Dean Jacqui; Bayly AndrewPart 2 Amendments to the Local Government Act 2002CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to Part 2 which is the debate on clauses 5 to 7 the Amendments to the Local Government 2002. The question is that Part 2 stand part.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought I'd talk to my tabled amendment just as a bit of a change. My tabled amendment deals with the issue of the two-year clause and specifically deals with clause 6 and actually clause 7. So what it does is it deletes new clause 5(b) which states: in relation to the financial year ending with 30 June 2022 the report referred to in that subsection must be delivered in accordance with subsection (1)(b) and made available in accordance with subsection (1)(c) no later than the close of 30 November 2022." Similarly clause 7 also deals with a similar time frame—albeit it notes that it will have to be the 31 December date as opposed to the 30 November date.The purpose of this tabled amendment deals with the second year. Obviously Mr Robertson in predetermining the legislation which he delivered to us on 1 July always anticipated a two-year stand-down period or delay for all entities—and of course we've been debating some of those entities before. But in terms of local government it also specifies that local government entities—and of course it doesn't specify or limit who could be delayed; it could be any local government entity. The purpose is saying "Look if you're going to give a delay why don't we do it on a basis that we allow under legislation for one year and reconsider it thereafter?"I suppose that gives rise to a wider issue: if you did that that would force the Government to become a little bit more creative than it has been in the sense of actually in terms of the Auditor-General fulfilling its role what could be done to assist the Auditor-General to do that in the second year of this delay? And that might involve making sure that we've got access to the so-called 200 missing auditors who could come through managed isolation and quarantine could involve a discrete and rapid training programme to get auditors into the area of becoming auditors if they are qualified accountants or near qualified. And then it also gives rise to the Government maybe having a discussion with the Auditor-General around remuneration because what I don't think anyone in this House wants to do is to be in a situation where we are coming back in two years' time because COVID is still carrying on and the Government still has a policy of locking down the borders—unnecessarily so—and we are having to do another extension. So this is why the tabled amendment suggests that we should limit the extension to only one year and if need be this piece of legislation passed under urgency can take place pretty quickly as the Government is inclined to do by passing it through under urgency.So the first thing is that I assume the Minister was the person who directed the Parliamentary Counsel Office to write this draft which was presented to us on 1 July. Chris Bishop: Cabinet.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So if that was the instructions that were given what advice did he have or take in terms of limiting it to one year or extending it to two years? Secondly the other aspect that I'm quite keen to hear from the Minister on is around whether he contemplated an alternative process particularly in the second year and maybe the third year if that needs be of maybe thinking about an Order in Council. So I'd be quite keen to hear the Minister's views around those aspects."