edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Madam Chair gosh thank you very much for granting the call. It's great to be the last call I hope because I do want to ask—and it potentially may take some time; I'm interested to hear the answers in the morning. Referring to Part 2 my specific question is: Minister Robertson's articulated on 16 June he was notified around the degree of vacancy. So I'd like to ask if the vacancies for Audit New Zealand could be tabled—the vacancies that are currently there today and for every month in the last 12 months—because I want to substantiate the point that this is absolutely a new phenomenon that just appeared on 16 June which is what the Minister has told this House. So I would like those numbers to be tabled—there's only 12 numbers we're looking for by month. I want to just ensure that what is being said correlates with those numbers because when I looked at the website for Audit New Zealand this evening for vacancies do you know how many I found? Well I'll tell you: I found four.Hon Member: Four?SIMON WATTS: Four—four vacancies. Maybe I missed a few but that's how many are on the website this evening. And if I quote the departmental disclosure statement Part One to mitigate the impacts of a severe"—and as the Minister has said global—"shortage"—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will address Part 2 of the bill.SIMON WATTS: Sorry. Yes.Hon Member: It's Part One of the statement though.SIMON WATTS: Sorry the departmental disclosure statement Part One—my apologies for not being clear. Within the departmental disclosure statement it talks about severe shortages and hence what I'm trying to link back to this is around the number of vacancies. Can we also get some context around staff turnover numbers which are also being used as a reason why we are having to put in place this legislation under urgency? In particular are those turnover levels today versus say 12 months ago significantly increased or different from normal? I think that would be fair to substantiate those points. The other aspect as well is I want to understand—and just so you know I've got a couple of other new areas of investigation that I probably have to talk about tomorrow—was there any impact of the public sector pay freeze on this entity? Now of course they're a separate entity—separate. But I don't know. They're a separate entity and I get that but I want to understand are we dealing with maybe something that this Government has caused in regards to the pay sector freezes? Because my understanding having talked to a number of senior people within the Auckland market in recruitment and other areas within the firms that we're talking about is that the private sector has in effect increased graduate audit role salaries by about 14 percent—seven grand—and that's because of factors relating to a number of things that we'll probably talk about a little bit later on. But I'll leave it there for the moment.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. Thank you.Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)"
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On the last point on the prioritisation we've been over it a number of times so I won't rehearse it again. But the member in fairness did raise the question about the Order in Council in his last contribution and I didn't respond to it and I apologise for that. Indeed as the member and I discussed it could have been possible simply to take the approach of an Order in Council when there is a need to do something like extend time frames.My view was that we needed to take some time to consider whether that was an appropriate long-term instrument for dealing with situations like this. At the moment we have to use the Act to make the change but if we were to go down that path I just wanted to take a little bit of time to work out whether that is the best way to do this. Because we can see from tonight that there are a number of strongly held views about meeting statutory time lines. I know that the Auditor-General—and he has written it to both myself and Mr Bayly—would rather not be in this position and generally speaking is not and does meet the statutory time lines but exceptional circumstances create this situation.So yes we did consider to answer the member's question the Order in Council process and it could well be what we do in the future but I think we need to consider that. I'd invite potentially the Officers of Parliament Committee to have a look at that as well. But we will consider it in the future but this is the process we have in front of us today.To go back to the member's first point the global issue is what impacts here because the way in which this process is undertaken in the intense period where these audits are needed does involve and has always involved people coming from offshore either to the Audit Office itself or to the larger accounting firms who take on the work that the Audit Office is not able to take on. So it is about a global shortage. That global shortage may not resolve itself in full inside a year. We hope that we will see more people looking to come to New Zealand and Australia and elsewhere as we move through and we get to a point where we don't have the amount of border restrictions that we do. So at the moment it is the global issue that sits behind this. We will work with the Auditor-General as indeed the Officers of Parliament Committee will as well.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to return to what the Minister said before and thank you for addressing the matter. In my comments before I wasn't asking the Minister to solve the global audit problem. The issue is that we have an issue in New Zealand. We have 27 staff that have left Audit New Zealand and under his own reckoning and public announcement before an estimated 200 shortfall of auditors in New Zealand. New Zealand is the issue not the global issue.So one of the things in that whole issue about the two-year time frame is whether that's going to be sufficient. I know the Auditor-General has asked for two years but I asked specifically whether he took advice on another alternative which is an Order in Council option because what seems apparent to me is that the bill was drafted—and I take the point through the Cabinet but I'm sure the Minister had a very strong view on it—and that's come through and been presented to us last week. There has been a consideration and discussion subsequent to that that led to this 2 July letter and yet there has been no change to the bill and so that's quite a significant thing.I think in terms of the capacity constraints which is the heart of why we are talking about whether we have a one- or two-year delay the other question and I'm quite specific about it is: to what extent has the Minister—and I know it's not the Minister's direct responsibility but we have a parliamentary responsibility to make sure that we do get to a situation as soon as possible where all the audits of every organisation of Government are actually audited on the due date.The big issue I've had is even with the councils I note in the 2 July letter that smaller councils are likely to be dropped off the list. The issue is: maybe some of those if you look at it from a risk perspective in fact might be ones that we particularly want to see are subject to an audit because of all the audits that the Auditor-General undertakes they're the ones that possibly may lead to some significant issues that should be highlighted as soon as possible and not delayed. So the question comes back to that prioritisation which I think is a pretty important issue.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. It's not a great surprise that we've ended up in this position because if we look at many of the stories that we've been dealing with for the past little while and even in the last 24 hours three headlines: More than 80000 job listings as employers battle for staff" next quote "Stretched farmers frustrated at exemption process" next quote "Business confidence rebounds but labour shortages worst on record". It is no surprise that we've ended up here.In speaking to Part 2 of this bill tonight I'm just really wanting to make a point that this report is an example of the fine work of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and this beef that we're having tonight is with the Government not the Auditor-General. This is the productivity of the Auditor-General this is the productivity of an apple orchard [Holds up two apples]. So I would like to propose a tabled amendment—I've got a tabled amendment here and my amendment suggests that we have a new clause 8. So "After clause 7 insert 8 New section 98A after section 98 insert: 98A Extend the apple picking season—(1) All local Government bodies where able for the financial year ending 30 June 2021 should ask that apples stay ripe for the picking of an extra three months. (2) This section is repealed at the close of 31 January 2023". So the explanatory note for the Minister with my tabled amendment is that "While the Government is able to extend"—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Thank you. That tabled amendment is out of scope with the bill and so therefore ruled out of order. The member has a few more minutes to speak if she wishes to make a speech which is relevant to the bill.BARBARA KURIGER: My only addition—and I won't speak to the amendment any further thank you Madam Chair—is that there needs to be some consistency in the decisions that this Government choses to make over the productivity of one industry as opposed to another. Thank you."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm covering a little bit of similar ground from Part 1 of this in terms of how we got to the two-year number. I covered off that firstly that was the request of the Auditor-General—as the member Andrew Bayly knows both he and I were asking questions of the Auditor-General around why that was required and many of the issues he's raised actually about what else would you do in the meantime. So the first answer is the same one I gave to Part 1 which is that I would rather do it this way than come back again and have the House's time taken up.Again I have a great deal of trust and faith in the Auditor-General who has assured both myself and the member who's asked these questions that this would only be used in the event that it needs to be used. But some of the issues that exist are not going to be resolved inside one year. That in particular is the global shortage of auditors. Now we can do more we hope over the course of the next two years to see people come in from offshore for the large accounting firms who assist the Auditor-General during audit season to be able to bring people in. So we hope that we won't need to go beyond the two years but we can't guarantee all of that global shortage will be resolved inside a year.Equally the Auditor-General wants to take some time. Again I think he said this in one of those letters that he wants to take some time to look at what innovative processes he can put in place to make sure that we can move more swiftly through the audit process as well. So we want to work on that. There are technological solutions that might emerge over the next couple of years. So it's my view that two years is the appropriate length of time. It covers off the fact that it will take some time for the world to get back to a sense of pre-COVID normality. It may take a considerable amount of time but we believe two years is the appropriate length there. It also allows the opportunity for the Auditor-General—and to take the member's point the Officers of Parliament Committee to work with the Auditor-General on a range of options. That might mean that this is not needed for the second year and certainly not yet needed in the period beyond there.In answer to his other part of the question his colleague Mr Bishop has already answered the question for him: it is Cabinet that issues those instructions. This bill went through Cabinet and the Cabinet legislation process.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I won't be long. I just wanted to make the point that the select committees are the engine room of our democracy and of this place and they are separate from the executive so my question is this: has the Minister taken advice or sought advice into the degree to which the delay in the reporting period for Crown entities will once again affect this place's ability to scrutinise the annual reports of these through the financial review process? Has he considered going to the Standing Orders Committee and getting a sessional order similarly extending the time period for that scrutiny and the period within which the select committees have to report back to this House on their findings? Because it seems to me that this is another example of how the Government is actually acting in its own interests but Parliament is going to be squeezed in its ability to fulfil its obligations. And I think this is a really fundamental point because ultimately it's the legislature that scrutinises the executive it's the legislature and its select committees that holds the public sector organisations to account and importantly through its Crown entity reporting. So those are my two questions: what feedback has he or the Office of the Auditor-General had on the entity readiness for audit and what consideration has he given to representing to the Standing Orders Committee an extension of time for us to do our important work?
Henderson Emily; Bennett DavidDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I move That the question be now put.Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): A point of order. I'm just raising a point of order. I asked the Minister a very simple question two questions ago. He has been very good in responding to all questions tonight but he refused to respond to my simple question about the inconsistency of foreign labour in—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So what's your point of order?Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well why didn't the Minister answer that question? Is he afraid to—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It's not a point of order.
McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee Gerry; Rurawhe AdrianKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chair. The new provisions allow us to be in an exchange with the Minister over a period of time. I was still in that exchange. You were taking it as if the Minister's explanation to the Chamber ends my time speaking. I think that's a bit unreasonable. I haven't taken a full five minutes even with the exchanges that we've had. So I'm asking for the call.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'll just respond to the member. I mean I've got to be fair as well across the whole committee. When someone from another party stands and hasn't yet spoken to it I tend to give the call to them. I've not accepted the motion that the member moved and so I'll now give the call to the next person as I was going to do.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chair. I didn't move a motion.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—no. Sorry I meant the member Kieran McAnulty.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Oh then I'm calling.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And then I was going to accept another call.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): That was a very satisfactory outcome. So are we to take it then that the date by which the auditor is required to report on the financial year ending 30 June 2021 is currently around about 30 August 2021? That being two months past the date. Well then what month is it that we're extending it? Are we extending from October? Then why isn't that clearly stated in the bill.Hon Grant Robertson: Ha ha!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No—the Minister can't sit there and laugh as the bill does not state here what the drop dead date is that's being extended. I think that's an unreasonable sort of thing.Hon Grant Robertson: Ha ha!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well the Minister continues to guffaw. That's the trouble—they guffaw while everything burns around them. And while the general respect for the Chamber and for the position of an Officer of Parliament is just quietly tossed to one side the duty of the Speaker to be involved in these matters also tossed to one side and the Parliament just expected to ram through a bit of legislation that the Auditor-General—who has very clearly got problems in that office that aren't being discussed here—has come along and convinced the Minister would be a good idea.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): We'll do this as slowly as we can. So we have financial years and in the case of replacement section 156(4) set out in clause 4 it's 30 June so entities where their financial year ends at 30 June. If in the case of a Crown entity normally they would be required to have the audit done by 31 October. That's now being extended out. This is amending an Act so we're changing the Act which would currently say 31 October to 31 December. It's very conventional; it's two months. Strangely enough it's exactly what was done last year when the National Party voted for it.
Smith Damien; Robertson Grant; Brownlee Gerry; Dean JacquiDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Madam Chair Minister I guess at the centre of this is insufficient audit capacity and obviously doing my calculations it's 300 hours per auditor for the next eight weeks which doesn't seem a lot. But I guess the question we have is given this extension: what percentage of the large and significant audits are outstanding and are to be audited or in near completion for auditing and what certain audit reports are the main priorities?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for the question and reiterating as I do—as I'm sure over the next few minutes I'll answer a number of questions on behalf of the Auditor-General but obviously I can't really do that in that the Auditor-General is an independent Officer of Parliament—I'm aware that it is the intention of the Auditor-General to write to Parliament I think via the Finance and Expenditure Committee to advise the House of his intentions which are entirely in his purview as to how he intends to sequence matters. What he has identified to myself and to Mr Bayly in a letter dated 2 July is that it is his intention that the following audits will be completed within the current statutory auditing reporting deadlines: the financial statements of the Government and all key components. This will include all Government departments the Reserve Bank the New Zealand Superannuation Fund State-owned enterprises mixed-ownership model companies Air New Zealand; large Crown entities such as the ACC Kāinga Ora Waka Kotahi and larger district health boards; all financial market conduct reporting entities; those covered by the Financial Markets Conduct Act and their significant components for example Auckland Council Auckland Transport Watercare Services and the Ports of Auckland; and larger councils for example Christchurch City Tauranga City Wellington City Dunedin City and others including significant council-controlled organisations. It is the intention of the Auditor-General that all of those audits will be completed during the current statutory time frames. The extension of two months—he expects that to deal with small to medium sized councils smaller district health boards and small Crown entities and trusts.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order Madam Chairperson. The Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) were tabled before the conclusion of the first reading. We've been through the second reading we've had several speeches now in this committee stage but the SOPs are not on the Table of the House and that's becoming quite an irritant I've got to say.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I understand the irritation of the Opposition members. The tabled amendments will be tabled just as soon as possible. However I acknowledge the frustration that is felt by some of the members and that will be reflected in the opportunities that I will be giving members to speak in the first part of this bill. I too would like the tabled amendments to hit the Table.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Major disruptions like COVID require flexibility and pragmatism to overcome. This Government is both flexible and pragmatic. I commend this legislation to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): COVID—COVID public interest two months. I rest my case. I commend this bill to the House.
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much Madam Speaker. I've been sitting in the House this evening listening to a great deal of unedifying waffle and learning that the Opposition is able to speak at length about bills; it's a shame that they didn't do so about the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill which is of extreme relevance to not only the entire country but to the people that they purport to represent. But in doing so I shall just commend this bill to the House and thank you.
Smith Damien; Dean JacquiDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): This is a great example of the free market working in perfect synchronicity.Ian McKelvie: Great example of it failing.DAMIEN SMITH: Or failing as you may ask. But the Government that can provide a fiscal strategy for 10 years can't work out how many auditors they're going to need for the next two months. So if you do some auditing calculations it's about 300 hours per auditor so I'm sure that that's a function of several things. One is—and it exposes a couple of elements that the ACT Party believes: the need for less regulation but more quality auditing around various projects light rail Ihumātao looking at State-owned enterprises. So I'm sure there's a massive job going on at KiwiRail as an example where largesse has abounded there's been infrastructure investment that has probably been building a business case that hasn't been sustainable.So we do support this extension but what we would say is that it's exposing a planning issue that the Minister of Finance should actually be totally on top of and I don't understand why his team hasn't foreseen this circumstance. If you look at some of the key principles of auditing the numbers are either bigger or smaller they're either wider or shorter and the risks are either defined or not defined. So there are a perception of the shortage of auditors. In Australia at the moment they're actually giving them pay incentives facials—believe it or not—and massages to get them to go to work. But maybe on this side of the House we should roll our sleeves up and spend recess out doing some auditing just to help out. That would be a good thing.So in terms of the legislation I also find it difficult to find out how linear the two months is because you would argue that with statement of intents or with full audits you have to work with your clients you have to work with your organisation so will we be back here in another month's time for another extension?Then that takes me on to the last point: in 2019 when pre-COVID was going strong there was a full auditing compliment in the House at that time and in the committees so what happened this time around and why are people leaving the industry? It's a small amount of people that are actually needed to do this task. You would think—it sounds to me like the Government has resourced this in a way that they haven't anticipated the workflow the quality of auditing which we're not arguing with because we support the task that has to be done but it's just really management of time and motion.So in terms of the ACT Party's view on the bill we will support it. But we would also like to consider some serious thought goes into resource and planning because this is just unacceptable. Two months as I said is only 300 hours per auditor for a matter of eight weeks. So why did somebody not see this coming? So thank you very much for the talk to the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sarah Pallett. Five-minute call.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I'd just like to commend this bill to the House because I think what Mr Woodhouse said tonight—he said that we should be paying auditors more and yet back in April all parties supported an address that adjusted the Offices of Parliament for the financial year just ended and no mention by National at the time for any further funds for staffing. Outrageous argument. I commend this bill to the House.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting the bill. We did not support the urgency motion but we do think the bill is perfectly reasonable and that there are extenuating circumstances. COVID has changed everything for everyone and it has resulted in quite an additional workload to the Auditor-General for issues that are not statutory requirements but are very much in the public interest. Many of the audits they've undertaken related to COVID have meant that they've had less capacity. Of course there's issues affecting the workforce. That's made clear in the disclosure statement and that's something that is affecting many institutions and organisations across New Zealand at the moment again related to COVID. So a two-month extension is reasonable it's simple and it's going to mean that the proper scrutiny can be applied to annual reports. We do want that proper scrutiny. Of course I did make the point in my first reading speech that in the medium to long term to deal with these issues we have to improve the capacity of the Auditor-General and the capacity of the Public Service to deliver these types of public goods. For that we require revenue for that we require a fair tax system and for that we might need the wealthiest New Zealanders to make a much bigger contribution and a much fairer contribution to this country and the public institutions that serve all of us. Of course the lowest-income people and those on medium incomes probably pay too much tax but that's only because we don't tax capital we don't tax wealth and so the real bludgers are the people who own heaps of properties who will pay nothing on their windfall gains over the last year where we've had an over 100 percent increase—Maureen Pugh: They're called hard workers not bludgers. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Oh yeah it's hard work sitting on some property—I'll just respond to Maureen Pugh there. I know as a property owner it's not hard work. I bought a house at the right time in the right place and it's increased in value due to nothing I've done and I would happily pay tax on the increase in that value as would most hard-working New Zealanders who care about this country and want to invest in the shared public good for this country—not like those selfish people to my right.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in the second reading of this bill to support it. This is a really simple bill and if we stick to actually what it's about it won't take long. This is a two-month extension. It is an extension to audits that are due on 30 June and it is going to allow the Auditor-General to act like a grown-up. It is very interesting to hear the National Party suggest that we should micro-manage such an important and independent role. I do not agree. I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. That was a nice lecture from Mr Bayly on immigration policy but nothing about this bill. I imagine that's what we'll be up for all night tonight. This bill is a simple bill. It gives the Auditor-General two more months to complete important work so that it can do all of its job properly fully and for the people of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I am pleased to stand and talk to this to this bill and in support of it. I'm also pleased that the Hon Gerry Brownlee is realising that this really is something that is a product of success: a very successful economy that's bounced back and a business sector that's thriving.We have had an Auditor-General who's had an enormous year. It's been an incredibly difficult job and it has been a difficult job for the local bodies and for the Government departments that have been dealing with one of the greatest crises that I have ever had in my lifetime. They've done an exemplary job and I have great respect for anyone who chooses the life of an auditor. It is not something that I would want to do and I think that they are doing excellent work there. What we need to do as a Government and as a Parliament as my friend Deborah Russell said just earlier in the debate is we actually need to support and respect those independent bodies that do that work so thoroughly. I notice that the Hon Michael Woodhouse talked about how this bill would somehow undermine the quality of audits. This isn't a bill about undermining the quality of audits. This—Hon Michael Woodhouse: No I didn't. I said it was the confidence in them; not the quality of them. HELEN WHITE: I think the words were that it would undermine confidence. It won't undermine confidence because people will see this and they will know that actually two months has been given and the Auditor-General has prioritised work and the work that is being done is thorough and robust and has integrity—and I for one am grateful. I'd just like to take the last nine seconds to wish my father who turned 90 yesterday a happy birthday.
Dean Jacqui; Leary IngridASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is resumed. We are currently on the first reading of the Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill.INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I've been listening to the speeches in the House tonight about this bill and people have said that it should come as no surprise that extra auditors would be needed but in fact it has been a little bit of a surprise I would say especially to the private sector. If I read the article on Politik from Richard Harman a well-respected journalist he talks about the shortage of auditors being the oddest shortage. If I read his article correctly—this came out today in Politik—he has said that the economy has come roaring back to life and in a way that has caused some surprise to people in the private sector who are needing more financial services and auditing is of course one of them. If we look at the employment rates and if we look at other economic indicators the economy certainly is roaring back. We have numbers from the end of May that show that the deficit is $5.8 billion better than forecast and actually Richard Harman's article quotes Bill English from another time saying that it's a nice problem to have. So we want that to continue. We want our economy to keep roaring back to life. We want it to keep being transparent and keep being stable. To do that we need to have audits that are done properly and that are done in a timely way and that they are quality audits. We want to hit that mark in 2022 as we did in 2020 from Transparency International which places New Zealand at the top of the rankings when it comes to being the least corrupt country. To do those quality audits it's very simple. As my colleague Anna Lorck said we just need two more months. So it's a sensible proposition. This bill simply asks for a two-month extension for those audits. I commend it to the House.
McLellan Tracey; Rurawhe AdrianDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Mr Speaker. I am happy—happy enough at least—to take a very short call on the Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill. This bill in a nutshell really arises in an acknowledgment that robust reporting supports the principles of accountability and transparency which are important—very important—to this Government. But alas there is a shortage of auditors—a shortage of auditors caused in part by the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 and in part by the increases in auditor demand arising out of the increased complexity of the work. So very briefly the bill seeks to mitigate these impacts by extending the audit report time frames by two months in two specific Acts—it's as simple as that. As the Minister the very hard-working Grant Robertson said at the beginning of this debate it's a simple bill but it is still an important bill and I certainly have no desire to delay it any further. No it's not frustrating as members opposite might lead us to believe but just a bit blandly and quite frankly boringly disappointing to see them doing just that. Nevertheless however I have no hesitancy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā rā tātou. It's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. I will return at 7 p.m. Kia ora.Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Lorck Anna; Rurawhe AdrianANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak in favour of this bill. It's a very urgent matter and it requires urgent action. There is nothing more simple than that. It is so disappointing when the National Party just says it's not going to support something for the sake of it. We need to get on and let the Auditor-General's office have two months—two months. That's all it is: two months. Why is that so hard for the National Party to agree to? What will happen in those two months?They talk about this being a New Zealand problem. It's not. It's a worldwide problem. Australia has a population of 25.5 million and they're 1000 auditors short. We're 200 auditors short and we just need two months to get everything back into place so that we can report back and do the job that's required of this Parliament. It's practical. It's a working solution. It just needs to be done. It just is such a little thing to do an urgent matter but Mr Woodhouse wants to go all night and apparently into the morning just to complain just to carry on like the negative National Party of the day. I mean come on. Let's just get this urgent matter under way. Vote for it. It's not hard to do. Give them the time they need—two months. That's two months team—two months. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Simon Watts.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is disappointing that we don't have unanimity in the House on this important matter because we all agree on the role of the Auditor-General and the importance of it. I was surprised to hear Mr Woodhouse pooh-pooh if you like some of the other work that the Auditor-General's doing and say that the Auditor-General should shove to one side the work on delivery of health shove to one side the work on domestic violence the work on Māori equity and the wellbeing of all of New Zealand—that those things should be shoved to one side so that the audit reports of Crown entities can be completed on time.Well I suppose in his world that would be one thing you could do but on this side of the House we think they're very important tasks and that we shouldn't constrain the Auditor-General in doing things like self-initiated audits and inquiries because that is also a core part of the role. And if he was required only to do the Crown audits on the time line set out in the law notwithstanding these very difficult times then other important work would fall to one side and this Government wouldn't be subject to the scrutiny that it should be from the Auditor-General. We're not going to let that happen because we think that the role of the Auditor-General is very important and that he should be and his team should be given every resource that he needs to discharge his independent functions. That's why this bill is a good bill. The fact of the matter is that the Auditor-General has come to Parliament and said I can't do my job because of existing constraints. Can you give some leeway through Parliament through this House to achieve that?" On this side of the House we say yes. We want the Auditor-General to do his job and to scrutinise everything that this Government does and we will be supporting this bill. I commend it to the House."
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Just for the avoidance of doubt I wish to state that my initial job when I left university was as an auditor and I even did work under contract for the Audit Office at some stages. The Opposition raised a number of objections to this particular bill. They raised the objection around oversight by the Minister. They raised an objection around how the Audit Office is performing they raised an objection around funding of the Audit Office and they raised an objection around immigration. I am not a greedy person so I will deal with one of these arguments and leave the remainder for my colleagues.I wish to talk about the special status of the Audit Office particularly in terms of the Opposition saying it should have been better supervised by the Minister. The Audit Office is not supervised by a Minister. It is an Office of Parliament. The Auditor-General is an independent officer of this Parliament of all of us. There are three independent Officers of Parliament: there is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment there is the Ombudsman and there is the Auditor-General. As a Parliament we rely on the Auditor-General so that we may perform our role of supervising the work of Government departments and inquiring into it. It is an office that ought to be cherished in particular by the Opposition. It ought to be cherished and given the resources it needs as easily as it needs them and in particular the Opposition ought to defend the Auditor-General at all opportunities. The Auditor-General has properly seen that given the constraints of the market at the moment given the world in which we're operating which has COVID he will not be able to perform the job that this Parliament needs him to do and quite properly he has come to this Parliament and asked us to give him a little bit of leeway two months—two months—so that he can reprioritise his work make sure that the most critical work gets done first and that all the work gets done within the statutory deadlines. This is why as a Parliament we ought to support this bill and I am astonished that the Opposition is choosing not to. I commend this bill to the House.
Sepuloni CarmelURGENCYHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through of all stages of the Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill.The Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill is a simple bill of just seven clauses that extends certain statutory time frames in relation to the audits of Crown accounts and the annual reporting requirements of local authorities and council-controlled organisations. The bill is in response to a situation created by a shortage of auditors across Australia and New Zealand that has made it impossible for the Office of the Auditor-General to meet some forthcoming deadlines. It is essential that the bill be enacted before the forthcoming adjournment so that the Auditor-General can communicate with public entities about the impacts of the current auditor shortages. It will also allow the Auditor-General to provide assurance to his staff that the work of the office is achievable with the current resources available to ensure the health safety and wellbeing of all staff are protected. The Auditor-General cannot take these steps in anticipation of what the House might decide to do. It has to act within the confines of the law which is why it is necessary for the bill to be enacted before the House adjourns for three weeks.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I am very grateful for the opportunity to rise to speak in support of this bill. This bill as a member on the other side previously indicated is not a parity bill—we know that and we have said it over and over—but it makes a small clarification to the Education and Training Act 2020. It's very simple but it will allow the Government to deliver on its promise to address inequality.For far too long our hard-working early childhood education (ECE) teachers have been underpaid undervalued and they were left behind. Teachers with the same qualification carrying out the same work do not get paid equally. This pushed our teachers to look for jobs somewhere else. They've been leaving the country in an exodus therefore many ECE centres have been struggling to either retain their existing teachers or to recruit new ones. This also has been affecting our children who deserve high-quality care with the consistent and secure relationships that they need at the very early stage of their lives.We have heard a lot about this from the other side. It's all negative and they've consistently been attacking this because for them it's all about freezing the pay increase for hard-working Kiwis. For them it's about increasing any sort of pay increase for nine years but for this Government it's all about addressing inequality. It's all about bridging the unfair pay gaps. It's all about lifting those who are struggling on low wages. We know our ECE teachers have been struggling on low wages. They have had it hard they have had it tough and I'm very proud that this Government is paying attention and listening to address this. I'm very proud that our Government is not leaving anyone behind because that is what a compassionate and a kind Government should be doing and that is what our Government is doing. On that note I highly highly highly commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Madam Speaker. In the absence of the Māori Party I rise to take a third reading call on the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill which I am happy to rise in support for.I was not involved with the select committee that looked at this and this is my first opportunity to take a call on the bill. However as someone along with other members in the House who has a background in education I certainly value and understand—albeit my background is in secondary education I none the less understand the hard work that those in our early childhood sector do up and down the country in our communities. This bill is actually about supporting them. This bill is actually about supporting those hard-working teachers in early childhood education who deserve to have the support of people in this particular House. The whole point of this bill as colleagues before me have already alluded to is to allow the Government and in this case the Minister of Education whoever it might be to deliver on fairness—to deliver on the fairness that the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee Marja Lubeck indicated was the purpose of this particular bill and the Minister himself identified that in the House last night. I was present listening to him and his responses to questions from the Opposition as this was being progressed through the House. So this is a bill about fairness and I would have thought that anyone in this House would be wanting to support it as a result of that.Kieran McAnulty: You'd think so.TANGI UTIKERE: You'd think so. But clearly there are others that perhaps are more focused on having barriers towards pay parity and other opportunities that identify the hard work that teachers are doing. Mr Baillie you sit there and nod and as a teacher yourself I'm surprised that you wish to stand in the way—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.TANGI UTIKERE: My apologies Madam Speaker. Kieran McAnulty: Point of order Madam Speaker. Just by way of seeking clarification Speaker Mallard made a ruling at the end of last term clarifying the use of the word you". It was clarified in that ruling that when a member is responding to another member and it is clear in that response that he is not bringing the Speaker into the debate but responding to another member then there would be a lenient approach taken to that. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Look thank you very much for that point of order. My ruling is that I will rule out "you" when it is directed at a member; using the word "you" when it can be replaced for the word "one" is now acceptable. TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you Madam Speaker. Mr Baillie who shook his head perhaps is one member who continues to want to remain as a barrier towards pay parity opportunities and support. So on that basis I am happy to support this bill."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm happy to take a call in this third reading of the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. As I stated in my speech on the second reading of this bill it is a technical bill. It doesn't go into the funding mechanisms that have been discussed at length by those opposite. As the Minister says it authorises the Minister whoever he or she may be when setting out the conditions on grant funding to do so for employment relations aims. It does this through amending one clause clause 4—sorry that amends section 548 of the primary Act which is the Education and Training Act 2020.The Minister as the House will appreciate already has wide power to set conditions for grant funding and this particular bill makes it clear that these conditions can be for employment relations purposes. This is the only substantive change in this bill. It adds clarity to the intention of this legislation and removes therefore any ambiguity as to the purpose clause and it is a pathway to remove serious inequity between kindergarten teachers and education and care service teachers. This move is colloquially known as pay parity and pay parity in the early childhood sector has been called for for some time. In fact one of my earliest memories is being pushed in my pushchair from Hill St childcare centre up the road down to Parliament to a protest asking for more money for early childhood teachers.This has also been remarked on by those opposite. The Hon Paul Goldsmith said this bill is typical of the way the Government is working and I agree. This is part of the Government's ongoing programme to address inequity and promote fair pay including work towards significant settlements and pay equity for female-dominated work raising the minimum wage for those on the lowest pay and working towards pay parity in the early childhood sector. This bill allows this important work of this Government to continue and therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. It is my privilege to stand and take a call on the third reading for the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. It is my pleasure to do this because it allows this Government to deliver on its commitment to move towards closing the pay gap and achieving pay parity for education and care teachers in comparison with kindergarten teachers who are generally paid at higher rates.This is about enabling legislation that will help the sector to move towards pay parity. This legislation enables the Minister to determine the additional $170 million that are dropped into the system is ring-fenced not to be spent on anything else but moving towards pay parity. So it is very very helpful and enabling legislation. At the moment the improved ratios that we've been hearing about that some centres are able to afford are currently being paid for out of teachers' salaries. It isn't the teachers who should be paying for these conditions improved learning conditions for our young people. So this is an opportunity to support those centres who really want to move towards pay parity to engage in this process.I'm really pleased to hear that the member opposite is concerned about consultation and it is at this point I thank the 558 submitters and their absolute commitment their desire to engage around the really gnarly bit as the rubber hits the road—is how to improve the funding model. As I've said before in this House there are issues with blunt bulk-funding measures and it is really encouraging to hear that the sector wants to engage in improving the funding model so that we can make sure that we support our teachers and their centres to provide wonderful education for our young people. I commend this bill to the House.