Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): 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.CHRIS PENK: 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!CHRIS PENK: No I did make that sound bad.Hon Scott Simpson: It was an internationally recognised gesture.CHRIS PENK: 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.CHRIS PENK: 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. CHRIS PENK: 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.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): 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.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): 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."