28 FEBRUARY 2008 NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 41

No. Criteria Relevance of Criteria to
Level of Risk
1 2 3

b. because of “fundamental uncertainty” in relation to financial viability of the
institution or
c. on the grounds of the non-supply of information to Auditors to allow them to
assess whether the TEI is a “going concern”.

23. The latest audit report for an institution, as at the time of assessment, is qualified on
    grounds other than the going concern test. ●

24. Audited financial statements for an institution for a financial year have not been
    submitted to the Secretary within 120 days of the end of that financial year but risk
    criteria 22 above does not apply. ●

Compliance with borrowing covenants

25. During the last or current financial year (as at the time of assessment), an institution
    breached any financial covenants under any loan agreement or other financing facility. ●

26. An institution has carried out a material activity which requires a consent from the
    Secretary of Education pursuant to section 192 of the Education Act 1989 and has not
    obtained such a consent. ●

27. An institution has not complied with all financial conditions of any consent received
    from the Secretary for Education under section 192 of the Education Act 1989 in the
    last completed or current financial year of the institution (as at the time of
    assessment). ●

Operations

28. An institution has not developed and/or does not maintain internal financial and
    performance reporting of a nature reasonably to be expected of such an institution. ●

29. An institution has failed, in a material respect, to provide in a timely manner any
    information required to be provided pursuant to section 195B of the Education Act
    1989 or section 45B of the Public Finance Act 1989. ●

30. There are grounds on which it can reasonably be concluded that an institution has
    acted, is acting, or is likely to act recklessly in a material respect. ●

31. There are grounds on which it can reasonably be concluded that an institution or its
    council has acted, is acting, or is likely to act contrary to any applicable law,
    regulation, order or bylaw in a material respect. ●

32. An institution has lost or failed to renew within the period of 18 months immediately
    prior to the time of assessment, or is likely to lose or fail to renew, accreditation with
    New Zealand Qualifications Authority or any body to which New Zealand
    Qualifications Authority has delegated its approval or accreditation powers (such as
    the Polytechnic Programmes Committee or the Colleges of Education Academic
    Committee), or with The New Zealand Vice Chancellors Committee for Accreditation
    for any qualification (other than a qualification which the institution no longer intends
    to offer). ●

33. Within the period of 18 months immediately prior to the time of assessment, an
    institution has not developed, and/or updated at least annually, a business plan of the
    nature reasonably expected of such an institution, including financial projections for
    the following three years. ●

34. Within the period of 18 months immediately prior to the time of assessment, an event
    has occurred or circumstance arisen which is likely, in the near future, to result in a
    material reduction in income, a material increase in outgoings, a material liability or
    a material increase in risk for an institution (having regard, in each case, to the likely
    impact of any mitigating actions taken or likely to be taken by the institution). ●

35. Where it is considered that the council is not fulfilling its statutory functions and
    duties, or is otherwise unable to conduct its business. ●

36. Where council membership falls below the 12 member minimum statutory
    requirement, and this can be attributed to the action (or inaction) of the council, and
    this situation causes the council to be unable to fulfil its statutory functions and duties. ●

37. Where there is an inquiry or report by the Auditor-General on the affairs of the
    institution that concludes there are serious mismanagement issues, which could relate
    to the spending or management of public monies. ●

38. The council or management (or both) of the institution has either failed or refused to
    take adequate steps to address a level 2 risk, or risks, within a reasonable period from
    the date when the risk, or risks, occurred, whether or not that risk, or risks, has
    resulted in the appointment of a Crown Observer. ●