Third Readings

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.

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.