Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill

Members, the House in committee on the Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill. We come first to Part 1. Now, Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 and 4, the amendment to the Crown Entities Act 2004. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do hope that we hear from the Minister in answer to a number of questions that I have, and some I and my colleagues have, which we believe to be very constructive amendments to the bill so that it lines up with the policy intent. I’m going to launch straight into them.

I’m fascinated to know why this bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance. As Mr Brownlee has said in his second reading speech, the Office of the Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament, independent of the normal lines of ministerial responsibility, accountability, and control—that’s as it should be—but when there are changes to the Crown Entities Act or the Local Government Act, those bills are generally sponsored by the Minister for the Public Service, or the Associate Minister of Finance as a shareholding Minister, or the Minister of Local Government. So I’m interested in two things in respect of why we are here with the Minister of Finance in the chair, given the traditional responsibilities for those pieces of legislation. How and when and to whom did the Office of the Auditor-General actually approach the Minister, if it was this Minister, to advise that there was a problem with meeting its legislative obligations?

I note that Anna Lorck, in her second reading speech, said that she agreed that we should pay auditors more, so why did the National Party not raise this issue in April when it had an opportunity to? Well, the answer to that is very simple: we had no idea. We can’t raise issues that haven’t been first raised by the people to whom that issue relates. And so we’ve not actually heard much about that. We had a heads up on Thursday, we’ve got a letter—a quite comprehensive letter—that Mr O’Connor might be interested to know doesn’t mention COVID at all, except to the extent that the remedy being sought is similar to a remedy that was applied last year. We are not fixing a COVID problem here. The problem is not going to go away just because we kicked the can down the road. As Mr Nash said in his interjection on me in the second reading, “This is the only plan the Government has.” Although, I’ll give the Minister a chance to correct his colleague, because I think we are in need of an explanation of that.

So my first questions therefore are: why is the bill in the name of the Minister of Finance, when was the issue first elevated to the Government, to whom was that elevated, and by what method?

I’m the Minister of Finance, this bill amends the Crown Entities Act. It also does amend the Local Government Act, so I guess it would be arguable that the Minister of Local Government could bring the bill—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Or the Public Service.

Or the Public Service Commission, but I don’t think that’s a particularly material matter. I am the Minister of Finance, and the Crown Entities Act is one in which I have a significant interest.

In answer to the second of the member’s questions: on 16 June, the Auditor-General came to see me. He then wrote to me on 17 June around these issues. As you would expect in those circumstances, we sought advice from officials as to what approach we should take to deal with this. The Auditor-General—and this is a letter that Mr Bayly has, and I’m sure he shared it with his caucus, and happy to table in the House at some point if that’s of any interest to anybody. The letter was written on 17 June, reiterating the matters that the Auditor-General raised with me. They are the same matters that I’ve raised in the House today. So that was the means by which that occurred. The Auditor-General responded to some questions that I had and I believe some questions that Mr Bayly had in a letter dated 2 July 2021, addressed to myself and Mr Bayly, that begins with the following words: “Tēnā korua, Minister and Mr Bayly. Thank you for indicating your support for legislative change to address the current shortage of auditors”, and then there were some further questions that followed on from that, which the Auditor-General wrote back to us on about 6 July—that’s yesterday, isn’t it?—and here we find ourselves on 7 July.

Point of order, Madam Chair. There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers that the Opposition wish to speak to in this debate; they are not on the Table.

Thank you for that, because the amendments have not been tabled, they are—right, OK, so they have been tabled and they will be put on the Table as soon as possible. The amendments are coming in as we speak, or minutes ago, so I’m sure the Office of the Clerk is catching up as quickly as they can. I call Damien Smith.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I apologise for my tardiness, but I was on my feet, seeking a call at the time Mr Brownlee took his point of order, and I do have some questions that in the normal exchange of the committee of the whole House, as set out in the new Standing Orders, where by convention the call would have returned to me. I don’t want to run across Mr Smith’s—what I’m sure are—very intelligent arguments, but I think, if we could continue that tête-à-tête, it would be good.

Thank you for that. I will take the member for the very next call—Damien Smith.

Madam Chair, Minister, I guess at the centre of this is insufficient audit capacity and, obviously, doing my calculations, it’s 300 hours per auditor for the next eight weeks, which doesn’t seem a lot. But I guess the question we have is, given this extension: what percentage of the large and significant audits are outstanding and are to be audited or in near completion for auditing, and what certain audit reports are the main priorities?

I thank the member for the question and, reiterating as I do—as I’m sure over the next few minutes I’ll answer a number of questions on behalf of the Auditor-General but, obviously, I can’t really do that in that the Auditor-General is an independent Officer of Parliament—I’m aware that it is the intention of the Auditor-General to write to Parliament, I think via the Finance and Expenditure Committee, to advise the House of his intentions, which are entirely in his purview as to how he intends to sequence matters. What he has identified to myself and to Mr Bayly in a letter dated 2 July is that it is his intention that the following audits will be completed within the current statutory auditing reporting deadlines: the financial statements of the Government and all key components. This will include all Government departments, the Reserve Bank, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, State-owned enterprises, mixed-ownership model companies, Air New Zealand; large Crown entities such as the ACC, Kāinga Ora, Waka Kotahi, and larger district health boards; all financial market conduct reporting entities; those covered by the Financial Markets Conduct Act and their significant components, for example, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Watercare Services, and the Ports of Auckland; and larger councils, for example, Christchurch City, Tauranga City, Wellington City, Dunedin City, and others including significant council-controlled organisations. It is the intention of the Auditor-General that all of those audits will be completed during the current statutory time frames. The extension of two months—he expects that to deal with small to medium sized councils, smaller district health boards, and small Crown entities and trusts.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) were tabled before the conclusion of the first reading. We’ve been through the second reading, we’ve had several speeches now in this committee stage but the SOPs are not on the Table of the House and that’s becoming quite an irritant, I’ve got to say.

Thank you for that. I understand the irritation of the Opposition members. The tabled amendments will be tabled just as soon as possible. However, I acknowledge the frustration that is felt by some of the members and that will be reflected in the opportunities that I will be giving members to speak in the first part of this bill. I too, would like the tabled amendments to hit the Table.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to go a bit backwards now that Mr Smith has raised his issue and with the Minister’s reply, while it’s still fresh in my mind, about the intention of this, as set out in the Controller and Auditor-General’s letter dated 2 July. I would add, incidentally, that while the Minister points out the first sentence in that—and Mr Bayly will speak to this, I’m sure—the National Party’s position was certainly an openness to consider it, but at no point did the party indicate its support for the legislative changes, nor could we have done that before the caucus saw the bill and was able to consider it for themselves yesterday morning. So I think that’s perhaps a misunderstanding. I don’t believe that Mr Ryan intended to say something that wasn’t accurate, but it’s worth putting on record that the support was to have a decent look at this, as we are responsible to do. It is our requirement.

Now, back to the question of what the Minister or the Government knew and when, and the Minister has indicated to the committee that he was first alerted to this on 16 June, and that was followed up on 17 June. My question is around the Budget bid process. I don’t think the Treasury documents have been released on to the website yet, but it’s customary that after a Budget, a swag of documents will get uploaded on to the Treasury website in due course. Usually, the Government is a bit coy about Budget bids that aren’t successful, and there’s big black lines through lots of those documents, but I think given the situation we find ourselves in, the committee, I think, deserves an explanation—or an understanding, rather—of the degree to which the salary constraints that the Auditor-General clearly knew was happening, because they’ve lost 27 staff over the last year, were reflected in a Budget bid that was put to the Government and whether or not that bid was successful.

Now, it may well be that it is and it’s simply a case that it takes longer—as we know from this Government, just making an announcement and an appropriation doesn’t make things happen.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: They’re good at announcements.

They are good at them. That’s right. But there’s always a pretty significant body of work, particularly when it comes to recruitment of staff in short supply, and so it may well be that there was a successful Budget bid. But I think we need to know whether or not there is a remedy coming and whether that was sought in January or February, when the Budget bid process was under way.

In my time—the last question I have at this stage relates to the answer that the Minister gave to Mr Smith in respect of the intention as articulated in that letter of 7 July. Why does the bill not reflect that intention? Because the Auditor-General is very clear about which audits will be completed within the current statutory time frames and which ones he and his teams will need an extension of time, but the bill is a broad blanket. Once this bill is passed, the best endeavours don’t become law, because the bill is much wider than that. Every Crown entity that’s subject to the Crown Entities Act and every local government and council-controlled organisation that’s the subject of the Local Government Act gets the extension. So why are we not being more precise about this and putting into law that which is intended by the policy?

On the last point that the member’s made, I would have thought it was reasonably obvious that an Officer of Parliament has a certain amount of discretion. The Auditor-General has that discretion, and I don’t think it would be the right thing to do for this Parliament to direct him in that way. Now, that is entirely in Parliament’s hands, obviously, but we do tend to trust the Officers of Parliament to make the kinds of decisions that the member is talking about, the kinds of prioritisation decisions.

In response to questions from both myself and Mr Bayly, the Auditor-General has outlined the prioritisation and the sequencing in the way that I just did, but I think it is certainly my view and, I believe, the view of the Government members of the House that we trust the Auditor-General. We believe the Auditor-General should be the person who makes decisions about specific audits and the specific times they happen. The practice of Parliament getting involved in that would have potentially very unfortunate consequences. For example, a member of the House may decide that, actually, they’d rather that a particular Government department wasn’t audited and move that around in the sequencing. We would not like that kind of approach. That would be a level of interference I think that we would not be comfortable with. So it is a matter for the Auditor-General the order in which he and his staff undertake their work, and I don’t believe it would be appropriate for the House to interfere in that.

On the member’s other question, I want to clarify for him how the staffing arrangements of the Audit Office work and where the funding comes from. Audit staff who do their work in this space are funded from audit fees, which are charged to the agencies. So it’s not actually an appropriation matter. Non-audit staff within the Audit Office are funded out of an appropriation, and it is my understanding that when the Auditor-General appeared before the Officers of Parliament Committee on 11 March, he indicated that audit fees were going to need to increase in order to maintain a competitive pay structure within his office, and that Parliament had also approved funding to adjust pay levels for the non-audit staff in order to make sure that they had comparative pay rates with the rest of the public sector. So in terms of these people here, that’s not an appropriation matter.

Thank you, Minister, for that explanation. I would make one comment and then finish with a question, before, I’m sure, my colleagues have others. I fear the Minister may have conflated two things. One is the exercise of discretion by the Auditor-General about priorities in carrying out his function with his legislative obligations to do them in a certain time frame. He has no discretion to breach those time frames. That’s why we’re here. We’re kind of arguing both sides of the same coin in that regard, in the sense that we’re being asked not for him to have greater discretion; he wants the legal power to have a longer period of time. I think it’s not unreasonable for this House to grant that if it so wishes, but to be a heck of a lot more specific about that than we are, than the broad blanket, and many of the Supplementary Order Papers that are being tabled right now actually speak to that point.

My colleagues will speak to it specifically, but if certain organisations are going to be prioritised, fine—exclude them from the extension of time. The question I have—and I thank the Minister for clarifying the point about how audit fees are charged, and I expect that the appropriation is probably for the external auditors, the “big four” and so on that actually subcontract out, and then they charge Audit New Zealand—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: That will all be under the fees.

OK, but if those fees have gone up, was a bid for extra fees put in and was it accepted?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: They don’t need to bid.

The Minister says they don’t need to bid. OK. But they don’t have carte blanche—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: They just charge.

That’s their charges to the client. That is the Crown entity. So my question then is: when an external organisation like PricewaterhouseCoopers or Deloitte is used to carry out their audit, as many of them are, are those fees charged to the Audit Office or to the client—in that case, say, the school or the DHB or what have you? The reason this is relevant is if the fees have gone up and the client is paying them, that’s fine—I understand that—but if the fees have gone up and the Office of the Auditor-General is paying them, then that would have resulted in a Budget bid.

I can confirm they’re charged to the clients.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s an honour to be able to speak to the Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill.

I have three questions in relation to the bill; I’ve got a lot more questions than that more generally. But my first question to the Minister is: what is the effect of the extension in the sense of decision making that will flow from reports that the Auditor-General will make? It seems to me as though the debate has focused, quite rightly, on a number of policy decisions that have led us to this place and some detail around the mechanics of the provision of those reports that the Auditor-General will eventually be making. But in terms of the flow-on effects and the real world consequences, in terms of actions of third parties relying upon the Auditor-General making those decisions, and to understand exactly what is riding on this policy and this legislation that will give effect to it—that is my first question to the Minister and I’ll pause there in case he’s minded to respond to that before I proceed to my other questions. And he’s indicating, in fact, that he would have me continue.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: He likes what you’re saying.

He does like what I’m saying, that’s right. The Hon Scott Simpson is quite right on that. The Minister’s now making another hand gesture at me, which I won’t share with those watching. I’m just kidding.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Aw, you’re going to make it sound bad!

No, I did make that sound bad.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: It was an internationally recognised gesture.

It was an internationally recognised gesture, but it was not of that nature. I do the Minister a disservice if I suggest anything untoward in that regard. So, thus encouraged, or at least not discouraged, I’ll proceed to my second point which is—it really derives from what would be, I suppose, more of a commercial or contractual understanding of time frames. So forgive me if I delve into one of my lives before Parliament—makes it sound like I’ve been reincarnated. You know, let’s hope for better than a backbench MP next time around! That’s right. You know, there may be new life in the old dog yet, but no new tricks. So anyway, I’m getting some very—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: If you were really bad in a previous life you’d be a Labour Minister.

If I was very bad in a previous life I’d be a Labour Minister! Says the Hon Scott Simpson—he’s on fire.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry, any time the member wishes to pose a question.

Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I’ve got many philosophical questions, as you see, Madam Chair, but I’ve also got some that relate to the legislation. So in terms of the way that this is characterised, essentially the time extension is to be provided and that much is obvious from the name of the bill and, indeed, from the clear terms of Part 2, we see that it’s not later than the close of 31 December 2021. So the goalposts have really just shifted and, of course, that’s the intent and we can all have our views about why and how that has happened.

But I wonder if the Minister had contemplated, or would contemplate by way of tabled amendment or Supplementary Order Paper, a change whereby, instead, the relevant provision would talk about an obligation on the Auditor-General to provide the reports as soon as reasonably possible. But in any case, not later than 31 December 2021, or 2022 as the case may be, just to make it clear that there is an intent from Parliament as directed by the Minister. But, ultimately, it will be passed by this House, no doubt by majority, whereby we would make it clear in this place that it should be provided as soon as possible. Each and every report that is already late—because it’s not a matter simply of being late and being happy about that, but to minimise the error and not compound it or not to allow it to exist to its greatest possible extent. We should be requiring that the Auditor-General understand that their office should be providing things as soon as possible in the circumstances but, in any case, not later than the close of, as I say, the end of those respective years. So I sense the Minister is ready, willing, and able to provide an answer on that point and perhaps the previous one, too.

Yeah, look, in terms of the latter point, I just make the point to the member that, again—and I’ve made this response already to Minister Woodhouse—I do think we need to be particularly careful as a Parliament around the way in which we impinge on the activities of Officers of Parliament. They are deliberately at arm’s length—both from the Government, but also to some extent from Parliament—in the sense that they undertake their work and are regarded as trusted professionals who can manage their work programme and their workflow. That’s why the Auditor-General has come to us and said, “Look, I am in danger of not meeting the statutory deadlines that I have. I’m looking for two months, just two months to be able to complete those.” In the course of the exchange that followed from the Auditor-General doing that, he has made clear to myself—and indeed to Mr Bayly—how he intends to sequence what he does.

So I don’t believe it would be necessary to do as the member suggests in terms of more specificity and more caveats because, ultimately, as a House, I believe we do have to trust and, in fact, we do trust the Auditor-General. And because this is a technical bill—it’s not one that’s designed to do anything other than that time limit change—I think we risk getting into unintended consequences if we have too much of a detailed approach with regard to that. In terms of the impact, the answer is very limited, particularly on the public entities for which we’re talking about here, because when it comes to Government departments and Government agencies, they will be done according to the advice we’ve had from the Auditor-General within the space of that time frame. So there’ll be no difference there, and for the small number of entities that the Auditor-General believes will fall outside the current legislated time frame, the impact, I’m advised, will be minimal. It is only a two-month period, the councils and the small trusts and so on, they’ll have clear guidance as to why it’s occurred. I believe the impact, as I’m advised, will be minimal, if any.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I’m grateful, too, to Minister Robertson for engaging on both those questions that I posed. I wonder, by way of follow-up on the first of the two points, in order that he addressed them, if it’s not the case that we should be thinking in a consistent way about the obligations and the independence of the Auditor-General, such that we say that that office should not be subject to obligations that are imposed in any more stringent fashion than the House or the Government may wish, but nor should it be subject to largesse or generosity that appears to be sought for no particularly good reason, so far as I can tell. But at least the Minister has engaged with that, and, as I say, I do thank him for it.

My other question is in the realm of, essentially, the fact that the Government is providing policy here somewhat—I should keep careful of my phrasing of this, Mr Chair. I don’t wish to indicate anything untoward or that would have me fall foul of the Standing Orders, more to the point, but the Government is very much being a judge in its own cause here. There is a clear conflict of interest whereby the Government is seeking to avoid the consequences of its own policy failures in related areas, such that it is getting a “get out of jail free” card in the way that this legislation allows. So I did just want to place that on the record. There’s no question particularly attached to it, although if the Minister did sort of wish to respond to that, then, of course, he would be very welcome indeed.

My final question, at least for now, is why, in clause 4, which talks about repealing this extension—well, the question is really why is it to be repealed? It’s very clear in the provision at new section 156(3) that the time limit will apply only for particular calendar years, so there’s no particular reason to repeal it. It does remind one of that famous quote that doctors bury their mistakes 6 feet below ground, but other professions don’t usually have that opportunity. Indeed, journalists bury their mistakes on the front page. That was said some hundred years ago, and, of course, we probably wouldn’t talk so much about a front page any more, being in a digital environment more so—certainly for the news, and, indeed, many other things. But there’s an element of the Government seeking to sort of be done with this change, this sordid chapter in its inability to manage better the demands of public accountability, really, and certainly bearing in mind the extent to which those are imposed on the private sector, as others have already noted. It seems to me that it’s actually entirely unnecessary for those clauses to be repealed, because, as I say, it’s clear from the wording of the provision that precedes the repeal provision that there’s only a particular couple of calendar years or financial years or reporting years to which the provision, actually, and the policy even apply. I look forward to the Minister providing some explanation on that point.

Thank you. I’m sure that Minister Robertson will want to respond to Mr Penk’s concerns at the appropriate time. In this Part 1, which amends the Crown Entities Act, the Minister might like to perhaps elucidate a little bit about where the two months comes from as an extension. The bill talks about “in relation to the financial year ending with 30 June 2021, the audit report referred to in that subsection must be provided by the Auditor-General no later than the close of 31 December 2021”, which is a six-month extension on that date. Well, the Minister’s sitting there saying, “No, no, it’s not.” Anybody from the public will read that the gap between June and December is a much longer gap than two months. Similarly with new section 156(3)(b), “in relation to the financial year ending … 30 June 2022, the audit report referred to in that subsection must be provided by the Auditor-General no later than the close of 31 December 2022.” Can the Minister just briefly explain to the committee how that works?

There are a variety of dates, depending on when financial years end, when it is appropriate for entities to provide their reports. What this means is that there is a two-month extension for any report on its reporting deadline, wherever it falls.

Except that the next part of it is, under new section 156(4), “However, subsection (3) applies to an entity only if its financial year ends … 30 June”. So I still go back, and tell me what I’m missing here, to where it says that where the financial year ends on 30 June, the Auditor-General has a deadline of 31 December of the same year—2021, or the subsequent year 2022—to produce that report. Explain how the Minister keeps saying it’s only two months.

Because, Mr Brownlee, we wouldn’t expect an audit to be completed the moment a financial year ended, would we? There is always some time in which an audit is to be completed. This adds two months to that time.

That is the interesting sort of point that the Minister makes. If, in fact, the auditor only needs an extra two months on top of the time that they have now—in other words, they’re saying that “We can’t report by 30 June 2021, because we need an extra two months”—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: No.

Well, the Minister’s shaking his head and saying, “No, no, no.” The satisfactory argument has not been made by the Minister. If, in fact, he’s saying that of course there’s not a drop-dead date, they’ve got to complete the audit and then they write the report and then they deliver the report—well, that’s one thing. But the reality is statutorily, the dates are moved by a lot more than two months. So is there some other explanation that the Minister might be able to more succinctly give, perhaps in the language of a 12-year-old that we’re required to use for most communications around this place, to explain what it is or how it is that between 30 June 2021, the current requirement for reporting, and what the bill proposes, 31 December 2021, there’s only two months’ extension for the Auditor-General.

I will try to repeat what I just said before. So the 30 June date that the member’s referring to refers to the end of the financial year—it refers to the end of the period which the accounts are being audited for. That’s not the audit date. The audit date comes after then, and what this does is extend that two months from there. So he’s misreading the section, which I think he might know.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. The new provisions allow us to be in an exchange with the Minister over a period of time. I was still in that exchange. You were taking it as if the Minister’s explanation to the Chamber ends my time speaking. I think that’s a bit unreasonable. I haven’t taken a full five minutes, even with the exchanges that we’ve had. So I’m asking for the call.

I’ll just respond to the member. I mean, I’ve got to be fair as well, across the whole committee. When someone from another party stands and hasn’t yet spoken to it, I tend to give the call to them. I’ve not accepted the motion that the member moved, and so I’ll now give the call to the next person, as I was going to do.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I didn’t move a motion.

No—no. Sorry, I meant the member Kieran McAnulty.

Oh, then I’m calling.

And then I was going to accept another call.

That was a very satisfactory outcome. So are we to take it, then, that the date by which the auditor is required to report on the financial year ending 30 June 2021 is currently around about 30 August 2021? That being two months past the date. Well, then, what month is it that we’re extending it? Are we extending from October? Then why isn’t that clearly stated in the bill.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Ha, ha!

No—the Minister can’t sit there and laugh, as the bill does not state here what the drop dead date is that’s being extended. I think that’s an unreasonable sort of thing.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Ha, ha!

Well, the Minister continues to guffaw. That’s the trouble—they guffaw while everything burns around them. And while the general respect for the Chamber and for the position of an Officer of Parliament is just quietly tossed to one side, the duty of the Speaker to be involved in these matters also tossed to one side, and the Parliament just expected to ram through a bit of legislation that the Auditor-General—who has very clearly got problems in that office that aren’t being discussed here—has come along and convinced the Minister would be a good idea.

We’ll do this as slowly as we can. So we have financial years, and in the case of replacement section 156(4) set out in clause 4 it’s 30 June, so entities where their financial year ends at 30 June. If, in the case of a Crown entity, normally they would be required to have the audit done by 31 October. That’s now being extended out. This is amending an Act, so we’re changing the Act, which would currently say 31 October to 31 December. It’s very conventional; it’s two months. Strangely enough, it’s exactly what was done last year when the National Party voted for it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just thought it’d be useful—I’ve got a tabled amendment trying to deal with this issue of prioritisation, and I think, as Minister Robertson is quite correct in pointing out, we did both receive a letter on 2 July. As he will know, the backdrop to that was trying to understand what would be the implication if there was a delay, and this letter from the Auditor-General did specify that. As he has pointed out, the letter signals that there are four areas where the audit would be completed within the current due time, particularly the financial statements of Government and all key components. The second one is Financial Markets Conduct Act reporting entities, and those are things such as Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Watercare, and larger councils. Also, the fourth element is any outstanding audits of councils’ long-term plans for 2021-2031.

I think the issue, as the letter sets out, is there are three areas where the Auditor-General wasn’t able to give assurance that the audits would be completed within the due time frame. Namely, small to medium sized councils and smaller council-controlled organisations, some smaller district health boards, and smaller Crown entities and trusts. The purpose of the letter that was received from the Auditor-General was to try and get an understanding of why this was required and, also, what would be the prioritisation.

So in that light, having heard that the Minister was first informed of the possible problems with the Auditor-General on 16 June, and it wasn’t until middle of last week that we were informed of this, but a day later we got a bill that, from my reckoning, hasn’t changed since it was sent to us on Thursday last week, the issue—there has been no consideration in terms of looking at, if there was a delay of two months, how would we ensure that, from the Government’s perspective, key Government organisations were actually audited within the due specified date? This was a central question that you and I did discuss, Minister, and, unfortunately, the piece of legislation that was sent to us on the Thursday—and still remains the same—hasn’t changed, and what we understood that if there was to be a delay then there would be a prioritisation around it. I am therefore surprised that there’s been no attempt—and I’ve heard what the Minister said before, that we shouldn’t unnecessarily constrain the Auditor-General in terms of prioritisation. That is one argument. But actually, from a Government’s perspective, another argument is there are certain key, critical organisations that should be actually audited because they’re absolutely essential.

The tabled amendment I’ve put forward is seeking to address that specific issue that has been a common theme throughout. Namely, making sure that the following organisations, there’s a fair number here, that require—organisations like Waka Kotahi, Broadcasting Standards Authority, Human Rights Commission, Law Commission, Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, New Zealand Productivity Commission, and major universities of New Zealand. A whole raft of organisations that are absolutely essential that are audited and completed. I’d like to hear from the Minister why further consideration wasn’t made from the date that the first draft of the legislation was sent to us until today. Why was there no attempt to even try and specify some of the ones that we really did want to make sure are audited, from Government’s perspective?

As the member has acknowledged, I have already answered this question. And that is, to repeat for the member, because I don’t believe—and this is my belief, and I accept that he holds a different belief, but it’s my belief that Parliament dictating that level of detail to an Officer of Parliament exercising—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: But it does anyway. That’s what the law does.

—their duty—no, the law, Mr Woodhouse, covers carte blanche, as the extension does. So you can’t have that argument both ways.

But I can give the member an additional reason, which is in fact covered on the very next line over the page of the letter that we both received on 2 July, which says, “As always, final priorities will depend to some extent on an entity’s readiness for audit.” But also, I’m sure the member can imagine the situation, were we to pass his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and then for some reason one of those entities on his SOP was not able to be completed in the time expected by the Auditor-General, we would have to come back to Parliament and make a law change to get rid of it.

So it doesn’t, to me, make any sense, and I don’t actually believe the member distrusts the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has written to us, indicated the priority list—to me that is exactly the appropriate way for this to be dealt with. I do not believe it would be appropriate for us to direct at the level that the member’s SOP does.

Thank you, Minister, for that response. I find the response absolutely fascinating, actually, because, as he says—and this is in the letter from the Auditor-General—“Final priorities will depend to some extent on entity readiness for audit.” Now, what the Minister has now just suggested is that we’re now not looking at the issue of whether the Auditor-General has sufficient audit staff, which is, I understood, what the purpose of this bill was—in the light of people leaving the Audit Office; auditors leaving the Audit Office and lack of capacity in third-party auditing firms—to now one of suggesting that not only have we got a problem with that but we’ve now got a problem with Government entities who may not be in a position to be audit ready. And if that is what he’s suggesting, I’d just really ask him to clarify it, because that is a totally different aspect. And I think, if that’s now the proposition and a reason underpinning this, that is a fundamental change.

I am merely quoting exactly what the Auditor-General wrote to both Mr Bayly and myself, but I can clarify for him that the issue that brings us here tonight is a shortage of auditors. I’d also point out to Mr Bayly that, actually, universities aren’t impacted by this particular change, as they have a 31 December balance date. So that would be another reason for not supporting his amendment.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got two questions for the Minister, and I’m sure that he will be able to respond quite quickly to them. The first is in regard to clause 4, new section 156(5), where it says that this subsection will be repealed at the close of 30 June 2023. So, effectively, the Government is giving itself two years at the maximum to, basically, ride out the issue of the lack of auditors that they’re finding. Now, I’d just like, in light of the Minister’s previous comments confirming that this is the reason why this bill is coming forward—you know, it takes at least three years for someone to go through university and get a commerce degree. We’ve got the potential that that two-year period could be revisited in the future. So I’d like to see what evidence the Minister has for coming to that conclusion that he thinks the problem will be solved in two years’ time, when we see in other parts of the economy, such as the dairy industry and the horticulture industry, that those concerns around labour supply haven’t been able to be solved in that short period of time. So I’d be interested to see what the Minister has got to say around how he’s come to that date, because I’m sure he wouldn’t want to put the House through urgency again in two years’ time to redo this bill, as we’ve done in some other legislation. So I’d be interested in the rationale that he’s used in that case.

My second question is in regard to the departmental disclosure statement. In 4.3., where we talk about retrospective effect, it says, “Does this bill affect the rights retrospectively of any individual?” And it said “No” in the departmental disclosure. The delay of a few months in an audit can affect the rights of individuals. I would like to take the case that we had of the Waikato District Health Board, for example, where we had an individual that was actually a councillor and a Waikato District Health Board member that had a very specific issue in regard to the health board, around her family member, and that became quite a protracted dispute, and timing was a lot of the issue in that case, around the ability for that individual family to seek justice for what they had seen had been done at the district health board level. For the Government to say that there is no effect on the rights of individuals—I don’t think that is true. It may not be an effect that we determine as significant, or it may not be an effect that we determine as being relevant, but to answer that question saying there is no effect is incorrect. There can, potentially, be circumstances like that one. If you had the facts in a slightly different format, that would be an effect on the individual’s rights, and it would be retrospective because it would affect this order coming up and the delay there.

So I would like the Minister to perhaps correct that answer and to give a rationale for why they have said no when, potentially, there are facts which indicate that there would be an effect on a person’s rights, and also to answer how they came to that date of June 2023 and what evidence he has to show that there will, in fact, be that supply of staff and auditors by that date.

In answer to the member’s question around the date, firstly that is the proposal that the Auditor-General brought to us, and we have, by and large, in this process tried to stick to what an Officer of Parliament has asked for us to do. There is an expectation in particular because a large part of the way in which the audit season works is to bring people in from the private sector companies to assist with the audits. Obviously that will, we hope, be in a stronger position to see people come in from overseas to support both those private sector companies and, potentially, the Audit Office itself. But I also don’t think going beyond two years would be appropriate, actually, when we do have a statutory provision that we want to return to. So it’s both a practical response that we do believe we will be in a much stronger position to have more people come in from offshore during that period of time, but also because, actually, I think it’s not the practice to go beyond the two years. I don’t expect to be back here in two years’ time doing this, either.

In terms of the departmental disclosure statement, the member will be aware, because he was a former Minister, that I don’t have a role in producing that document per se. That is the judgment of those people who have written it, that there are not effects in that regard. I didn’t actually understand the member’s example and how that would relate to a financial audit specifically, but it is the judgment of the departmental officials that it does not have that effect.

Minister Robertson used, in his answer to my first question around the date, the potential of overseas labour coming into the country. Well, there’s no way that that labour can come in under a closed-border system that we have at the moment. There’s no indication that that border system will be changing in the near future. To use the answer that we’re going to bring in foreign workers to be able to do this, just doesn’t make sense and doesn’t fit with the rationale of this Government, which has been to employ New Zealanders first, to train New Zealanders first, and to use that as the rationale for all other industries. Yet the rationale given here tonight is that we will get people in from overseas. So it just doesn’t make sense. It’s contrary to other Government policy in other sectors like horticulture and the dairy sector, where there’s no way that the Minister of Agriculture has ever said that you can bring people in from overseas to sort things out. And yet, that this Minister is able to rely on that excuse in this case is not consistent.

Secondly, they just won’t get in because the border policy is effectively that they’re shut. They would not be considered the skilled type of worker that would come in under any skilled exemption category at the moment, to the nature that the Minister is talking about. If they did, they’d be taking away from other skilled category workers because managed isolation and quarantine places are limited, as we’ve heard from the Government. So how does he reconcile that? That he’s going to use the answer, “We’re going to bring foreign workers in.”, when he won’t let foreign workers come in for our industrial base and other parts of the economy that are crying out for foreign workers at the moment?

Thank you very much. We were just looking at the Auditor-General’s website today, and there’s some interesting points which don’t quite match with the bill, but I think it’s worth raising in the House. The statutory deadlines are an important component of our accountability system. So what he’s guaranteeing is with a two-month deadline extension, we expect that all 30 June 2021 audits will be completed by the end of this calendar year without compromising audit quality—and more importantly—or breaching statutory deadlines. Yeah? If he gets the support he will allocate all of the resources to ensure that the larger, more significant audits are completed first and that auditors will engage directly with affected public organisations once Parliament has considered the proposed legislative changes.

He also goes on to point out that this will be a need for one year not two years. So there seems to be an inherent plea for help in here in terms of the actual dynamic, which doesn’t quite match the bill but, actually, is the solution. So I’d like to ask the Minister, does this make sense to him, and would that satisfy the needs of public accountability and your department?

With reference to the first part of what the member raised, that’s precisely what we’ve been discussing. So all of that up until the point about the two years or one year, I think is entirely consistent with what we’ve been discussing and what’s in the bill. So it is an arrangement by which we are trying to ensure that the robustness of the audit process is upheld. There’s also the issue for staff because, clearly, with a reduced number of staff—and we’ve covered off in the earlier stages of the debate the fact that this is not only about the ability to bring staff in, it’s also about a loss of staff over a recent period of time. So staff wellbeing is a factor in addition to the robustness of the audit process.

Yes, I do believe—that’s what I’ve been assured, is that audits will be able to be completed by the extended time frame that takes us out to the end of the year.

With reference to the one year, two year matter, I haven’t looked at the website, so I can’t attest to what the member’s saying. What I can say is that the Auditor-General was consistent from the 16 of June onwards when he contacted me that it was a two-year time frame. I’m aware from the correspondence that’s gone backwards and forwards with myself, Mr Bayly, and the Auditor-General that it would be his intention not to use the second year if he didn’t have to. But rather than do this on a year-by-year process we give the option for that second year. But for me, it’s consistent to what is in the bill, and consistent to all of the communications I’ve had with the Auditor-General.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on Part 1 of the Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill. I’d like to ask Minister Robertson some questions around the sequencing, because I do believe there is a significant concern around the sequencing which is being proposed. Well, effectively, no sequencing is being proposed, although the Auditor-General has proposed a certain set of sequences that he believes that the Audit Office should be undertaking through this process. The question I’d like to ask the Minister in the chair is: where in the auditor’s process will the audit of the Human Rights Commission be taking place? It may be a small entity, but the question is: will it be being undertaken sooner rather than later in the process? I see he’s asking officials for some advice and I’d appreciate a firm date commitment because this is of important concern to all New Zealanders.

I’ve put a tabled amendment on the Table. I’m not sure if it’s there or not yet, due to the fact that there are substantial numbers of tabled amendments coming forward with many different arguments from this side of the House. I have one which says that the Human Rights Commission should be removed from this process of having their audit put forward by two months. They should be required to have theirs done by 31 October—and the reason being is because it has come to light for the New Zealand public this week that the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, gave a $200 donation to the Human Rights Commission.

💬 Hon David Bennett: No!

That’s right, Mr Bennett. A $200 donation on 1 May.

💬 Hon Member: Did he get a receipt?

Well, I don’t know. Did he get a receipt? That’s a good question. Was it paid in cash? How was it paid? Is it the only money that he’s paid to the Mongrel Mob? But I just think it’s outrageous that New Zealanders have to put up with a Government and Government agencies which are giving money to organised crime. We have a substantial issue with organised crime here in New Zealand—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): If the member wants to carry on like that with matters that—if he can’t link it to the bill. This is Part 1 and he hasn’t done it yet. I’m just warning the member.

The tabled amendment which I am tabling and if it’s not on the Table yet—is to say that, actually, the Human Rights Commission should not be given an extension to their audit to 31 December in 2021. And, in fact, it should be done by 31 October this year because there are substantial issues and concerns around the finances in that entity over the last 12 months. And so, Mr Chair, that is incredibly relevant to what is happening, because this bill is saying, “Actually, what we’re going to say is the Human Rights Commission—we’re going to let them have their audit extended out for an additional two months, despite the fact that there are significant concerns over their expenditure at the Human Rights Commission and, particularly, how Paul Hunt used $200 as a donation to the Mongrel Mob, an organised criminal organisation, on 1 May at a hui earlier this year.”

So this is an incredibly important issue. New Zealanders will be wanting to see that audit report sooner rather than later, and they will not find that this piece of legislation is something which they will agree with when it comes to the Human Rights Commission. They’ll be saying, “We want that as soon as possible. And in fact, we want that according to the legislated time frames, which is 31 October this year, so that we have some oversight as to that $200 donation given to organised crime.” No money from the taxpayers should be given to organised crime at any point, let alone $200 donated to the Mongrel Mob on 1 May. And so that audit report is critically important and that is why I am moving a tabled amendment in this debate so that we have that audit report put to New Zealanders so we have some transparency over what has happened so that we have some accountability over that $200 donation.

New Zealanders want that. New Zealanders will be asking for that. And I ask the Minister: will he be supporting my tabled amendment? Will he be supporting and requiring some transparency on this issue as well? Will he be actually standing up for taxpayers? Will he be standing up on behalf of taxpayers who are concerned that under this Government, their hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars have been going to the Mongrel Mob? Will he be standing up for taxpayers concerned that their hard-earned taxpayers’ money is going to organised criminal groups in New Zealand? I wonder whether he will be able to actually say that. Will he be saying that or will he be saying, “Nothing to see here. Not too worried. We’ll let this one pass. We’ll let it just go.”? Well, I’m putting this tabled amendment before the committee and I’m asking all parties in this Parliament, all members, to support this tabled amendment today. Thank you very much.

For the third or possibly fourth time, I will repeat the point that I have made—that it is, in my opinion, the Auditor-General’s judgment that counts when it comes to the order of the audits that will take place. He has written his explanation of that to myself and to Mr Bayly. I believe—I have trust in him and I have already stated I do not believe it would be appropriate for this House to issue very specific guidance about that. I think the member needs to reflect on how that would work if the Government decided to pick and choose particular audits to do in a particular way. I imagine that member and others might have some concerns with that. So this is simply a two-month extension. The Human Rights Commission will be audited, if this bill passes, within the period that is prescribed. That will be appropriate. It will mean we will have a robust audit. I’m sure that’s what taxpayers want—that we have robust audits that are able to withstand any analysis or criticism. So, in short for the member, no, I will not be supporting it.

I move, That the question be now put.

A point of order. I’m just raising a point of order. I asked the Minister a very simple question two questions ago. He has been very good in responding to all questions tonight, but he refused to respond to my simple question about the inconsistency of foreign labour in—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So what’s your point of order?

Well, why didn’t the Minister answer that question? Is he afraid to—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s not a point of order.

I’d like to thank Minister Robertson for his response just before, and he made a very strong point about the Parliament not deciding the order in which audits should be done and that we should trust the Auditor-General to make those judgments. So the Minister, in short, is asking us to trust the Auditor-General to make a decision about which entities should have priority for an audit. This is the same Auditor-General that has got us in a position where a bill has to come to Parliament for us to get him out of the trouble he got himself into. He hasn’t either, but perhaps it’s because the Minister—perhaps not the Minister in the chair, but the one who’s responsible for that Government department, hasn’t adequately provided the funding for the Auditor-General to remunerate the staff sufficiently to keep them.

But that isn’t our problem today, our problem is trying to clean up the mess that we have. So we’re being asked to trust a person to make the right decision about what entities should be audited when they have got us in this position where we are tonight: in urgency, trying to clean up the mess. I think that that’s a very big stretch for us.

I’d like to, while I’m on my feet, speak to a tabled amendment in my name around the Climate Change Commission. I think the Climate Change Commission has to be exempted from this perverse piece of legislation being rushed through the House under urgency. The simple reason is the Climate Change Commission, the decisions that they have made, the report—albeit that it is going to be before the court for a judicial review, which we could debate tonight if we wanted to—that entity, any decision that they make is going to impact everybody’s lives in New Zealand. And yet that entity won’t be at the top of the list. I think they have to be at the top of the list. I’ll give you a good reason: one of the commissioners is a research fellow of a company called Motu. Motu is one of the biggest contractors to the Climate Change Commission and I think that in itself may not be sinister and there might be nothing wrong with it, but how can we have confidence in an entity that is giving advice to the Government that will have an impact on every New Zealander’s life?

If the numbers that were released earlier in the week are anywhere near correct, we could be talking about not $50 a tonne, as they said, to get to net zero, but over $1,100 a tonne. That will impact on every household in New Zealand. We need to have confidence that the advice that has gone into that report and gone to the Government is actually something that we can all have confidence in. If there’s anything in New Zealand that we should have confidence in, it is the Climate Change Commission. And it’s not just “Trust us, we know what we’re doing.” Actually, we need to check. That’s what the Auditor-General is supposed to do. That’s what the Audit Office is meant to do. And, actually, what they should have probably been checking is did they have enough staff to do the job. But they clearly didn’t do that early enough. If they had, we wouldn’t be here tonight.

I think that a fundamental of confidence is actually being confident in yourself as an entity to be audited, have everything thrown open, show that there’s nothing to hide. That flows through to every household in New Zealand having confidence that that entity is actually a robust entity with no conflicts. And what conflicts they do have, if there are any, are not conflicts that would impact in any way on the advice that they gave, because it impacts on us all.

As I’m sure you will be aware, Madam Chair, that the advice is far reaching, it is absolutely far reaching. They’ve gone further, in fact, in the agriculture space than was required under the Act. So there has to be good reasons behind that. What happens if the person who’s the commissioner has perversely moved that advice in a direction that they have some sort of conflict with, which we don’t know about? And so it’s right and proper that this entity is at the top of the list to have their entity audited.

Madam Chair, what a wonderful choice. Thank you so much for recognising the need for gender diversity in this debate.

My question for Minister Robertson relates to the amendment that was put forward by Mr Andrew Bayly. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that the universities listed there, in fact, don’t have their end of financial year date in June, but in fact on 31 December. I can see how this may be going to cause an issue for the Minister, so I am concerned when I know that the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) in our audits—the pre-audit of the audit started in December. And so if this amendment takes place, then the audits that are being delayed by two months are actually going to flow across into the pre-audits of 31 December. So my concern really is that in six months’ time, he’ll be bringing this to us again and wanting things pushed out again.

Of course, it’s a real concern not only for Auckland University of Technology, Lincoln University, Massey University, University of Auckland, University of Canterbury, University of Otago, University of Waikato, Victoria University of Wellington, but it’s also of absolute concern for this dreadful shambles of Te Pūkenga that Minister Hipkins has created, pulling all the institutes of technology and polytechnics together and all of those subsidiary companies within there and the huge amounts of money. Remember, this is going to be one of the largest educational institutions in the world, not just in New Zealand but in the world. So we need to be very sure that in a timely manner we will be seeing that, for example, millions of dollars don’t get taken out of SIT and used across some of the other polytechnics. So it’s incredibly important that those time lines don’t slip for those tertiary institutions.

They have to report not only their financial report, obviously, but also the EPIs, their educational performance indicators. Now, it’s really important that those come out early enough, because we have wash-ups of their Student Achievement Component funding that occur in April, and you have to have the EPIs available. So any delay in those annual reports might well delay the funding through into the following year. So I’m really interested to know whether the Minister sees that, perhaps, that amendment tabled by Andrew Bayly actually, probably, needs to be amended for any institutions like the universities and Te Pūkenga and the polytechnics who will have their end of financial year 31 December and being impacted on because of the delay. Whether we, in fact, need to put an amendment in that accounts for those that have their financial year ending 31 December to ensure that we don’t see another delay of two months for those entities, given how important it is for their future funding or for the following years’ funding of the universities and of all the Te Pūkenga subsidiaries. That includes NorthTec, Unitec, Manukau Institute of Technology, Toi Ohomai, Eastern Institute of Technology, University College of Learning, Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki, WelTec, Whitireia, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, Ara Institute of Canterbury, Otago Polytechnic, Open Polytechnic, and, of course—very importantly, with their millions of dollars sitting in reserves—the Southern Institute of Technology.

So my question to the Minister is: do we really need to be putting in a further amendment that ensures that those entities, the universities, Te Pūkenga, and the subsidiary companies be excluded, because of the importance of the public knowing how that shambles of Te Pūkenga is getting on, but also because of the possible impact of funding for those institutions for the 2022 year, given the length of time it would push out the EPI reporting?

💬 Hon Member: You wouldn’t have run SIT like this, Penny.

Wouldn’t have run SIT like this, and I know the tertiary entities will be ready and they will have all their—[Time expired]

I have two questions for Minister Robertson, but before I ask them, I just want to take the opportunity to commend to the committee the tabled amendment in my name. I think Simeon Brown in his contribution made the very good point that, actually, size isn’t always the best proxy for risk. The Human Rights Commission—

💬 Chris Penk: Careful!

—I think is an organisation—we know that, don’t we Mr Brown? I think good things—

💬 Greg O’Connor: A good big man will beat a good little man any day!

—come in small parcels. Mr O’Connor knows that the nippy halfback is just as important as the big front-rower.

Now, I want to come to this point about—so, firstly, I’ll speak to my tabled amendment. My amendment is to exclude from the extension Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency. They are big and complex and risky and, actually, consistent with the Auditor-General’s expectations for what he thinks will happen over the next few months.

Now, the Minister, again, as I say, is trying to have a dollar each way. He’s talking about how we should not be legislating over the exercise of judgment of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, but the one thing the Auditor-General cannot exercise judgment over is the statutory time frames for reporting. So we’re not doing any such thing in suggesting amendments to the bill that give effect to the very policy intent that the Minister wants to achieve. There is no harm in agreeing to the amendments that I and my colleagues have tabled. It is simply a statutory reflection of what the Controller and Auditor-General actually believes will be achieved.

In a normal year, he cannot exercise his judgment to say, “Well, the statutory deadline is 31 October, but I’m a bit busy. We’re going to extend it out.” He has no such discretion. I should note that while the Minister keeps quoting actions of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) in respect of extension of time for reporting to them, they didn’t do a change to the law. All the FMA said was they would suspend action and they would not prosecute or pursue in respect of those failed deadlines. Now, the Controller and Auditor-General doesn’t have that discretion either, so the Government argues that the bill is necessary. That’s their prerogative, but at least the amendments that I and my colleagues are suggesting give better effect to the reporting deadlines.

Now, the two questions I have—and I’m still reeling somewhat at the revelation, and I must confess I missed it in the letter from Mr Ryan to him and Mr Bayly, and that comment that, as always, final priorities will depend to some extent on entity readiness for audit. So my question in respect of that is: was that the first time that the Minister had been made aware that entities in his control and other ministerial colleagues’ control may not be ready for audit, and is that why we are passing this? So have they received advice that individual entities, whether they be DHBs or State-owned enterprises, won’t be ready for audit? Has the Auditor-General’s office—and I see that their fine staff are represented on the bench tonight and may be able to answer this. Have Crown entities or local councils come to the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and said, “We can’t. We’re going to struggle with our entity readiness for audit.”? What is the problem that we’re trying to solve here? Because that hasn’t been pointed out prior to this.

Now, my last question is in relation to the responsibilities that this House has, and I am a very firm believer in the separation of the executive from the legislature. One of the things that this House has to do through its select committees is financial review. Now, last financial review period, we were somewhat disrupted as a House by two things. One was COVID and the extension that was necessary last year, and the other was the 2020 general election, which squeezed up considerably the time that committees had, many of them brand new committees—sorry, brand new members of the committees. The Finance and Expenditure Committee is a very good example of that—a good committee, lots of new members. So we were squeezing up the financial review, and some would argue or I would argue that we were rushing it somewhat. [Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I won’t be long. I just wanted to make the point that the select committees are the engine room of our democracy and of this place, and they are separate from the executive, so my question is this: has the Minister taken advice or sought advice into the degree to which the delay in the reporting period for Crown entities will once again affect this place’s ability to scrutinise the annual reports of these through the financial review process? Has he considered going to the Standing Orders Committee and getting a sessional order similarly extending the time period for that scrutiny and the period within which the select committees have to report back to this House on their findings? Because it seems to me that this is another example of how the Government is actually acting in its own interests but Parliament is going to be squeezed in its ability to fulfil its obligations. And I think this is a really fundamental point, because, ultimately, it’s the legislature that scrutinises the executive, it’s the legislature and its select committees that holds the public sector organisations to account, and importantly through its Crown entity reporting. So those are my two questions: what feedback has he or the Office of the Auditor-General had on the entity readiness for audit, and what consideration has he given to representing to the Standing Orders Committee an extension of time for us to do our important work?

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to delete section 156(3)(b) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to exempt listed district health boards be agreed to.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to exempt listed Crown entities be agreed to.

The question is that Joseph Mooney’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to exempt the Commerce Commission be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Watts’ tabled amendment to clause 4 to exempt the Accident Compensation Corporation be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to exempt the New Zealand Transport Agency be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to exempt the Human Rights Commission be agreed to.

The question is that Stuart Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to exempt the Climate Change Commission be agreed to.

The question is that Nicola Willis’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to exempt Kāinga Ora be agreed to.