Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Chair. What a pleasure to be talking tonight. We've been away on recess and you know we all miss this place. Of course I wanted to talk about something quite dear to my heart it's called the Public Finance Act 1989. Of course as we all know finances drive this economy and drive the ability to be able to spend on good social programmes. If we're slack and lazy that means we have less money to look after the good people of New Zealand and that's why I think this Government needs to be held to account and that's why this bill is very relevant: because it actually has a lot about the Public Finance Act.What I would like to talk about—apart from just congratulating all the good members from this side who have done such wonderful speeches tonight; the only thing that's missing is some wonderful contributions from the Government side. I'm feeling sad that our listeners can't hear Government spokespeople actually stand up and deliver something that's worthwhile in the Parliament tonight because this is an important piece of legislation as everyone has remarked because these are the little changes that mean that we can achieve the great things for New Zealand.Of course this piece of legislation is always put through the House from time to time to try and tidy up things that do need addressing.Hon David Parker: Say something relevant?ANDREW BAYLY: I heard something from Mr Eagle over there.Hon David Parker: No; it was me.ANDREW BAYLY: Oh Mr Parker. I'm glad you're here Associate Minister of Finance with a razor mind thinking about these things.The issues I want to talk about are clauses 76 and 77 on the Reserves Boards. What this Governance and Administration Committee amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) does is it actually strikes out clauses 76 and 77. What that means—and I know you will be someone who has a great deal of expertise in this Mr Chair—is that these relate to schedule 4 organisations. Some of you may wonder what those might mean but probably the best example I think might be where you've got small private cemeteries that are looked after by volunteers in remote parts of the country even in parts of my electorate in South Auckland where they are under an obligation to provide an audit.Of course you'll probably be aware that Audit New Zealand I think from memory does about 3500 audits a year. Many of them relate to very very small entities. What this does is provide some flexibility. Those wonderful volunteers that go out every week and mow the lawns get the weed-eater out—it's good exercise—and look after those little cemetery plots in many of these places where many people do not even know that they exist: they're the hard-working Kiwis and what this does is reduce the burden that's placed upon them. Often they've been set up as a historical trust—or a company or a partnership; but often a trust—that may have been in existence for 100 years and this removes the requirement for an audit. It removes the requirement for the audit which means that the Audit Office can actually concentrate on those entities that really do need to be focused on to make sure everyone is paying their proper share of taxes.And of course what this does is it sets—at the moment there's a threshold of $100000 and that's quite a high threshold.Hon Member: Don't go!ANDREW BAYLY: I'm very sad to see more Government members taking a walk—I don't know where to but they're taking a walk.What this does is it has a $100000 threshold and on the face of it for an audit that's actually quite a lot of money. What this does under new section 450AAB is gives the Governor-General the power to amend the $100000 amount by Order in Council made on the joint recommendation of the Minister—currently the Minister of Finance—and the Minister of Conservation. Now by being judicious about that that means that we can capture a whole range of these small trusts and entities and actually look at that $100000 because that is actually quite—[Time expired]