Dean Jacqui; Woodhouse Michael; Robertson Grant; Brownlee GerryPart 1 Amendment to Crown Entities Act 2004CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House in committee on the Annual Reporting and Audit Time Frames Extensions Legislation Bill. We come first to Part 1. Now Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 and 4 the amendment to the Crown Entities Act 2004. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I do hope that we hear from the Minister in answer to a number of questions that I have and some I and my colleagues have which we believe to be very constructive amendments to the bill so that it lines up with the policy intent. I'm going to launch straight into them.I'm fascinated to know why this bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance. As Mr Brownlee has said in his second reading speech the Office of the Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament independent of the normal lines of ministerial responsibility accountability and control—that's as it should be—but when there are changes to the Crown Entities Act or the Local Government Act those bills are generally sponsored by the Minister for the Public Service or the Associate Minister of Finance as a shareholding Minister or the Minister of Local Government. So I'm interested in two things in respect of why we are here with the Minister of Finance in the chair given the traditional responsibilities for those pieces of legislation. How and when and to whom did the Office of the Auditor-General actually approach the Minister if it was this Minister to advise that there was a problem with meeting its legislative obligations?I note that Anna Lorck in her second reading speech said that she agreed that we should pay auditors more so why did the National Party not raise this issue in April when it had an opportunity to? Well the answer to that is very simple: we had no idea. We can't raise issues that haven't been first raised by the people to whom that issue relates. And so we've not actually heard much about that. We had a heads up on Thursday we've got a letter—a quite comprehensive letter—that Mr O'Connor might be interested to know doesn't mention COVID at all except to the extent that the remedy being sought is similar to a remedy that was applied last year. We are not fixing a COVID problem here. The problem is not going to go away just because we kicked the can down the road. As Mr Nash said in his interjection on me in the second reading This is the only plan the Government has." Although I'll give the Minister a chance to correct his colleague because I think we are in need of an explanation of that.So my first questions therefore are: why is the bill in the name of the Minister of Finance when was the issue first elevated to the Government to whom was that elevated and by what method?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I'm the Minister of Finance this bill amends the Crown Entities Act. It also does amend the Local Government Act so I guess it would be arguable that the Minister of Local Government could bring the bill—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Or the Public Service.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Or the Public Service Commission but I don't think that's a particularly material matter. I am the Minister of Finance and the Crown Entities Act is one in which I have a significant interest.In answer to the second of the member's questions: on 16 June the Auditor-General came to see me. He then wrote to me on 17 June around these issues. As you would expect in those circumstances we sought advice from officials as to what approach we should take to deal with this. The Auditor-General—and this is a letter that Mr Bayly has and I'm sure he shared it with his caucus and happy to table in the House at some point if that's of any interest to anybody. The letter was written on 17 June reiterating the matters that the Auditor-General raised with me. They are the same matters that I've raised in the House today. So that was the means by which that occurred. The Auditor-General responded to some questions that I had and I believe some questions that Mr Bayly had in a letter dated 2 July 2021 addressed to myself and Mr Bayly that begins with the following words: "Tēnā korua Minister and Mr Bayly. Thank you for indicating your support for legislative change to address the current shortage of auditors" and then there were some further questions that followed on from that which the Auditor-General wrote back to us on about 6 July—that's yesterday isn't it?—and here we find ourselves on 7 July.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order Madam Chair. There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers that the Opposition wish to speak to in this debate; they are not on the Table.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that because the amendments have not been tabled they are—right OK so they have been tabled and they will be put on the Table as soon as possible. The amendments are coming in as we speak or minutes ago so I'm sure the Office of the Clerk is catching up as quickly as they can. I call Damien Smith.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order Madam Chair. I apologise for my tardiness but I was on my feet seeking a call at the time Mr Brownlee took his point of order and I do have some questions that in the normal exchange of the committee of the whole House as set out in the new Standing Orders where by convention the call would have returned to me. I don't want to run across Mr Smith's—what I'm sure are—very intelligent arguments but I think if we could continue that tête-à-tête it would be good.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I will take the member for the very next call—Damien Smith."