March 2017: As a follow-up to our 2015 letter, which included the results of our review of the AgResearch Future Footprint Project business case, we have now reviewed the updated business case. The five matters we raised in our initial review of the Future Footprint Project business case have been addressed, to varying degrees, in the updated business case. Overall, we are satisfied that the matters raised in our earlier review have been adequately addressed.
January 2017: We looked into specific aspects of Auckland Council’s project to develop a new town centre in Massey North. One of the concerns raised with us was about the lack of transparency, in particular being unable to access information about the project. In our view, Auckland Council could have made more information about this development available. It is important that local authorities strike the right balance between balancing commercial sensitivity, maintaining legal privilege as appropriate and being open with ratepayers and elected officials. Such openness allows public discussion and debate, and is essential to supporting public sector accountability. This exercise has highlighted once again the importance not just of making good decisions but also of being able to show that good decisions have been made.
February 2017: This report considers the effectiveness of investment in tertiary education sector assets to support educational success. There is an opportunity for education agencies, tertiary education institutions, and other stakeholders to explore the measurement of the effectiveness of investments in assets, and the potential opportunities for more sector-based investment decisions. We hope that this report will start conversations in the tertiary sector about the further development and reporting of a range of cost-effectiveness measures and tools, for the sector and for individual institutions.
January 2017: In our view, CERA did well early on in the recovery. CERA was also effective in leading a co-ordinated government response to the earthquakes. However, CERA found it challenging to maintain momentum. Its role became less clear as it took on more responsibility for delivering more projects and programmes. CERA did not engage the community well, and struggled to demonstrate its effectiveness and value for money because it had inadequate performance measures and information. It also took a long time for CERA to set up effective systems and controls. CERA’s management controls and performance information needed improvement right up to the time of its disestablishment.
January 2017: We summarise the results of our audits for the year ended 31 December 2015. We provide an update on timeliness, the types of audit opinions we issued, and note the main matters we identified from our audits...
January 2017: We summarise the results of our annual audits in 2015/16, draw attention to some insights from those audits, and set out some analysis of CRIs’ financial performance in the last eight years...
AgResearch Future Footprint Project: our targeted review of the updated business case
