Woodhouse Michael; Robertson GrantHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I was actually going to give the Minister credit for the thoughtful way in which he'd engaged in this debate but I find myself having to criticise him for those last comments. Actually democracy is messy it takes time and frankly when we are under urgency this House is actually owed more respect than the comments that the Minister has just given. Because the legislative statement the disclosure statement and the information that we have about the degree to which this is necessary and appropriate is anaemic and so I simply reject the fact that the National Party is somehow filibustering or drawing out this debate. This is a very important debate to have.I want to firstly acknowledge that at least some science is being brought to the debate—for the first time actually since this started—about the case for change because we now know how many staff what the Minister says is operational—I find that quite interesting and I'll elaborate—have gone and how many have come back. We now know what that 27 represents—they're having 41 resignations and 14 recruited of what he called 235 operational staff.There are actually according to the annual report of the Office of the Auditor-General—I think it was the 2019 report was the last one I could find online—420 staff that work in the Audit Office; how many of those are actually qualified auditors or at least capable because they have accounting technician qualifications or other skills that may assist chartered accountants in performing their audit duties I'm not sure. But let's take 235 as the denominator and the 27 net staff that have been reduced in the last period of time. That constitutes 11.4 percent of what the Minister calls the operational workforce. So that's fine—it's probably not that different from the percentage of registered nurses at Waitematā or Southern DHB or Canterbury District Health Board; it's probably about the same as the staff the New Zealand Transport Agency have reduced. It's probably a challenge not only across the Government sector but across the private sector that every single organisation has to deal with. But not every single organisation can come to this place and ask for a statutory extension of time to fulfil their duties.And to suggest that the amendments that we are putting up are somehow interfering with the discretion that the Auditor-General has in the carrying out of his work is quite wrong. It's not something the Auditor-General has discretion over; he has a legal obligation to do that and we're being asked to change the law. If that means that we have to have a bit of a debate and it's a bit messy and it interrupts the Minister's appointment diary too bad because that's what we're here to do.Now I also want to re-ask the two questions I asked at the end of Part 1 which the Minister perhaps didn't have time to answer and add another one. Those two questions last night related to Crown entities' readiness for audit and it extends I think to local government entities ready for audit so it's just as relevant to Part 2 because the letter from Mr Ryan to Messrs Bayly and Robertson talked about that. So my question is: has he received advice from the Crown entities and local government entities that the Ministers responsible for these pieces of legislation—have they heard from those entities to say that they are not ready for audit? Secondly has the Office of the Auditor-General actually had a formal approach from those organisations to say they will struggle with readiness for audit? That's the first question.The second question is: has he had a discussion or will he approach the Leader of the House to ask him to consider extensions of time for the legislature to fulfil its obligations under the Standing Orders to review the financial reports and the annual reports of these entities? Because like this year because of COVID and the general election we had precious little time to do that very important function. I'm quite sure that this delay is going to result in the same scenario in early 2022.And the third question I want to put to the Minister is in relation to consultation. Mr Brownlee talked about consultation with Local Government New Zealand. I would add to that: any consultation about this with Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and the actual firms the large firms that provide audit services to Crown entities on behalf of the Office of the Auditor-General—and actually let's hear a little bit more about the science of why an 11.4 percent reduction in the staffing level even if it's as high as that actually results in what's a much larger proportion of the work being delayed.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for his questions. In answer to the first of them the letter of 2 July—the member just needs to read the sentence carefully. It begins with as always". So what the Auditor-General is suggesting is that within his normal prioritisation that he has to undertake final priorities depend on the extent of entity readiness for auditing as always. So I don't think there is anything whatsoever in that matter.Secondly the effect on select committees: I am advised that given that these audits will be completed by 31 December financial reviews would be the next moment for us and I'm advised they will be—Hon Michael Woodhouse: They can't start in November and December.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —unaffected—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Select committees can't do their work in November and December.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No that's not true Mr Woodhouse whatsoever—it's not true: the advice I have is that this will not affect the work. And bear in mind once again the beginning of that letter indicates that the priority for the Auditor-General is the financial statements of Government and all key components including all Government departments. So the Auditor-General is telling Mr Bayly and myself in that letter that that work will be completed in the normal statutory time frame not the extended statutory time frame. So the member has nothing to worry about in that regard.In terms of his third point my understanding is that there is constant communication between the Office of the Auditor-General Audit New Zealand and the large companies whom they use to undertake work. That's just a regular part of what they do. The reason we know that there is a 200 auditor shortage in New Zealand is as a result of a survey undertaken by the chartered accountants association of Australia and New Zealand. So this as I've already mentioned multiple times is a result of a number of factors one of which is that global shortage and indeed the shortage here in New Zealand.In terms of wider matters I am repeating myself Madam Chair but that's because the questions are covering the same ground and that is to say that the Officers of Parliament Committee may well have a number of questions that arise out of this legislation. I've said that in my first reading speech I said it in my second reading speech and I've said it during this committee stage. And they can at any time take these matters up. That is the appropriate place to take these matters up. We've had material provided from the Office of the Auditor-General today on those staff movements. Questions about those are best directed through the Officers of Parliament Committee. The job in front of the House today is how to deal with that and other factors that have led to the Auditor-General asking us for this delay."