Part 4: Non-standard audit reports issued
4.101
In this Part, we report on the non-standard audit reports issued on the annual financial reports of entities that are part of the Government reporting entity.1
4.102
We report on the non-standard audit reports issued during the year 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 on the annual financial reports of:
- school boards of trustees; and
- other public entities.
Why are we reporting this information?
4.103
An audit report is addressed to the readers of an entity's financial report. However, all central government public entities are ultimately accountable to Parliament, including for their use of public money and their use of any statutory powers or other authority given to them by Parliament. We therefore consider it important to draw Parliament's attention to the range of matters that give rise to nonstandard audit reports.
4.104
In each case, the issues underlying a non-standard audit report are drawn to the attention of the entity and discussed with its governing body.
What is a non-standard audit report?
4.105
A non-standard audit report2 is one that contains:
- a qualified opinion; and/or
- an explanatory paragraph.
4.106
The auditor expresses a qualified opinion, as opposed to an unqualified opinion (which is issued when the auditor is satisfied, in all material respects, with the matters outlined in the financial report), because of:
- a disagreement between the auditor and the entity about the treatment or disclosure of a matter in the financial report; or
- a limitation in scope because the auditor has been unable to obtain enough evidence to support, and accordingly is unable to express, an opinion on the financial report or a part of the financial report.
4.107
The types of qualified opinions are an "adverse" opinion (explained in paragraphs 4.111-4.112), a "disclaimer of opinion" (paragraph 4.113), or an "except-for" opinion (paragraphs 4.114-4.115).
4.108
The auditor will include an explanatory paragraph (see paragraphs 4.116-4.117) in the audit report in order to emphasise a matter such as:
- a breach of law; or
- a fundamental uncertainty.
4.109
Auditors are required to ensure that an explanatory paragraph is included in the audit report in such a way that it cannot be mistaken for a qualified opinion.
4.110
Figure 4.1 outlines the different types of audit reports that auditors can issue.
Figure 4.1
Audit report options
Adverse opinion
4.111
An adverse opinion is expressed when there is disagreement between the auditor and the entity about the treatment or disclosure of a matter in the financial report and, in the auditor's judgement, the treatment or disclosure is so material or pervasive that the report is seriously misleading.
4.112
Expression of an adverse opinion represents the most serious type of nonstandard audit report.
Disclaimer of opinion
4.113
A disclaimer of opinion is expressed when the possible effect of a limitation in the scope of the auditor's examination is so material or pervasive that the auditor has not been able to obtain sufficient evidence to support, and accordingly is unable to express, an opinion on the financial report.
Except-for opinion
4.114
An except-for opinion is expressed when the auditor concludes that either:
- the possible effect of a limitation in the scope of the auditor's examination is, or may be, material but is not so significant as to require a disclaimer of opinion – in which case the opinion is qualified by using the words "except for the effects of any adjustments that might have been found necessary" had the limitation not affected the evidence available to the auditor; or
- the effect of the treatment or disclosure of a matter with which the auditor disagrees is, or may be, material but is not, in the auditor's judgement, so significant as to require an adverse opinion – in which case the opinion is qualified by using the words "except for the effects of" the matter giving rise to the disagreement.
4.115
An except-for opinion can be expressed when the auditor concludes that a breach of statutory obligations has occurred and that the breach is material to the reader's understanding of the financial report. An example of this is where a Crown entity has breached a requirement of the Crown Entities Act 2004 by not including budgeted figures in its financial report.
Explanatory paragraph
4.116
In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for the auditor to include in the audit report additional comment, by way of an explanatory paragraph, to emphasise a matter that they regard as relevant to a reader's proper understanding of an entity's financial report.
4.117
For example, it could be relevant to draw attention to an entity having breached its statutory obligations in respect of certain matters where that breach may affect or influence a reader's understanding about the entity. In this situation, the audit report would normally draw attention to the breach only when the entity has not clearly set out the breach in its financial report.
School boards of trustees
4.118
This is the first time that we are reporting on the non-standard audit reports issued on the financial reports of school boards of trustees. Consequently we are not identifying schools by name. We may identify schools in a similar report next year.
4.119
There are about 2450 state schools governed by boards of trustees, which are made up of members of the local community (usually parents of children attending the school). The board of each school is a Crown entity in its own right and, as such, has legal obligations.
4.120
One of these legal obligations is to prepare annual financial statements in accordance with "generally accepted accounting practice". These are accounting standards that apply to all entities that are obliged to prepare annual financial statements.
4.121
We are pleased to report that it was not necessary for any adverse opinions or disclaimer of opinions (which are the most serious forms of qualified opinion) to be issued on schools' financial statements in the year ending 31 December 2006.
Except-for opinions
4.122
The following except-for opinions were issued on schools' financial statements in the year ending 31 December 2006.
4.123
Because of the number of schools, we have reported the types of except-for opinions that were issued and the number of schools that received each type, rather than list each school for which an except-for opinion was expressed and the reason for each school's except-for opinion. In some cases, an audit report was qualified for more than one reason.
Figure 4.2
Except-for opinions for schools by type and number
| Limitation in scope because of limited controls over income (10 schools) Schools receive income from government grants and other sources. We must satisfy ourselves that the income reported in the financial statements is complete. In some schools the controls operated over the receipt of income from other sources are not sufficiently strong for us to give an assurance that the figures in the financial statements are materially correct. In these circumstances, our audits have a "limitation of scope", which we report in our opinion. Our audits of 10 schools were limited because we were unable to satisfy ourselves that the controls operated over income received were sufficiently strong to verify the completeness of the income figures included in the financial statements. |
| Limitation in scope because of limited controls over expenditure (8 schools) Schools incur expenditure on matters that contribute to their educational objectives. We must satisfy ourselves that the expenditure reported in the financial statements is lawful, and has been properly authorised by the board of trustees. In some schools, not all expenditure has been properly authorised, and so we are unable to give an assurance on the validity of all the expenditure included in the financial statements. In these circumstances, our audits have a "limitation of scope", which we report in our opinion. Our audits of eight schools were limited because we were unable to verify the validity of all the expenditure that the schools had incurred because approval to incur the expenditure was not recorded in the boards of trustees' minutes. |
| Disagreement over cyclical maintenance provisions (5 schools) Boards have an obligation to the Ministry of Education to maintain their school buildings in good repair. Accounting standards require boards to include a provision for cyclical maintenance in their financial statements to represent the amount of maintenance that is estimated will be required in the future (Financial Reporting Standard No. 15: Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets). We disagreed with five schools because they did not comply with the accounting standard, in that they did not include provisions for cyclical maintenance in their financial statements. |
| Disagreement over consolidated financial statements (3 schools) Accounting standards require schools to prepare consolidated financial statements that incorporate their subsidiaries (Financial Reporting Standard No. 37: Consolidating Investments in Subsidiaries). Only a few of the 2450 schools have subsidiaries, and most of these schools prepare consolidated financial statements. We disagreed with three schools because they did not comply with the accounting standard, in that they did not prepare consolidated financial statements. |
| Disagreement over the application of Financial Reporting Standards (3 schools) We disagreed with three schools because they did not comply with an applicable Financial Reporting Standard. |
| Other reasons (6 schools) The audit opinions of six other schools were qualified for other reasons: We disagreed with one school because budget figures were not included in its financial statements. We disagreed with one school because its financial statements did not reflect the expenditure incurred by the board to paint the school buildings and the borrowing that had taken place. We disagreed with one school because expenditure incurred on planning for the construction of a building that did not proceed had not been written off . Our audit of one school was limited because there was insufficient evidence to confirm the amount of adjustments made to the value of the school's assets and liabilities to reflect a misappropriation of funds in previous years. Our audit of one school was limited because we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to support the provision for cyclical maintenance that the school included in its financial statements. Our audit of one school was limited because we were unable to confirm whether the school had complied with an applicable Financial Reporting Standard. |
Explanatory paragraphs
4.124
The following explanatory paragraphs were issued on schools' financial statements during the year ended 31 December 2006.
4.125
Because of the number of schools, we have reported the types of explanatory paragraphs that were issued and the number of schools that received each type, rather than list each school for which an explanatory paragraph was noted and the reason for each school's explanatory paragraph.
4.126
Some explanatory paragraphs concern a breach of law. In most cases, boards have a choice of disclosing a breach of law in their financial statements. Where a board decides to make a voluntary disclosure, we would not normally include an explanatory paragraph in the audit report. Figure 4.3 does not include such breaches, voluntarily disclosed in the financial statements.
Figure 4.3
Explanatory paragraphs (breach of law) for schools by type and number
| Not reporting by 31 May 2006 (80 schools) Boards have a statutory obligation to issue their audited financial statements by 31 May. We noted that 80 schools had breached the law by failing to meet this statutory reporting deadline. |
| Statements of performance (14 schools) Schools are obliged by the Education Act 1989 to include, in their annual reports, statements comparing their performance against their objectives. We noted that 14 schools had breached the law by not including such statements in their annual reports. |
| Expenditure by integrated schools on buildings (12 schools) Integrated schools are not permitted to incur expenditure on buildings owned by proprietors without the approval of the Ministry of Education and the proprietor's written recognition of the board's financial interest. We noted that 12 schools had breached the law by using their funds to pay for improvements to buildings on land owned by the schools' proprietors. A large number of schools made voluntary disclosure of this inadvertent breach of the law in their financial statements. Part 7 in this report titled "Unlawful expenditure by schools" gives further detail on this matter. |
| Borrowing without approval (10 schools) Boards are not permitted to borrow above a prescribed limit without the approval of the Ministers of Education and Finance. We noted that 10 schools had breached the law by not seeking authority from the Ministers for borrowing above the limit. |
| Investing in non-approved institutions (8 schools) In order to safeguard public money, schools may invest their surplus funds only in approved banking and other institutions. We noted that eight schools had breached the law by making investments in non-approved banking institutions without the authority of the Ministers of Education and Finance. |
| Banking arrangements (9 schools) Boards are obliged to deposit their income in a bank account under their direct control and authority. We noted that nine schools had breached the law by depositing income in the bank accounts of third parties. |
Figure 4.4
Explanatory paragraphs (emphasis of matter) for schools by type and number
| Closures (31 schools) During the last few years, a number of schools have been closed. Accounting standards require schools that have been or are being closed to prepare their financial statements on the basis that they are not a "going concern", that is, that they are not continuing. We noted that 31 closed schools had prepared their financial statements correctly. |
| Payments in advance to staff (19 schools) Schools are not permitted to pay their staff in advance without the approval of the Ministry of Education. We noted that 19 schools had paid some of their staff in advance, in order to make use of government grants that would otherwise have been lost. This was in anticipation of the staff working without pay in the future. We understand that the schools did not realise that they did not have the authority to make such payments and we expect that this issue will not recur. |
| Serious financial difficulties (16 schools) A small number of schools are in serious financial difficulty, mainly because of large working capital deficits. We noted that 16 schools had included disclosures in their financial statements that outlined their financial difficulties and the actions they are taking to address the factors that had resulted in those difficulties. |
| Allegations of irregularities in the award of contracts (14 schools) A number of schools had employed a company to assist with the award of building contracts. Allegations of irregularities concerning an employee of that company are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. We noted that 14 schools had included disclosures in their financial statements, and that the result of those enquiries and whether they affected the schools' contracts was not known.There was no suspicion of impropriety on the part of the boards of trustees. |
| Other reasons (6 schools) Our audit reports included explanatory paragraphs for other reasons: We noted one school was not charging sufficient fees to overseas students. We noted two schools had made payments of additional remuneration to teachers without the approval of the Ministry of Education. We noted one school had made a loan to staff without the approval of the Ministry of Education. We noted two schools had enrolled overseas students without being a signatory to the relevant Code of Practice. |
Other public entities
Figure 4.5
Adverse opinions for other public entities
| Royal New Zealand Navy Museum Trust Incorporated Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We disagreed with the Trustees not recognising the museum collection assets of the Museum Trust, nor the associated depreciation expense, in the Museum Trust's financial statements. These are departures from Financial Reporting Standard No. 3: Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, which requires museum collection assets not previously recognised to be recognised at fair value and depreciated. In addition, we were unable to verify some cash sales and donations because of limited control over those revenues. |
| Queen Elizabeth II Army Memorial Museum Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2006 We disagreed with the Trustees not recognising the museum collection assets of the Museum, nor the associated depreciation expense, in the Museum's financial statements.These are departures from Financial Reporting Standard No. 3: Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, which requires museum collection assets not previously recognised to be recognised at fair value and depreciated. In addition, we were unable to verify some cash sales and donations because of limited control over those revenues. |
| RNZAF Museum Trust Board Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2006 We disagreed with the Board not recognising the museum collection assets of the Trust Board, nor the associated depreciation expense, in the Board's financial statements. These are departures from Financial Reporting Standard No. 3: Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, which requires museum collection assets not previously recognised to be recognised at fair value and depreciated. |
| Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology and Group Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 We issued an unqualified opinion on the parent entity's financial statements. However, we disagreed with the CPIT Council's decision not to prepare consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, this was a departure from Financial Reporting Standard No. 37: Consolidating Investments in Subsidiaries. |
Figure 4.6
Disclaimer of opinion for other public entities
| Ngati Whatua O Orakei Health Clinic Limited* Financial statements year ended: 31 March 2005 Our audit was limited because we were unable to form an opinion on the validity of the use of the going concern assumption. The Board believed that the Company was a going concern, having adopted a financial recovery plan to address the Company's financial difficulties. However, the Board had not prepared forecasts or budgets of future operating results to support the financial recovery plan; therefore, there was insufficient information for us to be able to form an opinion. |
* A subsidiary company of Ngati Whatua O Orakei Māori Trust Board.
Figure 4.7
Except-for opinions for other public entities
| Auckland District Health Board and Group Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2006 We disagreed with the value at which the Board had recorded land, buildings, and associated fit out and services in the Statement of Financial Position of the Board and Group. The Board had recorded those assets revalued based on a valuation that excluded those parcels of land subject to restrictive covenants. This is a departure from Financial Reporting Standard No.3: Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, which requires the revaluation of all assets within a class of assets to be recorded at fair value. The value of the Board and Group's property, plant, and equipment was understated by excluding those parcels of land subject to restrictive covenants. |
| University of Auckland Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 We disagreed in the previous accounting period with the accounting treatment to incorporate the net assets of the Auckland College of Education into the University as an unusual item in the University's Statement of Financial Performance. In our opinion, the net assets should have been treated as a contribution from the Crown in the University's Statement of Movements in Equity. Because we had previously disagreed with the accounting treatment, we disagreed with the comparative information disclosed in the 31 December 2005 financial statements that related to transactions undertaken in the previous accounting period. |
| Victoria University of Wellington and Group Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 We disagreed with the accounting treatment to incorporate the net assets of the Wellington College of Education into the University as an unusual item in the University's Statement of Financial Performance. In our opinion, the net assets should have been treated as a contribution from the Crown in the University's Statement of Movements in Equity. |
| Te Arawa Maori Trust Board Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 Our audit was limited because we were unable to confirm the value of the Board's fixed assets. The Board has an accounting policy to revalue land and buildings to reflect their fair value. However, the Board had not revalued its land and buildings since 30 June 1999. This is a departure from Financial Reporting Standard No. 3: Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, which requires revaluations to be undertaken on a systematic basis with sufficient regularity to ensure that no individual item of property, plant, and equipment within a class is included at a valuation that is materially different from its fair value, and at a minimum every five years. In addition, the Board did not revalue its investment properties as at 30 June 2005 in accordance with Statement of Standard Accounting Practice No.17: Accounting for Investment Properties and Properties Intended for Sale, which requires investment properties to be valued at net current value on an annual basis. We also drew attention to the fact that legislation was being drafted that, if enacted, would result in the Board being vested in a new entity, the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Trust. Because the legislation was still being drafted, the Board had prepared the financial statements on a going concern basis. |
| Auckland District Health Board Charitable Trust* Financial statements years ended: 30 June 2005 and 30 June 2006 Our audit was limited because we were unable to verify certain revenue because of limited control over the receipt of that revenue. |
| Three Harbours Health Foundation** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 Our audit was limited because we were unable to verify certain revenue because of limited control over the receipt of that revenue. |
| Wanganui City College Hostel Trust*** Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2002 Our audit was limited because we were unable to obtain confirmation of the value of the accounts receivable at 31 December 2001. Any misstatements of the accounts receivable would affect the results for the year ended 31 December 2002. We were unable to satisfy ourselves as to the value of the accounts receivable by any other audit procedures. |
| Wilson Home Trust**** Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 Our audit was limited because we were unable to verify certain revenue because of limited control over the receipt of that revenue. |
| Australian Study of Parliament Group (New Zealand Chapter) Financial statements years ended: 30 June 2004 and 30 June 2005 Our audit was limited because we were unable to verify certain revenue because of limited control over the receipt of that revenue. |
| Ngati Whakaue Education Endowment Trust Board Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 Our audit was limited because we were unable to confirm the value of the Trust Board's land that was classified as investment property. The land had not been revalued but instead was recognised at its rating value. This is a departure from Statement of Standard Accounting Practice No. 17: Accounting for Investment Properties and Properties Intended for Sale, which requires the investment property to be revalued annually to net current value. |
* A trust controlled by Auckland District Health Board.
** A trust controlled by Waitemata District Health Board.
*** A trust controlled by Wanganui City College.
**** A trust controlled by Waitemata District Health Board.
Figure 4.8
Explanatory paragraphs (emphasis of matter) for other public entities
| Parliamentary Service Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2006 We noted the disclosures in the Statement of Unappropriated Crown Expenditure that referred to the Controller and Auditor-General examining whether advertising expenditure incurred in the three months before the 2005 General Election was within the legal authority provided by Parliament. |
| Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that referred to uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumption. The validity of the going concern assumption was dependent on the continuing financial support of the Crown in the form of loans and guarantees until December 2007. |
| New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research Limited Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2006 We noted the disclosures in the group financial statements that referred to the uncertainty about the outcome of the plan for a wholly owned subsidiary to raise capital to finance the development of products in the future. The viability of the subsidiary is dependent on the success of its plan in generating the necessary capital and on the commercial success of its products. |
| GraceLinc Limited* Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that referred to the uncertainty about the outcome of the company's plans to raise new capital to finance the development of its products in the future. The viability of the company is ultimately dependent of the success of the company's plans in generating the necessary capital, and thereafter on the commercial success of the company's products. |
| Woodville Windfarm Limited** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that referred to uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumption. The validity of the going concern assumption was dependent on the continuing financial support of the parent company. |
| Enzedair Tours Limited*** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| Ansett Australia and Air New Zealand Engineering Services Limited *** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| Travelseekers International Limited*** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| Jetaffair Holidays Limited*** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| Air New Zealand Associated Companies (Australia) Limited*** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| Tasman Empire Airways (1965) Limited*** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| Freedom Air Limited*** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| Air New Zealand Travel Business Limited*** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| Eagle Air Maintenance Limited*** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted that the financial statements were appropriately prepared on the going concern basis because the parent company had confirmed that it would provide adequate support to ensure that the company could meet its debts as they fall due. |
| PIERC Education Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that referred to uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumption. The validity of the going concern assumption was dependent on the continuing successful implementation of a recovery plan and the ongoing support of the Tertiary Education Commission. |
| NIWA Natural Solutions Limited**** Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that referred to uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumption. The validity of the going concern assumption was dependent on the continuing financial support of the parent company. |
| Quotable Value Australia Pty Limited† Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2004 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that referred to uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumption. The validity of the going concern assumption was dependent on the continuing financial support of the parent company. |
| Egan Australasia Pty Limited (formerly Quotable Value (NSW) Pty Ltd)† Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2004 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that referred to uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumption. The validity of the going concern assumption was dependent on the continuing financial support of the parent company. |
| Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Financial statements year ended: 30 June 2006 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that appropriately referred to the going concern assumption not being used in preparing the financial statements because the Department was disestablished and merged with the Ministry of Social Development on 1 July 2006. |
| ComOne Joint Venture†† Financial statements year ended: 31 March 2005 We noted that the financial statements had been prepared on a realisation basis because the joint venture was expected to be wound up within 12 months. |
| West Coast Transport Network Group Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that the Network Group had a working capital and net asset deficit because costs exceeded income, and that the Trustees were attempting to improve this financial situation. |
| The Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board Financial statements year ended: 16 May 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that appropriately referred to the going concern assumption not being used in preparing the financial statements because the entity was disestablished on 16 May 2005. |
| Kings Hostel Trust††† Financial statements year ended: 31 December 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that appropriately referred to the going concern assumption not being used in preparing the financial statements because the Trust was wound up on 31 December 2005. |
| New Zealand High Performance Sports Centre Trust# Financial statements year ended: 14 July 2004 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that appropriately referred to the going concern assumption not being used in preparing the financial statements because the Trust was wound up on 14 July 2004. |
| Fishing Industry Development Trust## Financial statements year ended: 31 March 2003 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that appropriately referred to the going concern assumption not being used in preparing the financial statements because the Trust would be disestablished shortly. |
| Open Mind Journals Limited### Financial statements years ended: 31 December 2003 and 31 December 2005 We noted the disclosures in the financial statements that appropriately referred to the going concern assumption not being used in preparing the financial statements because the Company had ceased trading. |
* A subsidiary controlled by New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research Limited.
** A subsidiary controlled by Meridian Energy Limited.
*** A subsidiary company of Air New Zealand Limited.
**** A subsidiary company of National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited.
† A subsidiary company of Quotable Value Limited.
†† A joint venture between the University of Otago, Agresearch Limited, and a private sector entity.
††† A trust controlled by Kings High School (Dunedin).
# A trust controlled by Sport and Recreation New Zealand.
## A trust controlled by New Zealand Fishing Industry Board.
### A subsidiary company of the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.
1: We report separately on entities that are within the local government portfolio, in our yearly report on the results of audits for that sector.
2: A non-standard audit report is issued in accordance with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand Auditing Standard No. 702: The Audit Report on an Attest Audit.
page top