Order Paper. I have signed that out in respect of the subsequent Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) and Mr Tisch and members of the committee will find that a single Supplementary Order Paper will come to them not requests for multitudes of Supplementary Order Papers. Anything not on that Supplementary Order Paper will have to wait for the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 6). So I have taken the committee’s words of caution seriously. I have acted upon them— 
Darren Hughes 
: A smart interactive Government! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member’s quick! I will make sure that the process flows more smoothly. I just reassure Mr Tisch that I had read the Government Administration Committee’s report and have acted on it and I think members will see an improvement in the process. Lastly I thank the Committee of the whole House for its assistance in passing this legislation. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for his assurance over the process for Supplementary Order Papers. I have been quite critical of the process especially with the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). But as I mentioned at the beginning of the Committee stage at the Government Administration Committee the other day we were told there would be a huge Supplementary Order Paper related to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). The question asked by all members on that select committee including Labour members was simply this: if it is so important why is it not included in the amendment at the time? Why are these eleventh hour amendments coming through by way of Supplementary Order Paper? 
We were informed that the Supplementary Order Paper that we will be debating shortly without the scrutiny of a first reading in the House would be quite comprehensive. If it is so important one would have thought the Minister and the ministries would be incorporating that in the Statutes Amendment Bill at the time that it was tabled in the House and it would be debated at the first reading before it goes to the select committee. So we will be monitoring that process very closely as we go through. 
I do acknowledge the Minister’s comments about reassurance and I would hope that the process will be carried through and streamlined because this is about goodwill of Parliament. It is about all parties agreeing with the process. The changes to the provisions are in the main technical and we do not want to get into lengthy debate on those. So if the Government wants the goodwill then we would ask quite clearly that this provision of Supplementary Order Papers be taken seriously so that we can progress what we also believe to be important changes to legislation. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 This is just a brief call on the third reading of this bill and I recognise of course that a Statutes Amendment Bill is not the place to debate the wider substantive part. But I would just make the point that there are a number of bills in this amendment bill that both myself and I am sure the ACT party would love to debate in a much more wider sphere than we are debating in this limited sphere—bills such as the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill the Forest and Rural Fires Amendment Bill and the one that I think has a huge amount of relevance in Dunedin right at this time is the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Amendment Bill. The funding of our veterans—the last of the World War II veterans most of whom I guess are still surviving well into their 80s—in Dunedin especially is a hugely topical issue and I would have to say that the Government is negating its responsibility to those veterans. They need a paltry $2 million to ensure that they can live out their lives in their twilight years with some dignity and respect and not have the worry or concern of having to shift from this home to that home as the funding for these brave individuals appears to be drying up. 
I think it is outrageous quite frankly that funding is not fully available to look after essentially a very small number of men and women left who have done this country proud over the years. It would not as some members of the Government seem to suggest set a precedent in rest homes right throughout this country if the Government stepped in and helped out at the Montecillo Veterans Home and Hospital. I think there would be—well I guess there are always some—a very small number of people a very very tiny minority who would suggest that the war veterans should be treated exactly the same as our other older citizens. I think they deserve a little bit of special treatment on behalf of those of us who respect and understand the sacrifices those people made. 
I say again that I think it is outrageous that those people in their twilight years should have to go through the anxieties that they are obviously facing at this time as to where they will spend their final days. I take this opportunity to call on Minister Hodgson and Minister Benson-Pope in Dunedin to actually make even stronger representations to their Cabinet colleagues on behalf of the remaining few and ensure that they can rest and have their final few years in dignity and tranquillity and not have this question of money and lack of money surrounding their futures. 
I have just returned from America on the Speaker’s tour and to see the way in which—with dignity and reverence—the American people treat their dead and indeed those who are still alive to this day was something to behold. I note that the Australians have the same attitude and indeed so do the Canadians. Why do we not have that attitude in New Zealand? Why do we not treat those who still remain with the reverence and respect they deserve? It is not about setting precedents it is about doing the right thing to a very very small number of people who have given their all for this country. 
Bills read a third time.