Appendix: Progress in addressing our recommendations

Effectiveness and efficiency of arrangements to repair pipes and roads in Christchurch - follow-up audit.

Recommendations		What we found in 2013	What we found in 2016
1	We recommended that CERA, the Council, and NZTA: change the governance framework to address ambiguity about roles and responsibilities, including the role and responsibilities of the independent chairperson.	In 2013, we found a lack of clarity about the role of the Client Governance Group, which has since been replaced by the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group, and the role of the independent chairperson. The roles of the Client Governance Group and SCIRT Board were blurred.	The public entities have improved the governance framework by clarifying roles and responsibilities. The governance framework now meets the needs of the SCIRT programme better. See paragraphs 3.6-3.18
2	We recommended that CERA: contribute more consistently to effective leadership and strategic direction for SCIRT.	In 2013, we found that CERA did not consistently send the same people to meetings of the SCIRT Board and the Client Governance Group. Some representatives from CERA did not have similar delegations to representatives from the Council and NZTA. We considered that CERA could not effectively co-ordinate and direct the rebuild if it did not get fully involved in governing SCIRT.	CERA is more involved and the public entities now provide more effective leadership and clearer strategic direction. See paragraphs 3.19-3.25.
3	We recommended that CERA, the Council, and NZTA: use the governance arrangements to provide timely guidance to SCIRT on the priorities and direction of the rebuild.	Our 2013 report said that SCIRT's planning was ahead of other public entities working on the rebuild. We also said that the co-ordination between SCIRT and CERA was problematic. The lack of integration with the wider rebuild hindered SCIRT's ability to do the right thing, at the right time, and to the right standard.	Guidance is provided to SCIRT at a governance and operational level. However, the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group was hampered in giving timely direction to SCIRT because of the time taken by the public entities to make some decisions about the wider rebuild of Christchurch. See paragraphs 3.26-3.31.
4	We recommended that CERA, the Council, and NZTA: agree on the levels of service and quality of infrastructure that the rebuild will deliver, in conjunction with confirming funding arrangements, and consider a second independent review of the Infrastructure Recovery Technical Standards and Guidelines.	In 2013, the public entities formalised their cost-sharing arrangements for the rebuild, including for the horizontal infrastructure. However, our 2013 report noted that the public entities did not have a common understanding of the levels of service that were needed for SCIRT to deliver the best outcome.	The public entities have agreed on the levels of service for pipes and roads. The public entities made changes to funding estimates over the last three years. These changes were partly due to the uncertainties inherent in disaster recovery work. About 30 SCIRT projects ready for construction were put on hold for more than eight months because of some funding disagreements. Funding has now been confirmed, and all projects decided as eligible for funding are scheduled to proceed. See paragraphs 5.2-5.26
5	We recommended that CERA, the Council, and NZTA: use a coherent framework for measuring key aspects of SCIRT's performance that integrates project-level delivery team performance with alliance objectives and overall programme delivery, and is based on sound measures tested through SCIRT's internal auditing regime.	In 2013, we found that the public entities had not fully prepared a performance framework to monitor SCIRT's performance. For example, SCIRT and the public entities were still working on ways to define the value of SCIRT and to measure its performance.	The public entities use a performance framework to assess SCIRT's performance, which meets the needs of the programme. See paragraphs 3.32-3.41.
6	We recommended that CERA, the Council, and NZTA: ensure that their framework for auditing SCIRT provides them with adequate assurance that SCIRT is well managed and delivering value for money.	In 2013, we reported that the proposed audit framework had good coverage of important SCIRT systems and processes and that implementing the audit framework would provide a much-needed layer of assurance.	The public entities have an audit framework that provides them with adequate assurance. The audit framework is regularly updated, based on the risks to the horizontal infrastructure rebuild. See paragraphs 3.42-3.48.
7	We recommended that CERA, the Council, and NZTA: in conjunction with strengthening performance measures, provide feedback to SCIRT to improve the analysis and information included in reports to the SCIRT Board and make these reports more useful.	In 2013, we found that the reporting to the Client Governance Group (now replaced by the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group) and the SCIRT Board was detailed and involved a lot of paper. The reporting did not help the governance bodies understand how well SCIRT was performing at a programme level.	The public entities provide feedback to SCIRT on reporting, and reporting has improved as a result. See paragraphs 3.49-3.53.