Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I need to start by responding to some of the allegations made in the second reading speech by the Minister of Finance the mover of this bill. He suggested that somehow I and my colleagues were suggesting that we wanted the border to be opened and people to come flooding in. Now that was of course the sort of gross exaggeration of what was actually said—so gross in fact as to be a complete misrepresentation—but somewhat typical of what is often said when people know that they've got a bill that's actually not exactly kosher.One of the things that's really important in this country is that all agencies follow the law—all Government agencies follow the law. The Auditor-General is an Officer of this Parliament. The Auditor-General would not tolerate in any circumstance entities that they are required to audit simply saying We haven't got our audit material prepared. Would you give us a bit of an extension?" Yet the Auditor-General himself has gone to the Minister and pleaded for whatever reason that he's now so depleted of staff that he can't get these audits done in the time required; therefore could the Parliament please change the law? That is an extraordinary request regardless of the circumstances that might be outlined somewhat I think over strenuously by members of the Government. Yes last year we did support an extension. It was clear that we had gone through a month of total lockdown and subsequent restrictions on people's movements and it was a reasonable thing to do. But if we are now to be getting into a position where this could be our normal for quite some time to come I think we have to be acting still within the law where possible.The exemplifier of that type of course of action should be the Office of the Auditor-General. The Office of the Auditor-General would not tolerate any of the local authorities coming to this House with a local bill asking that they be exempt from audit processes for a given period of time. There'd be outrage over that. So I think for the Government members to say that this is a simple bill that it should just be gently ticked through the Parliament without any scrutiny of any great depth is I think a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the Parliament is in the first place. And it is also I think very disrespectful of the Office of the Auditor-General because while the Office of the Auditor-General will be held by individuals who might have a different interpretation of how they should operate at any given time the office itself should be one that is required to act with the greatest of integrity and within the law at all times.So we on this side of the House have made the point that other people who do need staff are not able to get them and while we're saying "OK we don't think that the gates should be flung wide open" we're saying that the Government is being very hard on those businesses in comparison to the way it's prepared to listen to an Officer of Parliament effectively asking the law to be changed to excuse them from their obligations. That's an extraordinary thing and I would suggest that while there will be obviously more votes cast than just the 65 of the Government it's the sort of bill that a Government with a massive majority just decides it can do particularly under urgency where there is absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever.It's interesting to look at the departmental disclosure statement on this bill and throughout it there are a number of questions under a number of topics and for each one of these ordinarily when a person goes through these a member goes through these they're able to get some sense of the level of scrutiny that's gone on. But through here we have just a series of the answer "No haven't done it" or "Not applicable" and it is one of those sorts of incredibly lightweight documents that leads people who have been around for a while to get quite concerned about what the actual intention of the bill is. So while we're seeing that it does apparently just extend the period under which an audit might be conducted it does not exclude some of the major departments of State from that exemption. It may have been a more acceptable bill if there were some of the smaller organisations particularly Government entities not local government not health boards but other entities that were to have their audit period extended but to do it carte blanche across all of the agencies of the State seems to me to be an excess.What's not being discussed here is how this situation has apparently suddenly appeared. It cannot be that just earlier this week the Auditor-General turned up in the Minister of Finance's office and said—Hon Grant Robertson: Not this week.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Last week. He's now said it was last week. So the Minister may have had a few days to think about it but was it just the case that the Minister opened the door in walked the Auditor-General throwing his hands in the air saying "I've lost 27 staff members. I cannot complete my statutory functions in the time span that I am statutorily required to. Therefore Minister there will be a requirement for a bill in the House in the name of the Minister of Finance to extend my statutory deadlines."?Well here's a question and we'll discuss this further I'm sure in the committee stage. The Minister technically responsible for an Officer of Parliament is the Speaker. So what advocacy did the Speaker undertake during the time of the Estimates not for this year but for the last year when it should have been abundantly clear that there were going to be staffing issues to try and deal with the reasons why so many of their staff were being poached to other entities? Why was it that there wasn't some long-term contractual arrangements with some of the private auditing houses around the country to have them doing their continuous work in a way that gets it done?Hon Grant Robertson: They don't have auditors either Gerry.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well those are the sorts of questions that need to be answered because to just suddenly plunge the House into urgency to absolve an Officer of Parliament of their legal responsibilities seems to me to be the sort of excess that only—only—a majority Government would have a go at. And I think that raises all sorts of concerns on its own.Anna Lorck: That's right—Government majority!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well Anna Lorck over there a new MP says "Well that's why there is a majority for the Government."—so that they can do things that they want to. Well that is interesting if it is policy that's been taken to the people and there's been choice made on it. That's one thing but to come in here and use this Parliament to usurp the rights of the Parliament in relation to an Officer of Parliament is I think quite a significant contravention of the standards that we've established in this House over a long period of years.So it's not possible for the Speaker to participate in a debate but unfortunately this bill drags the Speaker into it because as the acting Minister or the Minister responsible for Officers of Parliament it would be appropriate I think to know a view from the Speaker about how this situation materialised. At what point in the last 12 months did the Auditor-General come into the Officers of Parliament Committee and say "I've got a staffing problem—such a bad staffing problem that I may not be able to meet my statutory obligations."? Because at that point a select committee with the guidance of the Minister responsible might have been able to come up with a solution that didn't require Parliament to plunge itself into urgency and for the Government to use the club hammer of its absolute majority. So we do see this as a serious bill. We see it too as the Government saying one thing for Government agencies and another thing for the private sector."