Part 3: The Controller function and the appropriation audit

Central government: Results of the 2014/15 audits.

The Controller function and appropriation audit are important aspects of the Auditor-General's work. They support the fundamental principle of Parliamentary control over government expenditure.

Under New Zealand's constitutional and legal system, the Government needs Parliament's approval to:

  • make laws;
  • impose taxes on people to raise public funds; and
  • spend public money.

Parliament's approval can be given in advance or retrospectively.

In this Part, we explain what the Controller and Auditor-General does to help ensure that government spending stays within the limits approved by Parliament. Our discussion includes:

  • Why is the Controller work important?
  • Who approves the spending of public money and how?
  • Who is responsible for ensuring that public money is spent correctly?
  • How great is the risk that public money might be spent above or beyond the appropriation limits?
  • How does the Controller deal with breaches of appropriation?
  • How much public money was spent without proper authority in 2014/15?
  • What are the emerging Controller issues and themes?

Why is the Controller work important?

In her role as Controller, the Controller and Auditor-General helps maintain the transparency and legitimacy of the public financial management system.

The appropriation system ensures that Parliament, on behalf of the New Zealand people, has adequate control over how the Government uses public resources. It also ensures that the Government can be held to account for how it has used those resources.

Most of the Crown's funding is obtained through taxes. New Zealanders want assurance that the Government is spending public money as intended.

The Controller and Auditor-General provides an important check on the public financial management system on behalf of Parliament, taxpayers, and the New Zealand public.

Who approves the spending of public money, and how?

Each year, the Government puts forward its spending proposals for the coming financial year in the Budget (usually in May). It formally presents its proposed budget to Parliament in the form of a Bill, called the Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, along with various explanatory documents. This is the first appropriation Bill for the financial year.

The Bill sets out estimates of what will be spent under each ministerial portfolio – in general, every ministerial portfolio has a corresponding "Vote" in the budget (for example, Vote Health sets out all the spending in the Health portfolio). Each Vote is made up of several more specific "appropriations", which are descriptions of a particular area of activity and the spending approval sought for that area. Each appropriation has to set out:

  • the maximum amount of spending being approved;
  • the scope (that is, what the money can be used for); and
  • the date on which the appropriation lapses (most appropriations last for one year).

Once Parliament has considered and passed the Bill, it becomes law as an Act. In general, any spending outside what has been approved in this Act of Parliament will be unlawful. There are some exceptions. For example, under a "permanent legislative authority" appropriation (PLA), the appropriation authority does not need to be sought from and approved each year by Parliament. With PLAs, the Estimates figure represents forecast expenditure, not an upper limit.

The Budget generally does not become law until several weeks into the fiscal year.

If the Budget Bill is not passed before the financial year begins, how can the Government spend money lawfully in the meantime?

The Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill is usually passed in August. From 1 July until the Bill becomes law, the Government must continue to operate and spend public money. To cover this period, interim authority is provided through an Imprest Supply Act, which is enacted before the financial year begins. The spending authority under this Imprest Supply Act is repealed when the Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act comes into force.

Imprest Supply Acts authorise the Government to incur expenses and capital expenditure – up to a specified amount – in advance of Parliament passing an Appropriation Act. This helps ensure that the Government has enough funds for general purposes (up to a specified amount) throughout the financial year. There are usually at least two Imprest Supply Acts in a financial year. Cabinet requires that any use of imprest supply must be authorised by a specific Cabinet decision or, in some instances, by delegated authority to joint ministers.

To continue to receive Parliamentary authority, all expenditure incurred under an Imprest Supply Act must later be approved by Parliament under an Appropriation Act. This approval is typically gained through a second appropriation Bill, the Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Bill, which is usually enacted in June.

If expenditure under the authority of an Imprest Supply Act is incurred too late in the financial year to have received authorisation through the Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Bill, then as at 30 June it becomes "unappropriated expenditure". It must also be validated later by Parliament through a third appropriation Bill, the Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

What happens if things change during the year?

The changing nature of government activities and unexpected demands means that it is rarely possible to foresee all future expenses and capital expenditure. The system recognises the need for some flexibility to respond to changing events:

  • A second Imprest Supply Act for the year is provided, usually at the same time as the Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act. This provides authority for spending that might not have been envisaged when the budget Estimates were finalised.
  • The second appropriation Bill during the financial year – the Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Bill – allows the Government to update the initial estimates in the Budget and to get approval for those changes (including expenditure already incurred under imprest supply).
  • The second Imprest Supply Act remains in force until the end of the financial year to provide authority for unexpected spending after the Supplementary Estimates are finalised.
  • The Public Finance Act 1989 includes several other mechanisms for approving minor changes to the spending authorities approved by Parliament. For example, there is limited scope for the Governor-General to approve, by Order in Council, transfers between appropriations within a Vote.3 To provide further flexibility during the final three months of the financial year, the Public Finance Act authorises the Minister of Finance to approve a limited amount of extra spending within the scope of an existing appropriation.4 Flexibility under these mechanisms is subject to confirmation by Parliament through the Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.
  • Section 25 of the Public Finance Act authorises the Government to spend public money outside appropriations in emergency situations, subject to confirmation by Parliament through the Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.

So, does that mean that any spending that is outside the revised budget (Supplementary Estimates) is unlawful?

Not necessarily. Expenditure incurred over and above the revised Estimates could still be lawful if it is incurred under a proper authority (for example, if it is within imprest supply or in keeping with the provisions of the Public Finance Act or any other Act). However, expenditure incurred under proper authority, but not included in an Appropriation Act as at the financial year end, remains "unappropriated" until it is validated by Parliament.

In contrast, expenditure incurred without appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act remains both unappropriated and unlawful unless and until it is validated by Parliament in an Appropriation Act.5

The Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act, which is introduced after the end of the financial year, allows Parliament to retrospectively confirm or validate all unappropriated expenditure incurred during the year, whether it was incurred with or without the proper authority.

Does the Controller and Auditor-General have a role in the Budget process?

No. The Government prepares the Budget. The Minister of Finance and the Treasury co-ordinate the work of the various government departments and individual Ministers to put together a set of spending proposals for the Government as a whole. The Auditor-General is not part of the Government or answerable to Ministers, so has no role in this process.6 Some people believe that the Auditor-General audits the Budget, but she does not.

Once the Government has presented its proposed budget to Parliament, individual select committees consider the proposals in the various Votes. The Auditor-General's staff provide advice to the select committees to assist their scrutiny of the spending proposals in the budget Estimates.

Parliament then votes on whether to pass the Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill. Votes on budget and spending matters are automatically regarded as confidence matters. That means that, if a Government cannot persuade a majority of Parliament to support its spending plans, then it does not have enough support to continue as the Government.

Who spends the money, and how?

All public money must be held in a Crown or departmental bank account. The Treasury is responsible for managing Crown bank accounts unless it delegates responsibility to a department to operate as an agent of the Crown. Government departments are responsible for managing departmental bank accounts.

Each department forecasts its cash requirements based on its budget and agrees cash payment schedules with the Treasury. The Treasury is responsible for disbursing cash to departments during the year in keeping with those schedules. Responsibility for how that cash is applied rests with the departments.

The departments are responsible for paying non-departmental providers (for example, Crown entities within their Votes) and for their own departmental spending.

The public financial management system operates on an "accrual" rather than a cash basis of accounting. To keep within budget limits, departments need to manage expenditure on an "accrual" basis. This means that expenditure is accounted for when it is incurred (that is, when there is an obligation to pay, as opposed to when the payment is made).

Who is responsible for ensuring that public money is spent correctly?

Departmental chief executives are responsible under the Public Finance Act for the financial management and performance of their department.7 This includes ensuring that they have both the funds and the necessary legal authority before incurring expenses or capital expenditure.

Departments are required to report to the Treasury (usually monthly) the expenses and capital expenditure incurred by the department against the appropriation or other statutory authority provided.

The Treasury is then required to compile a (usually) monthly report to the Controller and Auditor-General that sets out all actual expenditure incurred compared with the appropriation (or other authority)8 and all expenditure incurred without authority or in excess of the authority given.

Who checks whether the departments are actually spending the money lawfully and responsibly?

This is where the function of the Controller comes in.9 To check and verify the spending, the Controller and Auditor-General's auditors:

  • review the Treasury's monthly report;
  • carry out some tests on the financial information (provided by the Treasury from the Crown Financial Information System);
  • report back to the Treasury highlighting any issues (including any breaches), comment on actions needed to validate any unappropriated expenditure, and advise on any further action that the Treasury or the department needs to take to resolve outstanding issues; and
  • inform the auditors of the issues affecting the departments they audit.

As well as her responsibilities under the Public Finance Act, the Controller and Auditor-General is responsible under the Public Audit Act 2001 for auditing the financial statements of every public entity. For government departments, as well as auditing the financial statements, her auditors are responsible for auditing the appropriations administered by the department ("the appropriation audit").10

Through the appropriation audit, the auditors look at systems and some transactions to ensure that public money was spent as intended by Parliament. If an auditor appointed by the Controller and Auditor-General detects spending outside authority through the appropriation audit work, then the auditor will discuss the matter with the department's chief executive and advise the department about reporting the matter and taking corrective action. The auditor will also check to ensure that the department reports the matter in its financial statements.11

How great is the risk that public money might be spent above or beyond the appropriation limits?

Expenditure outside the bounds of the appropriations tends to be relatively small, less than 0.1% of the Government's total budget in 2014/15 (2013/14: less than 1%).

When the proper authority for unappropriated spending is not obtained, it constitutes a breach of appropriation and is unlawful. Not all unappropriated expenditure is unlawful, because the appropriations system provides some flexibility.

Some of the more common reasons for exceeding the spending limit set out in the appropriations include under-estimating expenditure that is demand-driven, write-downs of asset values, and the write-off or write-down of Crown receivables. (For the latter two, there is no cash outflow but they are nonetheless expenses for appropriation and accounting purposes.)

Examples of unappropriated expenditure in recent years include:

  • Increased demand from New Zealanders for the SuperGold card in 2009/10 led to increased government spending on public transport concessions. The amount spent was $327,000 greater than anticipated, leading to spending in Vote Transport in excess of the appropriation limit.12
  • Unappropriated expenditure can occur because of spending not envisaged at the time the Budget was prepared. In 2010/11, the New Zealand Defence Force overspent $990,000 of Vote Defence Force money in the appropriation for funding Naval Helicopter Forces. This happened because damage to three Seasprite helicopter rotor blades was beyond repair and the blades needed to be replaced.13
  • Sometimes, financially neutral transfers are made between appropriations during the year and, if the amount transferred is miscalculated, it can result in under-expenditure in one appropriation and over-expenditure in the other. This happened in Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet in 2011/12, when too much funding was transferred from an existing appropriation into a newly created appropriation for Support Services to the Governor-General and Maintenance of Residences.14 In that instance, the over-spending in the existing appropriation was incurred without the proper authority.
  • Incorrect financial forecasting led to spending in excess of a Vote Statistics appropriation in 2012/13. Statistics New Zealand forecast under-expenditure when the budget was revised during that financial year (that is, in the Supplementary Estimates). Accordingly, the Official Statistics appropriation was reduced by $1.937 million. The appropriation should not have been reduced, and the adjustment resulted in over-spending of $1.03 million.15
  • In 2013/14, CERA incurred $130.6 million without an appropriation and authorisation. The expenses that caused the breach related to movement in the provision for vesting in land, losses on the valuation of land, and land-related transaction and demolition costs. Most of the amount reflected changes in assumptions underlying the accounting for land. A further $9.1 million was incurred through Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery without appropriation but with Cabinet authority to use imprest supply.16

How much unappropriated spending was incurred with the proper authority?

The Minister of Finance used his powers under the Public Finance Act to authorise five instances of unappropriated expenditure during 2014/15, for $21 million.17 Most of that, just over $16 million, was in Vote Education and related to early childhood education. The Ministry of Education says this was because of higher than expected growth in attendance at early childhood education centres on non-school days and higher than expected growth in home-based care for under two-year olds.18 (This follows unappropriated expenditure of $21.5 million for early childhood education in 2013/14 where the authority was limited to $1.5 billion, which the Ministry also attributed to higher than expected costs.)19

Expenditure in Vote Police exceeded appropriation by $4.9 million because expenses were transferred between different output appropriations. The expenditure related to payroll costs and the transfers affected three appropriations. Although the transfers were fiscally neutral, the re-allocation of expenditure to different appropriations meant that some appropriation limits were exceeded.20

The five instances of expenditure in excess of appropriation were authorised by the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Public Finance Act and will need to be confirmed in the next Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.

How often is expenditure incurred without proper authority?

Figure 1 shows the number of appropriation breaches – the instances of unappropriated expenditure incurred without authority – in the last five years, as reported in the Government's financial statements. The Figure shows a combined total for expenses and capital expenditure.

Figure 1
Number of instances of unappropriated expenses and capital expenditure incurred without authority

Figure 1 Number of instances of unappropriated expenses and capital expenditure incurred without authority.

Source: The Government's financial statements for 2010/11 to 2014/15.

Note: Some of the expenditure without authority reported in 2014/15 related to expenditure incurred in 2013/14.

The fluctuations between years are relatively minor.

The total amount of public money reported as spent without proper authority has fallen significantly in 2014/15: $55.8 million compared with $213 million in 2013/14.21

How does the Controller deal with breaches of appropriation?

When departments become aware of an appropriation breach or a potential breach, they are expected to immediately tell their auditor, the Treasury, and their Minister (who will need to seek additional authority for the expenditure). The department should provide the Treasury with an explanation of the breach as well as an explanation of actions being taken to resolve the issue – for example, to gain additional authority in advance to avoid a potential breach or to validate any already unappropriated expenditure through an Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

The Treasury then collates the reports from the departments and provides a single, monthly report to the Office of the Auditor-General, highlighting actual, expected, and potential breaches. The Controller then carries out the work we describe in paragraphs 3.31 to 3.33.

Auditors might detect breaches through their audit process, as might the Treasury through its financial management and budgeting work.

However detected, the facts of the situation are reviewed and the nature and amount of the breach is confirmed. If the department has not acted already, the Auditor-General's staff advise the department to immediately inform the Treasury. They also advise on the corrective action that needs to be taken – for example, seeking further authority for spending22 and/or seeking to legitimise the expenditure after the event, usually through validating legislation.23

The Controller monitors all matters reported to her or detected by her staff until they are resolved. If the department does not take the required action, then the Controller can write to the department's chief executive and the relevant Minister instructing that no further expenditure can be incurred under the affected appropriation until approval has been obtained.

If the department continues to fail to obtain the correct approval, then the Controller can direct the Minister, the Treasury, and the department to stop payments from the relevant bank account and direct the Minister to report to the House of Representatives. Such measures would be a last resort.

How much public money was spent without proper authority in 2014/15?

Figure 1 showed that 19 instances of expenses and capital expenditure incurred without authority were reported in the Government's financial statements for 2014/15. Figure 2 provides more detail on the unauthorised expenditure reported for 2014/15, including the Votes and amounts involved.

During 2014/15, the total amount of public money identified as being in excess of, or without, appropriation and without proper authority was $55.8 million. This was 0.07% of the total appropriations for all Votes authorised through the Budget 2014 process.24

Figure 2
Unappropriated expenditure incurred without authority during the year ended 30 June 2015

Expenses and capital expenditure incurred in excess of appropriation and without prior Cabinet authority to use imprest supply 8 7 30.5 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery; Commerce and Consumer Affairs; Arts, Culture and Heritage; Justice; Parliamentary Service; Education; Tertiary Education
Expenses and capital expenditure incurred outside scope of an appropriation and without prior Cabinet authority to use imprest supply 3 3 10.9 Attorney General; Housing; Transport
Expenses and capital expenditure incurred without appropriation and without prior Cabinet authority to use imprest supply 8 8 14.3 Commerce and Consumer Affairs; Labour; Tourism; Canterbury Earthquake Recovery; Transport
Other 0 1 0.1 Social Development
Total 19 19 55.8

Source: The Government's financial statements for 2014/15.

In seven of the 19 breaches in 2014/15, the Government spent more ($30.5 million in total) than the amount that was authorised within existing appropriations. In three instances, expenditure totalling $10.9 million was outside the scope of existing appropriations. Another eight breaches amounting to $14.3 million were from expenditure for which there was no appropriation.

The more significant instances of unauthorised expenditure in 2014/15, in terms of the amounts involved, were in Votes Justice, Transport, and Canterbury Earthquake Recovery.

Vote Justice

A small number of high-cost court cases contributed to a $4.8 million over-spending of the legal aid budget within Vote Justice. Other factors included a general increase in the number of applications and grants for legal aid.25

Vote Transport

Most of the "outside scope" expenditure of $10.9 million related to a technical oversight in Vote Transport. The Crown had provided loan finance to the New Zealand Railways Corporation (NZRC) to fund capital projects and provide working capital. The loan ($10.75 million) was due to mature and be renewed in 2014/15. In 2011/12, the Government restructured the rail sector, transferring network and operating assets, and all rail operations, to KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail). The NZRC's function as a State-owned enterprise was then simply to hold rail land.

The Government had provided in Budget 2014 for the loan rollover of $10.5 million, but the appropriation (as expressed in the Budget estimates) limited the loan to the NZRC.26 In April 2015, the loan was rolled over but, given the new entity structure, the loan recipient was KiwiRail, not the NZRC.27 The funding was therefore outside the scope of the appropriation as authorised by Parliament. The scope statement was updated in the Supplementary Estimates for 2014/15.

Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery

Several accounting treatment changes agreed between CERA and its auditors during the 2013/14 audit resulted in appropriation issues in the early part of the 2014/15 year. All appropriation issues were rectified through the October baseline update and Budget 2015 processes.

CERA incurred $24.4 million of expenses over and above its appropriation for "impairment of improvements". This related to the purchase of land occupied by a building intended for demolition. The initial land purchase was authorised, but the amount needed to account for how much the asset (the building) was impaired was more than expected. Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery provided $51 million for such expenses, under a multi-year appropriation, but CERA exceeded this amount by $24.4 million during 2014/15.

Some accounting treatments and decisions made in 2013/14 had implications for 2014/15: CERA incurred a further $12.7 million on expenditure for which there was no appropriation within the Vote. More than a third of the breach ($4.6 million) resulted from a different accounting treatment of initial land acquisitions. An element of the cost of purchasing land for the Anchor Projects that had previously been expected to be capitalised (that is, added to the asset's recorded value) was appropriately treated as an expense instead. No appropriation existed for such expenses at the time they were incurred.

Another legacy from 2013/14 decisions concerns CERA's role in purchasing land, some of which must be vested to the Christchurch City Council. The obligation to vest land for no consideration constitutes an expense to CERA. In 2014/15, such transactions took place without an appropriation in the Vote to provide the authority for incurring the expenses. A total of $4.1 million was incurred without proper authority for this reason.

Capital expenditure on the Christchurch Bus Interchange was also without an appropriation in 2014/15. CERA had authority to incur operating expenditure on the construction of the Interchange but did not initially envisage having an ownership interest in the Interchange. With the assumption of ownership of the asset, $3.5 million needed to be treated as capital expenditure, but there was no capital expenditure appropriation in the Vote to cover this.28

All of the above-mentioned appropriation issues of Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery were rectified through the Supplementary Estimates process and will be validated in forthcoming legislation.

Further details of unauthorised (and other unappropriated) expenditure are provided in the annual reports of the departments responsible for administering their Votes and in the Government's financial statements for 2014/15.

How did the Controller address the issues that arose during 2014/15?

The auditors for the affected departments carried out the necessary actions described in this Part. Those actions included confirming that expenditure was unappropriated, the amount of the unappropriated expenditure, and the amounts to be disclosed in the Government's and individual departments' financial statements, as well as reviewing the explanation given for the unappropriated expenditure.

What are the emerging Controller issues and themes?

Recent reforms in state sector legislation have introduced more flexibility into the appropriation system, with the aim of helping government entities to work more effectively and efficiently.29

Administration and use

One of those reforms was to formally create a distinction between the "administration" and "use" of appropriations (under section 7C of the Public Finance Act). Distinguishing between the administration and use of appropriations formalises a system to make it easier for one department to spend public money from an appropriation administered by a different department (with the administering department's or Minister's agreement). This is designed to provide greater flexibility when several departments need to work together to share resources or work towards a common outcome.

So far, we have not seen much uptake of the administration-and-use provisions. From the little we have seen, we have detected instances in which the timing and/or amount of spending has not been reported consistently by both parties to the arrangement in the Crown Financial Information System. It is clear that departments will need to take better care to document and report spending under these arrangements, and the arrangements will need to be monitored carefully by the Treasury.

Multi-category appropriations

The introduction of multi-category appropriations (MCAs) has also afforded more flexibility in the appropriation system – for example, by allowing operating and capital expenditure to be covered in the one appropriation. An MCA is useful when the proportion of operating expenditure to capital expenditure for a project is inherently uncertain. As such, the introduction of an MCA has the potential to avoid appropriation breaches that can occur with single-category appropriations when the operating expenditure to capital expenditure proportions are misjudged. The use of MCAs is widespread.

Thinking ahead

It is especially important that departments anticipate the accounting and budget ramifications of future investments, asset transactions, and other events. This includes anticipating how much of the forecast expenditure (including expenses incurred through asset write-offs or write-downs) will need to be treated as operational and capital respectively and ensuring that there is sufficient authority to cover the expenditure.

We urge government departments to think ahead and try to ensure that future developments likely to affect their expenditure profile are reflected in their Vote structure.

3: Section 26A of the Public Finance Act 1989.

4: Section 26B of the Public Finance Act 1989.

5: Section 26C of the Public Finance Act 1989.

6: There is a special process for working out the budget for Officers of Parliament, such as the Auditor-General, to ensure that the funding decisions are made by Parliament and not the Government.

7: Section 34(1)(a) of the Public Finance Act 1989.

8: Such as imprest supply and Cabinet or ministerial decisions made within delegated authorities.

9: The Auditor-General exercises her Controller function under sections 65Y to 65ZA of the Public Finance Act 1989.

10: Section 15(2) of the Public Audit Act 2001.

11: Within the Statement of Appropriations and Statement of Unappropriated Expenses and Capital Expenditure.

12: Ministry of Transport, Annual Report 2009/10, page 52. The excess spending was authorised by the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Public Finance Act 1989.

13: New Zealand Defence Force, Annual Report 2011, pages 94 and 149. The excess spending was authorised by the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Public Finance Act 1989.

14: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Annual Report for the year ended 2012 [sic], page 33.

15: Statistics New Zealand, Annual Report of Statistics New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2013, page 79. The excess spending was authorised by the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Public Finance Act 1989.

16: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Annual Report 2014, page 106 and the Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2015, pages 160-162.

17: Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2015, page 140.

18: Ministry of Education, Annual Report 2015, page 117.

19: Ministry of Education, Annual Report 2014, page 156.

20: New Zealand Police, Annual Report 2014/15, page 74.

21: Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2015, pages 141-143 and Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2014, pages 160-162.

22: Additional authority may be obtained under the Public Finance Act 1989. Cabinet may approve the use of imprest supply as a source of temporary authority and agree to include the amounts in the next Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

23: Detailed information on seeking additional authority or validating unappropriated expenditure is provided on the Treasury's website,

24: The Budget 2014 appropriations for all Votes totalled $85.5 billion.

25: Ministry of Justice, Annual Report 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015, page 137.

26: The Estimates of Appropriations 2014/15 – Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector Vol.1, pages 315-316.

27: Ministry of Transport, Annual Report 2014/15, page. 74.

28: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2015, pages 49-50.

29: The Treasury, State Sector Public Finance Reform Resources, at