Wood MichaelClause 7 New Schedule 1AA insertedMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Well look this has been quite a debate but fireworks really kick off now I think because it's in clause 7 that we actually have something pretty extraordinary that's put forward in this piece of legislation that the committee does need to really get to grips with and we do need to understand. Now what clause 7 does is inserts new Schedule 1AA—we've touched on a number of aspects of Schedule 1AA in previous contributions but here's the really important one I think that we need to examine during the debate on this clause and that is clause 3 of Schedule 1AA because what clause 3 does is something that in this House we're generally pretty loathe to do and that is it's a piece of retrospective legislation.Look let's be honest it does happen from time to time and we could find speeches from members of both sides of the House which take issue with this. But the reason that we take issue with this on both sides of the House from time to time when retrospective legislation is proposed is for a very good reason and that is as a general principle good legislation is legislation that looks forward and parliaments generally are loathe to make law that looks backwards—Barbara Kuriger: This Government's done it—a lot of quick rushed legislation lately.MICHAEL WOOD: —and we can understand why that is. The member opposite is right—from time to time the Government has. So for example during the recent events in respect of COVID when the Government has tried to provide tax relief to small businesses for example—really important measures to support their cash flow keep small businesses and jobs going—we did put that through in a retrospective way. It was an emergency legislation; it was debated in the House. The point that Barbara Kuriger made was debated and it went back and forth and there was an understanding of why that is. I think members on that side of the House might have supported in the end. But it needs to be debated—that's my point. If you're going to do something extraordinary as a Parliament like make law that goes backwards—and here's the point about it: when you make law that's going backwards you're covering a period where people didn't know that that law existed. That's the problem. It can be resolved there can be good reasons for it but that's the legislative problem that needs to be worked through and explained in this debate.So what happens in clause 3 of Schedule 1AA is that we effectively go back five years—five financial years—and validate financial statements that were actually invalid according to the legislation that was in place at the time. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that. I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons for doing that but we need to have a good debate about it. We most certainly need to hear from the member in the chair Parmjeet Parmar that she is satisfied with that as well.I note that the Governance and Administration Committee points to this. Now the select committee didn't change too much in this legislation but they address this point in their report. They say In practice none of the specified amenities have been preparing a second set of financial statements in accordance with NZ IFRS. Since 2014-15 when the Charities Act requirements to prepare in accordance with GAAP came into force"—so going back five years there. The questions that I have for the member—and I assume and I hope that she's considered this; I assume and I hope that there has been serious advice provided to the member and to the select committee around this point.Barbara Kuriger: Very diligent member.MICHAEL WOOD: We are so diligent on this side of the House especially when it comes to important legislation.Hon Member: That member's diligent too.MICHAEL WOOD: I know she's diligent. The chief Opposition whip makes the point that the member in the chair overseeing this legislation is diligent. I accept that. That's why we need to hear a call from her to show us how diligent she's been to demonstrate the advice that she's received in respect of her legislation which is retrospective. Now the member opposite made the point that this Government has passed retrospective legislation. Every single time a Minister who has been putting forward that legislation has stood up in the House and explained why that is and explained why we were doing something as unusual as passing retrospective legislation. That is what we need to hear in this debate. That is what this committee needs to hear.So here are the questions that I have for the member that I want her to address in respect of this: in respect of validating financial reporting that would've otherwise been invalid does that apply to all of the amenities that we're talking about? I think there are 14 amenities in total. I assume that due diligence has been done and we know which ones had invalid statements. Was it all of them or was it just some of them? Can we understand that? We need to understand if there's any analysis about whether those amenities have made significant financial or investment decisions on the basis of financial statements and reporting that was actually technically invalid. That's a very important thing to understand. If entities have prepared both sets of financial statements—and there's a lack of clarity in the debate about whether these entities have been preparing dual sets of statements or whether some have just been going with generally accepted accounting practice. If entities have been using both sets of financial statements and some sort of question has to be asked about their operations and we have to go backwards and look at them which is the valid set of financial statements? That's actually a really important—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m."