I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Wednesday, 18 February 2015 1.30pm Room 1, Level 26 |
Audit and Risk Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Cr Dr Cathy Casey |
|
Members |
Cr Cameron Brewer |
|
|
Cr Bill Cashmore |
|
|
Mr Paul Conder, CA |
|
|
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM |
|
|
Mr Roy Tiffin, FCA |
|
|
Cr Penny Webster |
|
Ex-officio |
Mayor Len Brown, JP |
|
|
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse |
|
(Quorum 4 members)
|
|
Mike Giddey Democracy Advisor
12 February 2015
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8143 Email: mike.giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
The Audit and Risk Committee will be responsible for:
· Providing objective advice and recommendations to the Governing Body regarding the sufficiency, quality and results of assurance on the adequacy and functioning of the council’s risk management, control and governance frameworks and processes.
· Exercising active oversight of all areas of Auckland Council control and accountability (including Council Controlled Organisations), in an integrated and systematic way, such that the results of risk and assurance reviews and external audits may be incorporated in the priority-setting and strategic planning processes.
· Liaison with Audit NZ and, where necessary, the audit committees of CCOs to ensure robust financial audits and reviews of the Auckland Council group
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING
Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.
Those who are not members of the public
General principles
· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.
· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.
· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.
· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).
· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.
· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.
Staff
· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.
· Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.
Local Board members
· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.
IMSB
· Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.
· Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.
CCOs
Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.
Audit and Risk Committee 18 February 2015 |
|
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 7
2 Declaration of Interest 7
3 Confirmation of Minutes 7
4 Petitions 7
5 Public Input 7
6 Local Board Input 7
7 Extraordinary Business 7
8 Notices of Motion 8
9 Office of the Auditor-General 9
10 Audit New Zealand Management letter 13
11 Update on Enterprise Risk Management 33
12 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
13 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 45
C1 Legislative Compliance Framework Project 45
C2 Update on Integrity and Investigation Activities 45
1 Apologies
Apologies from Mayor LCM Brown and Deputy Mayor PA Hulse have been received.
2 Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
That the Audit and Risk Committee: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting held on Tuesday, 16 December 2014, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.
|
4 Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
6 Local Board Input
Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.
This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.
At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
7 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
8 Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Audit and Risk Committee 18 February 2015 |
|
File No.: CP2015/01205
Purpose
1. To provide an opportunity for the Auditor-General to address the committee.
Executive Summary
2. A representative of the Auditor-General and of Audit New Zealand will address the meeting regarding an audit status update briefing paper dated 12 February 2015 at Attachment A.
That the Audit and Risk Committee: a) receive the information provided by the representatives of the Auditor-General and Audit New Zealand.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Audit status update briefing paper |
11 |
Signatories
Author |
Mike Giddey - Democracy Advisor |
Authoriser |
Grant Taylor - Governance Director |
18 February 2015 |
|
Audit New Zealand Management letter
File No.: CP2015/00222
Purpose
1. To present Audit New Zealand’s final management report on the audit of Auckland Council for the year ended 30 June 2014.
Executive Summary
2. Audit New Zealand have completed the audit for the year ended 30 June 2014. The report sets out Audit New Zealand’s findings from the audit and draws attention to areas where Auckland Council is doing well or where recommendations have been made for improvements.
That the Audit and Risk Committee: a) receive the final management report from Audit New Zealand on the audit of Auckland Council for the year ended 30 June 2014. b) note the recommendations made by Audit New Zealand for improvements and Council’s responses. |
Discussion
3. The Audit New Zealand report highlights substantive or significant items along with management comments.
The main points to note are:
Project Management practices
Audit New Zealand reviewed projects and project management practices from across the Auckland Council group and has recommended improvements to standardise and enhance project management and reporting. This includes a recommendation that Council reports at a Group level to the Governing Body on significant capital projects that span multi entity/activities and are delivered over a number of years.
Accounting for Cashflow hedges
The Council made the decision to change how we recognise cash flow hedges, technical accounting rules allow us to make a change but have a very prescriptive way on when the change should be made. Based on materiality considerations, Council elected to show the full adjustment in the year to 30 June 2014 instead of over multiple years as required in the standard.
Property, plant and equipment valuations
Council and Group revalue major classes of assets on a regular cycle. A condition of revaluing is a requirement to re-assess the fair value of the assets in the years between full revaluations. If the fair value (market value) increases too much, a new earlier revaluation may be required. Consultation between the Council, Group, Valuers and Auditors is essential to resolve issues early, and in most cases is occurring. We intend to continue this practice and ensure that the early resolution of potential issues across the Group occurs.
The other matters raised are generally items which have been raised in the prior year’s management reports and on which the Council has improvement processes in place.
Consideration
Local Board Views and Implications
4. Local boards have not been consulted because the report deals primarily with internal management issues.
Maori Impact Statement
5. The report does not have any particular benefit or adverse effects on Maori.
General
6. There are no financial or resourcing issues arising from the adoption of this report.
Implementation Issues
7. No issues.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Report to the Council on the audit of Auckland Council for the year ended 30 June 2014 |
15 |
Signatories
Author |
Francis Caetano - Group Financial Controller |
Authorisers |
Kevin Ramsay - Chief Financial Officer Grant Taylor - Governance Director |
18 February 2015 |
|
Update on Enterprise Risk Management
File No.: CP2015/01208
Purpose
1. To update the Audit and Risk Committee on Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) activities at Auckland Council.
Executive Summary
2. The Risk team are undertaking a significant review and refresh of the Enterprise Risk Management Strategic Plan, with a clear focus on implementation of the ERM Framework.
3. Implementation plans will initially deliver against reporting gaps in Council risk registers and learning and development of the Risk culture in Council. The plan will also focus on clear and regular reporting, recording and analysis of risks in Council.
4. A new Disclosure Policy has been adopted and a Disclosure Committee established to meet the continuous disclosure requirements of the NZX and new legislation. This signals a clear change to the organisation regarding the continuous disclosure and recording of risks and other relevant information.
That the Audit and Risk Committee: a) receive the Update on Enterprise Risk Management report. |
Discussion
5. The intervening holiday period from the last Audit and Risk Committee meeting on 16 December 2014 has seen little change in the risks identified in the Auckland Council Risk report. An update summary is attached to this report (Attachment A). There are no new Special Focus or Core Activity risks reported for inclusion in this report.
6. The Audit and Risk Committee has previously endorsed the Enterprise Risk Management Strategic Plan for 2012-2014 in September 2012. This plan focused on the policy and planning framework for ERM within Council.
7. The Audit and Risk Committee has asked for clarity on the implementation of the ERM framework and the reporting on ERM activities back to the Committee. It is clear that there needs to be a refresh of the ERM roadmap for Council and that is now the main focus of the Risk team.
8. Risk is currently drafting a new Strategic Plan for Enterprise Risk Management for 2015-2017. This plan will outline the following key steps to achieving greater organisation risk maturity:
· Consolidation of current ERM Policy and Framework within Council using a targeted learning and development programme and clear communications plan;
· Creating a clearer reporting framework with a focus on reporting gaps in Council, analysis of reported risks and use of the information for effective decision making;
· Greater collaboration with the CCO’s in implementing Council’s ERM Policy and Framework;
· Checkpoint assessment of Council’s risk maturity; and
· Update of Council’s ERM Policy and Framework.
The draft Strategic Plan for 2015-17 will be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting of 20 May 2015 for endorsement following approval by Council’s ELT.
9. The Risk team expects to implement the use of Hyperion software for recording and reporting of organisation risks by 1 April 2015. This software is an interim measure for electronic risk reporting only and is a new step to allow better recording and reporting of organisation risks. Part of the ERM Strategy for 2015-2017 will be an options analysis of a suitable integrated enterprise risk management software solution for Council.
10. Council now has in place (as at 4 February 2015) a Disclosure Policy that establishes a Disclosure Committee of staff within Council. This policy is primarily to meet the requirements of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA), and the continuous disclosure obligations of Council under the NZX Main Board & Debt Market Listing Rules, for Council’s retail bond programme. The key aspects of this policy include the immediate reporting of any information of an exceptional or extraordinary nature to the Disclosure committee and the maintenance of a register of continuous disclosure matters. The Disclosure Committee will make decisions on the materiality of any information provided and whether to disclose the information to the NZX.
11. Under the Securities Act prior to the FMCA, two councillors were delegated the authority via the Governing Body to sign off on retail bond offer documents (December 2012 and March 2014). These retail bond offers were undertaken with the following key steps to satisfy the Governing Body on the offer documentation on behalf of Council:
· Verification by staff and an external law firm as to the accuracy of the offer documentation;
· External legal signoff;
· Review by Council’s trustee (and their legal advisors), Registrar and Paying Agent, and by the Lead Managers; and
· NZX review of the documents.
12. Under the FMCA, councillors are no longer required to sign the offer documents. In addition, staff have implemented a due diligence process that will sit alongside the continuous disclosure process to reduce the risk of liability. During a retail bond issue the Disclosure Committee will oversee the due diligence function on the offer. Any future retail bond issue will include actions listed above in paragraph 11 but will also include the following:
· Confirmation from senior management that council is in compliance with its continuous disclosure and financial reporting obligations;
· Confirmation that all material information has been disclosed (the continuous disclosure process and register will assist with this); and
· Sign off on the offer documents by the Disclosure Committee and the CEO.
Consideration
Local Board Views and Implications
13. Local boards have not been consulted because the report primarily deals with internal management issues.
Maori Impact Statement
14. This report does not have any particular benefit or adverse effects on Maori.
General
15. None.
Implementation Issues
16. None.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Auckland Council Risk Report 2015 |
37 |
Signatories
Author |
Jazz Singh – Head of Risk |
Authorisers |
Katherine Anderson - General Counsel Grant Taylor - Governance Director |
Audit and Risk Committee 18 February 2015 |
|
|
Strategic Risk - Special Focus
There were no changes identified from the risks reported in December 2014. In addition, there were no new risks identified.
Of the total “Special Focus” risks, 30% were high and 70% were moderate as shown in the diagram above. The risks that are rated high are:
1) Non-compliance of the health & safety legislation requirements resulting in organisational breaches.
2) Significant business disruptions caused as a result of natural disasters to AC operations.
3) Significant business disruptions caused as a result of inadequate IT infrastructure to AC operations.
4) Non-realisation of the Transformation programme benefits (NewCore programme) leading to significant financial losses and reputational damage.
5) Inadequate/poor advice provided to elected members leading to poor decisions with negative outcomes for Auckland.
Strategic Risk – Core Activity
There were no changes identified from the risks reported in December 2014. In addition, there were no new risks identified.
Of the total “Core Activity” risks, 21% were high and 79% were moderate. The risks that are rated high are:
1) Programme and project delivery structure and processes are not fit for purpose to deliver required results and outcomes at local and regional levels.
2) Inadequate relationship strategy between council and key stakeholders result in failure to obtain ownership and commitment to the Auckland Plan.
3) Inadequate infrastructural and physical assets (Asset Management Planning) and maintenance resulting in major losses.
4) Failure to comply with legislative obligations, resulting in unlawful action and exposure to regulatory and/or government sanctions.
Further details of the above risks are provided in the following tables.
Strategic Risk - Special Focus
# |
Risk Description |
Risk Assessment |
||
|
|
Risk Rating (Dec 2014) |
Risk Rating (Jan 2015) |
Risk Status |
1 |
Health & Safety: Non-compliance of health and safety legislation requirements for employees, contractors and public resulting in organisational breaches (e.g. prosecution and penalties, injury and/or illness or permanent disability, fatalities, multiple lawsuits and jail terms). |
High |
High |
No Change |
2 |
Business Disruptions*: Significant business disruption due to natural disasters.
|
High |
High |
No Change |
3 |
Business Disruptions: Significant business disruption due to security risks.
|
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
4 |
Business Disruptions: Significant business disruption due to inadequate IT infrastructure. |
High |
Moderate |
No Change |
5 |
Transformation and Change Management: Non-realisation of Transformation programme benefits – NewCore Programme. |
High |
High |
No Change |
6 |
Transformation and Change Management: Non-realisation of Transformation programme benefits – All other programmes (excluding NewCore). |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
7 |
Quality Policy Advice: Inadequate/poor advice provided to elected members leading to poor decisions with negative outcomes for Auckland. |
High |
High |
No Change |
8 |
Council Governance: Governance frameworks, structures and processes do not meet Council or best practice requirements including External Stakeholder Relations results in failure to obtain ownership and commitment to the Auckland Plan). |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
9 |
Maori Responsiveness: Non-delivery of agreed Maori well-being priorities to meet Treaty of Waitangi obligations. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
10 |
Brand and Reputation Management: Behaviour of key person(s)/group(s) does not align with Auckland Vision. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
* Denotes insurance coverage as agreed by AC in the Insurance Programme.
Strategic Risk – Core Activity
# |
Risk Description |
Risk Assessment |
|||||
|
|
Risk Rating (Dec 2014) |
Risk Rating (Jan 2014) |
Risk Status |
|||
1 |
People and Performance Management: Ineffective management of employee performance. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
2 |
Programme and Project Delivery: Structure and processes are not fit for purpose to deliver required results and outcomes at local and regional levels. |
High |
High |
No Change |
|||
3 |
External Stakeholder Relations: Inadequate relationship strategy between council and key stakeholders (business-to-business, business-to-customers, business-to-suppliers) results in failure to obtain ownership and commitment to the Auckland Plan. |
High |
High |
No Change |
|||
4 |
Infrastructural and physical assets*: Inadequate policy advice and delivery of physical assets and critical infrastructure. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
5 |
Infrastructural and physical assets (Asset Management Planning): Inadequate asset management planning and maintenance. |
High |
High |
No Change |
|||
6 |
CCO Governance and Relationship: Governance frameworks, structures and processes do not meet Council policy or legislative oversight requirements. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
7 |
Fraud & Unethical Behaviour*: Fraud perpetrated within Council or significant unethical behaviour leading to major financial, reputational and operational impacts on Council. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change
|
|||
8 |
Financial Management Strategies: Strategies and/or processes employed result in unacceptable financial, non-delivery of key services, or reputational risk exposures. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
9 |
Privacy and Confidentiality: Policy or system breaches result in legal, financial and reputational exposures. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
10 |
Compliance with legislative obligations: Failure to comply with legislative obligations, resulting in unlawful action and exposure to regulatory and/or government sanctions. |
High |
High |
No Change |
|||
11 |
Delivery of commitments: Inability to deliver against significant commitments (Auckland Plan, Long-term Plan, and Annual Plan) as a result of inadequate level of funding. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
12 |
Delivery of commitments: Capacity - Lack of necessary resources (skilled people, facilities, systems, processes, suppliers, etc.) to meet service delivery commitments.
|
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
13 |
Delivery of commitments: Capability - Lack of necessary resources (skilled people, facilities, systems, suppliers, etc.) to meet service delivery commitments. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
14 |
Delivery of commitments: Unitary Plan - New and independent hearing panel process cannot be supported by Council resources leading to negative reputational impact. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
15 |
Delivery of commitments: Housing - Cultural Impact Assessments and Environmental Impact Assessments identify less land available for development within Special Housing Areas to meet requirements of Housing Accord leading to negative reputational impact and agreed targets not achieved. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
16 |
Delivery of commitments: Environmental Sustainability- Not being adequately considered and addressed as part of the strategies and policies e.g. Air quality by-law, Low-Carbon Action Plan, National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
17 |
Procurement and Supplier Management: Processes do not deliver value for money or contractual obligations resulting in financial, legal and non-delivery of services implications. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
18 |
Regulatory Approvals and Consents (Accreditation)*: Inadequate consents process leading to Council losing license to issue consents. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
|||
19 |
Regulatory Approvals and Consents*: Regulatory approvals process leading to major customer dissatisfaction. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
No Change |
* Denotes insurance coverage as agreed by AC in the Insurance Programme.
The AC Enterprise Risk Management Framework defines the risk levels based on the “5x5 likelihood and consequences matrix” and the acceptability as shown below:
Consequences |
5 |
Moderate |
Moderate |
High |
High |
High |
4 |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
High |
High |
|
3 |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
High |
|
2 |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
|
1 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Likelihood |
Risk Level |
Significance |
Level of Risk Acceptability |
Level 1 |
High |
Intolerable (active management by Operational Leaders) |
Level 2 |
Moderate |
Tolerate if the cost of risk elimination, transfer or reduction is greater than the improvement gained. |
Level 3 |
Low |
Tolerate risk |
Risk Status Update
The risk status update shows the movement of the risks from the previous period and is denoted by the following format:
Decrease
No Change
Increase
Report Prepared By: |
Risk Manager |
Date: |
9/2/2015 |
Reviewed By: |
Head of Risk |
Date: |
10/2/2015 |
Report Approved By: |
General Counsel |
Date: |
10/2/2015 |
Audit and Risk Committee 18 February 2015 |
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Audit and Risk Committee:
a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:
C1 Legislative Compliance Framework Project
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. In particular, the report contains information and advice concerning an Internal Audit investigation. s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest. In particular, the report contains information and advice concerning an Internal Audit investigation. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
C2 Update on Integrity and Investigation Activities
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 6. |
s6(a) - The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial. In particular, this report contains operational information regarding investigation and other activity, which if released may compromise the effective delivery of our integrity and investigative services. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 6. |
C3 Update on Internal Audit Activities
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest. In particular, the report contains financial and operational information and details of Internal Audit activity which if released may jeopardise the effective delivery or Internal Audit services. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |