Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I love second reading debates except not from Labour members because you never get anything out of them. But it does give us an opportunity to continue the contest of ideas such that there were any from the Government backbenches. But before I do I want to just talk about a little thing that really really grinds my gears and it comes from the Labour backbench all the time and that's the so-called straw man argument. Now for those listening who don't know what a straw man argument is it's a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted but instead replaced with a false one. I think Dr Duncan Webb has many talents but his ability to articulate and argue a straw man argument as evidenced by that first reading speech—there was nothing in his second reading speech so there were no straw man arguments or any arguments in that one—is actually unsurpassed. He and I think Greg O'Connor are probably neck and neck amongst the two Labour members who are able to deliver the fallacy of the straw man argument and then argue and berate and belittle the people that didn't actually make the argument. I quote him from his first reading speech. He was surprised to hear me pooh-pooh[ing] … some of the other work that the Auditor-General's doing" saying that the Auditor-General should "shove to one side the work on delivery of health" and "shove to one side the work on domestic violence … Māori equity" and so on." That's not what I said at all. What I said was that this House is owed an explanation about what the veracity and the intentions of the Auditor-General's annual plan for 2021-22 is in respect of those things important though they are. First principles: core business for the Auditor-General is to audit the statements of account for Crown entities. No one's saying that work shouldn't be done. I certainly did not say that work should be shoved to one side Dr Webb. It is important work but the Auditor-General has told the Minister and this House that their office has a problem and the solution is to pass a law to extend the report-back period. I think that in considering that bill we need to know what the plan is and for Dr Webb to throw up the straw man argument that I said that those things weren't important or that they should be shoved to one side is patently not correct. Then we got to Helen White. In fact it was a good thing I was listening carefully because she talked and quoted me as saying that I'd said it was about the quality of the audits as if that was a slight on the Auditor-General. I said no such thing and I corrected her in her speech in the debate. I talked about the confidence in the audits—another straw man argument that is to be defeated. Then we heard from the Minister—actually in his second reading speech—accusing my colleague and friend the Hon Gerry Brownlee of throwing open the doors—a wholesale opening of the border. No such thing was said by Mr Brownlee. It certainly isn't being suggested by any member of the National Party. But the irony of the Government solving its own problems but leaving companies to the wolves of the problems that they have in getting staff—300 teachers? "No worries we'll open the border." Need some horticulture workers some hospitality workers some skilled migrants? "Forget it—forget it." Angela Roberts: 17000. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 17000. Does the member know what it used to be? Anna Lorck: We're in COVID—we're in COVID. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member will—we'll come to Anna Lorck in a minute with that dreamy singsongy first reading speech that we all heard. Seventeen thousand is a drop in the bucket of what this economy generally relies on. Pre-COVID at any one time there were around a quarter of a million temporary migrant workers in this country whether they were on international student visas working holiday visas essential skills visas or pathways to residence under the skilled migrant category. So to talk about 17000 as if this is a great big thing actually shows how little these people understand about immigration and migration policy in this country. So let's come to Anna Lorck in her singsongy voice—dreamy—"Two months just two months. Two months just two months." I think the whole speech used those two words about eight times. So I ask the member and the House: what would happen if I got into trouble with the tax department and just said "Oh two months. Don't worry—just two months."? Or if my driver's licence or my firearms licence or my motor vehicle registration expired and I just said "That's OK. Two months—just months." Remember according to Anna Lorck—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I would invite the member to return a little more closely to the bill.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The bill is about extending the report back for audits by just two months. But I draw to the House's attention the Government's inconsistency in the approach to people in need. Now we talked a little bit about the reasons why the Auditor -General's office is in this state and the 200 auditors short across the country so my question is: what's the plan? Is this a palliative measure? Yes. Hon Stuart Nash: Extend it for two months. This bill is the—Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh exactly—thank you. The Hon Stuart Nash has just admitted this is the plan. The only plan the Government has got is to delay. Never mind—and the Minister did remind us that we were here last year albeit I have to point out that the extension was for just six weeks and it was for just one year. So we're going for a longer extension for a longer period of time and last year we had COVID. It had nothing to do with the staffing issues in the Audit Office so we're applying the same solution to a different problem. But Mr Nash has just told us that the Government has no plan to fix the problem. It's just pass a law and hope—pass a law and hope. So what do we know about the Government's attempts to train more auditors? Where is the graduate recruitment programme? Where are the salary expectations going to go because they didn't give the Auditor-General any more money to meet the market which is the thing that the Government has told every other company they need to do. "Oh can't find staff? Pay more."—right. When it comes to the Government: "Can't find auditors? Oh we'll just delay things for a bit." What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. So where's the retention strategy? How long are they going to take to fix this problem? [Interruption] Oh they're up like meerkats now—good. We might have a decent debate in the committee of the whole House.Andrew Bayly: Hopefully they're going to speak for 10 minutes each.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah well that's right. It couldn't be any worse than the speeches we've heard so far. No plan and as I said in my first reading speech the bill overkills the problem. The Auditor-General wrote to the Minister of Finance and Mr Bayly setting out exactly how they intended to go about fixing the problem but that's not what the bill does. The bill throws a much wider blanket over the problem. It just says for all Crown entities and all local government organisations and council-controlled organisations a two-month extension. It's not. There's more than—Anna Lorck: Two months. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: "Two months."—there she goes. She's back—"Two months just two months." So I'm going to indicate to the House that in the committee of the whole House I and my colleagues will be tabling amendments to the bill to do what the Government hasn't done and that is introduce a bill that is aligned with their policy intent. One would think that that was "Politics and Policy 101" but no no—lazy Government lazy bill. So we'll do their job for them. If they want a two-month extension for certain organisations name the organisations—name the organisations. We'll be tabling amendments that list the large DHBs that the Auditor-General wants to do first that list the large Crown entities that he thinks are more important than some of the others and that list the city councils that are larger. I think there's a question—and we'll debate this I think in the committee of the whole House—about the degree to which size and risk are actually closely correlated. That's not always the case; in fact we're going to give an exemption to the Human Rights Commission because I think they certainly need to have the bonnet lifted on their spending to make sure that it's appropriate. So they won't get a two-month extension according to the tabled amendments that we're going to put. There is so much more to talk about in this bill and in this debate and I look forward to it. As Ms Lorck said "I can go all night.""