Bennett David; Smith Damien; Robertson GrantHon DAVID BENNETT (National): 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?DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): 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?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): 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."