Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. I just thought it'd be useful—I've got a tabled amendment trying to deal with this issue of prioritisation and I think as Minister Robertson is quite correct in pointing out we did both receive a letter on 2 July. As he will know the backdrop to that was trying to understand what would be the implication if there was a delay and this letter from the Auditor-General did specify that. As he has pointed out the letter signals that there are four areas where the audit would be completed within the current due time particularly the financial statements of Government and all key components. The second one is Financial Markets Conduct Act reporting entities and those are things such as Auckland Council Auckland Transport Watercare and larger councils. Also the fourth element is any outstanding audits of councils' long-term plans for 2021-2031. I think the issue as the letter sets out is there are three areas where the Auditor-General wasn't able to give assurance that the audits would be completed within the due time frame. Namely small to medium sized councils and smaller council-controlled organisations some smaller district health boards and smaller Crown entities and trusts. The purpose of the letter that was received from the Auditor-General was to try and get an understanding of why this was required and also what would be the prioritisation.So in that light having heard that the Minister was first informed of the possible problems with the Auditor-General on 16 June and it wasn't until middle of last week that we were informed of this but a day later we got a bill that from my reckoning hasn't changed since it was sent to us on Thursday last week the issue—there has been no consideration in terms of looking at if there was a delay of two months how would we ensure that from the Government's perspective key Government organisations were actually audited within the due specified date? This was a central question that you and I did discuss Minister and unfortunately the piece of legislation that was sent to us on the Thursday—and still remains the same—hasn't changed and what we understood that if there was to be a delay then there would be a prioritisation around it. I am therefore surprised that there's been no attempt—and I've heard what the Minister said before that we shouldn't unnecessarily constrain the Auditor-General in terms of prioritisation. That is one argument. But actually from a Government's perspective another argument is there are certain key critical organisations that should be actually audited because they're absolutely essential. The tabled amendment I've put forward is seeking to address that specific issue that has been a common theme throughout. Namely making sure that the following organisations there's a fair number here that require—organisations like Waka Kotahi Broadcasting Standards Authority Human Rights Commission Law Commission Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission New Zealand Productivity Commission and major universities of New Zealand. A whole raft of organisations that are absolutely essential that are audited and completed. I'd like to hear from the Minister why further consideration wasn't made from the date that the first draft of the legislation was sent to us until today. Why was there no attempt to even try and specify some of the ones that we really did want to make sure are audited from Government's perspective?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As the member has acknowledged I have already answered this question. And that is to repeat for the member because I don't believe—and this is my belief and I accept that he holds a different belief but it's my belief that Parliament dictating that level of detail to an Officer of Parliament exercising—Hon Michael Woodhouse: But it does anyway. That's what the law does.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —their duty—no the law Mr Woodhouse covers carte blanche as the extension does. So you can't have that argument both ways.But I can give the member an additional reason which is in fact covered on the very next line over the page of the letter that we both received on 2 July which says As always final priorities will depend to some extent on an entity's readiness for audit." But also I'm sure the member can imagine the situation were we to pass his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and then for some reason one of those entities on his SOP was not able to be completed in the time expected by the Auditor-General we would have to come back to Parliament and make a law change to get rid of it.So it doesn't to me make any sense and I don't actually believe the member distrusts the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has written to us indicated the priority list—to me that is exactly the appropriate way for this to be dealt with. I do not believe it would be appropriate for us to direct at the level that the member's SOP does."