Bayly Andrew; Robertson Grant; Webb Duncan; Bennett DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): 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.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): 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.Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): 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 The first is in regard to clause 4 new section 156(5) where it says that this subsection will be repealed at the close of 30 June 2023.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.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): 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."