Part 3: The Controller function
3.1
The Controller function is an important aspect of the Auditor-General's work. It supports the fundamental principle of Parliamentary control over government expenditure.
3.2
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;
- borrow money; and
- spend public money.1
3.3
Parliament's approval to incur expenditure is mainly provided through appropriations, which are authorised in advance through the annual Budget process and annual Acts of Parliament. Expenditure can also be authorised in advance through permanent legislation and can also be approved retrospectively.
3.4
Our website explains what the Controller and Auditor-General does to help ensure that government spending stays within the limits approved by Parliament.2
3.5
In this Part, we discuss:
- why the Controller work is important;
- who is responsible for ensuring that public money is spent correctly;
- how much unappropriated expenditure was incurred in 2018/19;
- how 2018/19 compares with previous years; and
- recent developments.
Why the Controller work is important
3.6
In their role as Controller, the Controller and Auditor-General helps maintain the transparency and legitimacy of the State sector financial management system. The Controller provides an important check on the system on behalf of Parliament and the public.
3.7
The appropriation part of the State sector financial management system ensures that Parliament, on behalf of the public, has adequate control over how the Government plans to use public resources. It also ensures that the Government can be held to account for how it has used those resources.
3.8
Most of the Crown's funding is obtained through taxes. The public can expect assurance that the Government is spending public money as intended.
Who is responsible for ensuring that public money is spent correctly?
3.9
Departmental chief executives are responsible under the Public Finance Act 1989 for the financial management and performance of their department. This includes ensuring that they have both the funding authority and the necessary legal authority before incurring expenses or capital expenditure.3
3.10
Departments are required to report to the Treasury the expenses and capital expenditure incurred by the department against the appropriation or other statutory authority provided. The first report for the financial year is provided in October (covering the previous July to September period) and then monthly after that.4
3.11
The Treasury is then required to report to the Controller and Auditor-General in October (for July to September) and then monthly after that. The Treasury's reports set out all expenditure incurred compared with the appropriation (or other authority) and all expenditure incurred without authority or in excess of the authority given.
Who checks whether departments are spending money lawfully?
3.12
This is where the role of the Controller comes in. To check and verify the spending, the Controller and Auditor-General's Controller team:
- reviews the Treasury's monthly reports;
- carries out tests on the financial information (provided by the Treasury from the Crown Financial Information System);
- reports back to the Treasury highlighting any issues (including unappropriated expenditure), comments on actions needed to confirm or validate any unappropriated expenditure, and advises on any further action that the Treasury or the department needs to take to resolve outstanding issues; and
- informs relevant auditors of the issues affecting the departments they audit.
3.13
As well as auditing government departments' financial statements, the Controller and Auditor-General is responsible for auditing the appropriations administered by each department (the appropriation audit).
3.14
Through the appropriation audit of each department, our auditors look at systems and some transactions to check that public money was spent as Parliament intended. If an appointed auditor detects spending outside authority through the appropriation audit work, then the auditor will discuss the matter with the department, advise the department about reporting the matter and taking corrective action, and inform the Controller and Auditor-General. The appointed auditor will also check whether the department properly reports the matter in its financial statements.
Expenditure above or beyond the appropriation limits
3.15
Through the Appropriation (Estimates) Act and the Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Act, Parliament imposes limits on government spending. Spending is authorised through appropriations. Appropriations are specific areas for expenditure that are usually restricted by type (the nature of the spending), scope (what the money can be spent on), dollar amount (the maximum that can be spent), and period (the time frame for which the authority is given).
3.16
The public finance management system provides some flexibility in some circumstances to enable lawful spending above or beyond the limits specified by each appropriation. In limited circumstances, expenditure can be legally incurred outside the limits authorised by the Appropriation Acts. For example, there is flexibility in the Public Finance Act for small amounts of expenditure (sections 26A and 26B) and for emergencies (section 25). Imprest Supply Acts also provide flexibility to enable the Government to incur expenditure not covered at the time by Appropriation Acts.
3.17
The first annual Imprest Supply Act allows the Government to incur expenditure before the Budget for that year is enacted in legislation (through the Appropriation (Estimates) Act). In practice, Cabinet approval is required to incur expenditure under the provisions of the second annual Imprest Supply Act. To remain lawful, any expenditure incurred under imprest supply must be appropriated by Parliament within that financial year (usually under an Appropriation Act).
3.18
When government departments do not get approval for unappropriated expenditure before it is incurred, it is unlawful. Expenditure approved by Cabinet under imprest supply will also be unlawful if Parliament has not validated it before the end of the financial year. We have urged government departments to seek early approval as soon as they have identified the need for previously unanticipated expenditure, so that any expenditure over and above that authorised in the Appropriation (Estimates) Act can be authorised by Cabinet before the event and subsequently authorised by Parliament in the Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Act.
3.19
Ministers need to report unappropriated expenditure to Parliament, and they must seek Parliament's retrospective approval of the expenditure through an Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.
3.20
Expenditure outside the bounds of the appropriations tends to be relatively small. In 2018/19, it was 0.20% of the Government's budgeted expenditure for 2018/19 as set out in Budget 2018 (2017/18: less than 0.13%).
How much unappropriated expenditure was incurred in 2018/19?
3.21
The Government's financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2019 report 14 instances of unappropriated expenditure (2017/18: 21). Expenditure incurred without appropriation in 2018/19 was $205 million (2017/18: $128 million). Figure 4 shows a breakdown of unappropriated expenditure categories.5
Figure 4
Unappropriated expenditure incurred during the year ended 30 June 2019
| Unappropriated expenditure by category | 2018/19 Number | 2018/19 $million* | 2018/19 Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| In excess of existing appropriation and approved by the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Public Finance Act 1989 | 4 | 11 | Conservation, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health |
| In excess of appropriation and without prior Cabinet authority to use imprest supply | 4 | 161 | Building and Housing, Environment, Defence Force |
| Outside scope of an appropriation and without prior Cabinet authority to use imprest supply | 2 | 6 | Education, Social Development |
| Without appropriation and without prior Cabinet authority to use imprest supply | 4 | 27 | Building and Housing; Business, Science, and Innovation; Health; Prime Minister and Cabinet |
| Total | 14 | 205 |
* Amounts are rounded to the nearest million.
Unappropriated expenditure approved by the Minister of Finance
3.22
As mentioned in paragraph 3.16, the Public Finance Act provides some flexibility in how public expenditure is authorised. This is necessary to:
- allow the Government to function in the new financial year before the Appropriation (Estimates) Bill has been enacted;
- allow for unanticipated expenditure during the year as circumstances change;
- allow for immediate expenditure in emergencies; and
- provide for the approval of relatively small amounts of expenditure in excess of appropriation without needing approval from Parliament.
3.23
The Public Finance Act allows the Minister of Finance to approve excess spending of up to the greater of $10,000 or 2% of the appropriation if it is incurred between April and June (inclusive). During 2018/19, the Minister of Finance used his powers under the Public Finance Act to authorise four instances of unappropriated expenditure for a total of $11.4 million (2017/18: three instances for $16 million).6
3.24
Under this provision, the Ministry of Health received approval to exceed its appropriations to meet increased costs and growing demand for national disability support services ($6.7 million).7 The Department of Conservation also received approval to exceed appropriations to cover asset write-off costs resulting from the March 2019 West Coast storm event ($2.9 million).8 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade gained approval to cover excess expenses from increasing its liability under the Holidays Act ($1.8 million across two appropriations).9
3.25
Because $11.4 million of unappropriated expenditure was authorised under section 26B of the Public Finance Act, the spending was lawful. However, it remains unappropriated until confirmed by Parliament in the next Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.
Unappropriated expenditure incurred without any authority
3.26
Of the appropriations where expenditure was outside the appropriation restrictions, the expenditure was incurred without authority in 10 of the 14 instances (as per the last three categories in Figure 4).
3.27
In terms of the amount of expenditure that was unappropriated, 95% was unauthorised (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
Proportion of unappropriated expenditure that was unauthorised for the year ended 30 June 2019
The figure shows that the amount of unauthorised unappropriated expenditure was $193.4 million. The amount of authorised unappropriated expenditure was $11.4 million.
3.28
Of the unappropriated expenditure in 2018/19 totalling just over $200 million, $193.4 million was incurred without authority (2017/18: $111 million). This expenditure was incurred across 10 appropriations (2017/18: 13 appropriations).
3.29
Although the number of instances of unauthorised expenditure fell from 13 in 2017/18 to 10 in 2018/19, the amount of expenditure incurred without any authority rose by 150% (from $77 million to $193 million). This expenditure is unlawful and will remain unappropriated until validated by Parliament in the next Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.
3.30
Two instances of unappropriated expenditure accounted for 90% of unauthorised expenditure: MBIE's expenditure under Vote Building and Housing ($151.9 million) and the Ministry of Health's expenditure under Vote Health ($22.6 million).10 These instances came about through the writing down, or writing off, of capitalised expenditure (that is, recognising impairment of asset book values, including following the accounting standards requirements for concessions on interest-free loans) in the absence of an appropriation to cover the expense.
Managing expenditure within the appropriation system
3.31
The two instances accounting for 90% of unauthorised expenditure are examples of departments not aligning the timing of the needed authority with the timing of the expenses; in particular, expenses resulting from accounting adjustments to the book values of assets.
3.32
The $151.9 million of unappropriated expenditure incurred under Vote Building and Housing is the largest single unappropriated expenditure in the last seven years. From 1 July to 30 September 2018, the Treasury signed Housing Infrastructure Fund loan agreements to provide interest-free loan facilities to local authorities. MBIE initially had an appropriation to cover the expense of writing down the loans to their fair value (the adjustment to fair value reflects the interest free nature of the loans). However, the accounting adjustment was made after 1 October 2018, when the appropriation was transferred to Vote Housing and Urban Development and administered by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Therefore, MBIE wrote down the book values of the loans when it no longer had the authority within Vote Building and Housing to incur the expense.11
3.33
In the Ministry of Health's case, during year-end the Ministry reviewed several health-related items on the Crown balance sheet that had been accounted for as investments. It concluded that they needed to be written off. These investments included the capitalised costs for a joint-venture initiative that did not eventuate, historical payments made for housing modifications, and other costs that should have been accounted for as operating expenses originally. The expense caused by the combined write-offs ($22.6 million) was not covered by an existing appropriation under Vote Health, resulting in unappropriated expenditure.12
3.34
The public finance management system has flexibility to allow, under limited circumstances, amounts authorised for spending to be transferred between appropriations or between years. MBIE had requested an expense transfer from 2017/18 to 2018/19 for the remediation of facades and parapets of unreinforced masonry buildings. However, MBIE incurred expenditure against the appropriation ($926,000) before the transfer had been approved.13
3.35
In August 2018, MBIE requested spending authority from Ministers under the Imprest Supply Act arrangements. The request was to create a new appropriation category and increase the amount of departmental expenditure for the "operational support of regional and sector investments". This was part of MBIE's administration of the Provincial Growth Fund, under Vote Business, Science and Innovation.
3.36
The Minister of Finance approved the operational funding for MBIE's Provincial Development Unit on 12 August 2018. However, an error in the paperwork led to the approval to establish the necessary new appropriation category to be overlooked. The error was discovered in September 2018 and the correction was made in October 2018, when the creation of a new appropriation category was approved. By that time, some money had already been spent on the basis of the August approval, before the proper authority was in place in October. This meant that expenditure before the October approval ($2.5 million) was unappropriated.14
Winter Energy Payments made to ineligible beneficiaries
3.37
From 1 July to 29 September, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) applied public money to situations not covered by the law. A small proportion of payments under Vote Social Development for the Winter Energy Payment ($3.4 million) were outside the criteria set out in the Social Security Act 1964.
3.38
MSD had unlawfully made payments to recipients whose circumstances were expressly excluded from eligibility under the Social Security Act. The circumstances included:
- individuals receiving government funding for long-term residential care or residential care services but who are not eligible for Residential Care Subsidy or Residential Support Subsidy; and
- individuals who were absent from New Zealand for more than four weeks at a time during the eligibility period.
3.39
The Winter Energy Payments to these recipients were unlawful for two reasons: they were made outside MSD's legal mandate (under the Social Security Act), and they were made without Parliament's authority to spend (under the Public Finance Act). The payments of $3.4 million were therefore unappropriated expenditure.
3.40
The Controller told MSD that it must not make payments to people in those ineligible circumstances when the Winter Energy Payment resumed on 1 May 2019 unless Parliament had passed legislation in the meantime to allow for those payments. Subsequently, Parliament passed the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Act 2019 to allow for payments covering the above circumstances to be made from 1 May 2019 and retrospectively.
3.41
Although the amended social security legislation has legalised the payments to recipients who were previously ineligible for the Winter Energy Payment, the spending remains unappropriated and unlawful under the Public Finance Act because the Government did not have the authority to incur the expenditure at the time it was incurred. It will remain unappropriated until validated by Parliament in the next Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.15
Changes to accounting practices
3.42
In 2019, NZDF changed the way it accounts for cost recoveries (mainly related to service housing and barracks) and the related expenses. With the change in accounting practice, the reported expenses are now higher and exceed some of NZDF's appropriations.
3.43
Since NZDF's formation in 1990, it had offset cost recoveries (rent revenue) against the related expenses. NZDF states that it received advice from independent advisors that accounting for the expenses on a net basis was valid.
3.44
The cost recoveries are now correctly accounted for as revenue, and therefore the expenses are now reported at their gross amount. The change in accounting treatment was too late in the year to seek Cabinet's authority and an appropriation from Parliament for any of the resulting excess expense.
3.45
Consequently, appropriations in Vote Defence Force were exceeded by $8.6 million in 2018/19 for expenditure allocated to two appropriations: Army Capabilities Prepared for Joint Operations and Other Tasks and Protection of New Zealand and New Zealanders. We have also confirmed unappropriated expenditure as a result of applying the revised accounting treatment to historical expenses for the previous four years, amounting to $33.8 million.16
3.46
Since 1991, the Ministry of Education, under its School Risk Management Scheme, has operated an insurance scheme for schools that are unable to obtain contents insurance cover on their own. The Ministry retains a small portion of the schools' operational grants to buy collective insurance cover and manage the scheme.
3.47
The Ministry had been netting off the scheme expenses (mostly premiums and administration expenses) with revenue (such as insurance recoveries), and charging any net expense incurred against the Primary Education and Secondary Education appropriations in Vote Education.
3.48
Early in 2019, the Ministry sought clarification from the Treasury and the Controller on the correct accounting treatment. The advice was that the Ministry's treatment was incorrect – the expenses it incurred as an insurer needed to be accounted for in a new appropriation because the scope of the Primary Education and Secondary Education appropriations was not wide enough to cover these insurance expenses. After this problem was identified, the Ministry corrected its accounting practice. In April 2019, a new appropriation was approved for inclusion in the Supplementary Estimates to provide authority for insurance expenses for the remainder of 2018/19.
3.49
However, expenses of $2.4 million were incurred outside the scope of appropriations in 2018/19, up to the point at which authority was obtained in April. As a result of the correct accounting treatment now being applied, we have also confirmed unappropriated expenditure for the previous four years, amounting to $11.5 million.17
Obligations and increased demand
3.50
Some expenses are more challenging than others to manage within existing appropriations, as some departments experienced in 2018/19.
3.51
The Ministry for the Environment paid $489,000 more than was authorised to territorial local authorities, but this was necessary to meet a Crown obligation. The payment to councils was tied to revenue collected from the Waste Disposal Levy – because revenue collected was higher than expected, the obligation to pay the local authorities was higher than was authorised.18
3.52
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet settled a legal dispute, which it inherited from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. The Department considered the $500,000 cost to be a departmental expense; that is, an expense incurred in carrying out its operations. However, the Controller determined it to be a "non-departmental" expense. There was no non-departmental expense appropriation to authorise the expense, once reclassified, and so the expenditure was unappropriated.19
The importance of thinking ahead and careful management
3.53
Several of the instances of unappropriated expenditure could have been avoided. We have been encouraging departments to try to anticipate when costs might be higher than expected and plan for that. Thinking ahead and careful management can often help ensure that spending not expected at Budget time can be incurred lawfully. When transfers are planned but not approved, departments need to take care to ensure that their spending remains within the approved limits. Particular care is needed to avoid spending before that spending has been authorised.
How does 2018/19 compare with previous years?
3.54
Figure 6 shows that the frequency of instances of unappropriated expenditure has fluctuated during the last seven years. Since 2014/15, when there was a peak of 28 instances of unappropriated expenditure, there have been notably fewer instances.
Figure 6
Number of instances of unappropriated expenditure, from 2012/13 to 2018/19
The figure shows the number of instances of unappropriated expenditure each year, from 2012/13 to 2018/19. The number of instances increased from 2012/13 to 2014/15. Since 2015/16, there have been fewer instances of unappropriated expenditure.
3.55
Figure 7 shows the dollar amount of unappropriated expenditure incurred during the last seven years. The fluctuations show there has been no discernible trend. The main factors for the unappropriated expenditure spike in 2013/14 were related to support for the Canterbury earthquake recovery.
Figure 7
Dollar amount of unappropriated expenditure, from 2012/13 to 2018/19
The figure shows the total dollar amount of unappropriated expenditure each year. The dollar amount fluctuates from year to year. There is no apparent trend.
3.56
The Government's financial statements disclose details of unappropriated expenditure under six categories. Figure 8 distils these into three broad categories:
- Approved by the Minister of Finance: Small over-runs of expenditure in the final three months of the financial year, which was within $10,000 or 2% of the appropriation, and was approved by the Minister of Finance under section 26B of the Public Finance Act.
- With Cabinet authority: Expenditure incurred above or beyond the appropriation limits, with Cabinet authority to use imprest supply, but not authorised by Parliament in an Appropriation Act before the end of the financial year.
- Without prior Cabinet authority: Expenditure incurred above or beyond the appropriation limits without any authority at the time it was incurred.
3.57
Figure 8 provides a time series for the last seven years of the number of instances of unappropriated expenditure under these three broad categories.
Figure 8
Number of instances of unappropriated expenditure by category, from 2012/13 to 2018/19
The figure shows, from 2012/13 to 2018/19, the number of instances each year of three categories of unappropriated expenditure: unappropriated expenditure approved by the Minister of Finance, unappropriated expenditure with Cabinet authority, and unappropriated expenditure without prior Cabinet authority. The highest number of instances every year, from 2012/13 to 2018/19, was unappropriated expenditure without prior Cabinet authority.
3.58
Section 26B of the Public Finance Act provides some flexibility for small cost over-runs in the last three months of the financial year, when it is generally too late to have additional expenditure (incurred under imprest supply) included in the Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Act. Figure 8 shows that there are only a small number of exceeded appropriations approved by the Minister of Finance each year.
3.59
The second Imprest Supply Act for the year provides temporary authority for expenditure additional to that authorised in the Budget, within a specified spending limit. Expenditure under imprest supply must receive Cabinet approval before it is incurred. Because the authority is temporary, this expenditure must also be included in the Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Bill for the year in order to be appropriated before the end of the year, when the Bill is enacted. However, if such expenditure is not included in the Bill, then it is unappropriated and remains so until validated by Parliament in the next Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act.
3.60
Figure 8, shows the number of instances where expenditure outside the appropriation limits received the required Cabinet authority but were not appropriated before the end of the year. After an increase in the number of such instances in 2017/18 (five instances), there were no instances in the next year. In 2018/19, all expenditure incurred under imprest supply was approved by Parliament and included in the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Act 2019.
3.61
Most instances of unappropriated expenditure are incurred without any prior authority. In rare instances, these result from unseen events (for example, costs of immediate responses to natural disasters or other emergencies). But in most instances, these can be avoided with better planning and management.
3.62
In 2018/19, there were 10 instances of departments incurring expenditure without any authority. These were in Votes Building and Housing; Business, Science and Innovation; Defence Force; Education; Environment; Health; Prime Minister and Cabinet; and Social Development (see Figure 4) and are discussed in paragraphs 3.26 to 3.52. This is lower than the about 23 instances in 2013/14 to 2014/15, but it is too soon to conclude that this constitutes a trend.
Recent developments
3.63
As part of a broader programme of public finance system reforms, the Treasury has been looking for ways to add more flexibility to, and reduce the compliance burden of, the system that annually authorises public spending – the appropriation system.
3.64
Recently, the Treasury introduced two initiatives aimed at increasing flexibility and/or reducing compliance: multi-category, multi-year appropriations (in Budget 2019) and, more recently, the requirement to consolidate small appropriations as of Budget 2020.
3.65
Both initiatives permit the merging of what were previously separate appropriations into one appropriation. Multi-category appropriations already allowed for flexibility of spending across different types of expenditure – this can now be extended to flexibility of spending across different years. The consolidation of appropriations will allow for more flexibility of spending across different scopes, that is, the scope of permitted expenditure will be widened by combining the scopes of previously separate appropriations.
3.66
Put simply, these changes to the rules allow more spending flexibility by removing barriers (such as type, scope, or time restrictions) that were there to control the amount of public money spent for a specific purpose. More flexibility also makes compliance easier because it becomes harder to overstep the barriers.
3.67
The Treasury consulted closely with the Controller before making the above changes. We agree in principle with moves to make the public finance system achieve its objectives more smoothly and at lower cost. However, we are mindful that the aggregation of spending can reduce the level of control Parliament has over aspects of government expenditure. That can also lead to less transparency when reporting what was done with the money if the reported information is more aggregated than before. Transparency in reporting is important to enable Parliament to hold executive government to account for its expenditure.
3.68
We are also mindful that any reforms to the authorising and accountability system should preserve Parliament's ability to authorise spending, and to hold the Government accountable for that spending, at an appropriate level of detail. Just what the optimal level of detail is will be a matter of judgement. We will monitor developments closely to help ensure that the transparency of, and accountability for, public spending is not unduly diminished.
1: Section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986.
2: For example, in Part 3 of our 2015 report, Central government: Results of the 2014/15 audits, Wellington.
3: This is set out in section 79 of the Public Finance Act and Treasury Instructions.
4: The Treasury and the Office of the Auditor-General (2008), Memorandum of understanding between the Controller and Auditor-General and the Secretary to the Treasury: Controller Function.
5: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 142.
6: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 142.
7: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 143.
8: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 143.
9: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 143.
10: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, pages 144-148.
11: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 144.
12: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 148.
13: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 147.
14: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 147.
15: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 146.
16: Unappropriated expenditure for previous years will be validated, along with unappropriated expenditure from 2018/19, in the next Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act. The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 145.
17: Unappropriated expenditure for previous years will be validated, along with unappropriated expenditure from 2018/19, in the next Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Act. The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 146.
18: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 144.
19: The Treasury (2019), Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2019, page 147.