Minutes of a meeting of the Board of the Accident Compensation Corporation held at
Dunedin Public Art Gallery, 30 The Octagon, Dunedin on Thursday, 31 October 2019
at 7.50 am.

Present
Dame Paula Rebstock
Chair
(until 1.45 pm)
Mr James Mil er
Temporary Deputy Chair

Ms Anita Mazzoleni**
Member

Mr David May
Member

Ms Kristy McDonald QC
Member

Dr Tracey Batten
Member

Mr John Brabazon
Member

In attendance
Mr Scott Pickering
Chief Executive

Mr Mike Tully**
Chief Operating Officer

Ms Deborah Roche
Chief Governance Officer

Mr Herwig Raubal**
Chief Actuarial and Risk Officer

Mr John Healy
Chief Financial Officer

Ms Emma Powell
Chief Customer Officer

Ms Sharon Champness
Chief Talent Officer

Ms Gabrielle O’Connor**
Head of Client Service Delivery
Item 3.1 & 3.5
9(2)(a)

Head of Communications and Engagement
Item 4.1
9(2)(a)

Strategic Advisor, Governance
Items 4.2 & 5.2
9(2)(a)
**
Head of Workplace Safety & Levies
Item 4.3
9(2)(a)
**
Project Manager
Item 4.4
9(2)(a)

Manager Assisted Recovery
Item 4.4
9(2)(a)
**
Head of Actuarial Services
Item 4.5
Ms Ainsley Simmonds
Acting General Counsel and Company
Secretary
Item 5.2
9(2)(a)

Manager Corporate Secretariat

9(2)(a)

Senior Associate Company Secretary

** Attended via telephone / videoconference

Page 1 of 20

  Procedural Business
Apologies
There were no apologies received for the meeting.
Register of Members’ Conflicts of Interest Arising
CONFIRMED: The Board reviewed the Register of Members’ Conflicts of Interest Arising and
confirmed that it was not aware of any other matters (including matters reported to, and decisions
made by, the Board at this Meeting) which would require disclosure.
  Board Only Session
During the Board only session, the Board resolved to approve the recommendations from the
Board Investment Committee’s Governance Review.
Investment Committee
Mr Miller updated the Board on the key matters from the Board Investment Committee meeting of
30 October 2019.
Governance and Remuneration Committee
Ms McDonald QC updated the Board on the key matters from the Board Governance and
Remuneration Committee meeting of 30 October 2019.
Chief Executive’s Report
Items raised by Mr Pickering were:
•  Albany site and next steps
•  Engagement Strategy - context of work programme
•  Bain Global CEO forum feedback
•  Chief Executive Performance Objectives.
Page 2 of 20

  Operational Reporting
3.1 (a) ICIP Reporting
Mr Healy introduced the report and highlighted the following:
•  The overall portfolio continued to track well over September. The key focus for this month was
deployments for CP2 and Next Generation Case Management (NGCM). There had been
successful deployments over the past few weekends and there would be several more
deployments over the next two to three weeks.
•  In terms of the Benefits profile, benefits expectations were being clarified by segmenting
initiatives between higher and lower confidence in delivery terms and the focus was on shifting
lower confidence items to higher confidence.
The Board requested an update on progress with Escalated Care Pathways (ECP). Mr Tully
explained that a preliminary draft of a generic contract for ECP had been signed off and sent to the
consortia seeking early feedback. It was on track; however, the schedule was tight, and it would be
difficult get the contracts signed off and back in early December. In response to a query from the
Board, Mr Tully explained that Management was confident cherry picking could be managed,
although the arrangement was in the early stages of testing. Ms Simmonds added that the contract
did provide for degrees of complexity and would be monitored.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Note the ICIP September 2019 Monthly Update.
(b)  Note the Investments Technology Issues Report.
(b) First Quarterly Report 2019/20
Mr Healy explained that the Report showed the trajectory of the funding ratios, based on the
current Funding Policy. The trajectory of levies was provided in the cover paper as additional
information to the Board, but was not included in the Report which would go to the Minister.
During its discussion of the Report, the Board requested:
•  Documents which go to the Minister and additional information for the Board be physically
separated in future so it is clear which parts would go to the Minister. The Board requested
that the Report to the Minister and the appendices which were just for the Board be
withdrawn and presented as separate documents by the end of the day.
Page 3 of 20

•  The active vs exit methodologies be defined in this report and in future Quarterly Reports.
•  A summary paper which outlined sensitivities for the forecast results.
•  The Board and Investment Committee review whether it was appropriate to maintain the
0.3% outperformance of benchmark, given returns were becoming more compressed.
•  Information on why payables and receivables were so poorly budgeted for the full year.
The Board discussed how realistic ACC’s targets were, given the amount of Amber results. Mr
Healy explained that there were some areas of volatility. The Board commented that it was
important for ACC to ambitious, but when targets were not met, it looks like performance was not
strong. The Chief Executive noted that he would bring this discussion to life through the QBR.
ACTIONS: Management to:
•  Present papers for the Board on:
o  sensitivities for the forecast results
o  funding ratios under the new Funding Policy.
•  Respond to the Board and BIC on the appropriateness/feasibility of achieving the 0.3%
outperform benchmark.
•  Respond to the Board on payables and receivables.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Approve, subject to any final changes, the presentation of the first quarterly report 2019/20
to the Minister by 31 October 2019.
(b)  Approve the publication of the first quarterly report 2019/20 on ACC’s external website
following acceptance of the report by the Minister for ACC.
(c)  Note the additional performance information for September 2019 (Appendices 2, 3, 4 and 5
which did not form part of the quarterly report to the Minister and had been withdrawn from
the meeting for separate presentation to the Board).
  Board Papers
ACC Engagement Strategy – tel ing the untold story of ACC to New Zealanders
Ms Powell introduced the presentation. The Team had worked over the past 18 months to build the
concepts with the use of customer research.
Page 4 of 20

9(2)(a)
introduced 9(2)(a)
from the Media Buyer Company. 9(2)(a)
presented the
concepts to the Board, focusing on the following:
•  ACC had an untold story. People were aware of ACC, but customer insights showed they had
no deep knowledge of what ACC did or the breadth and range of ACC’s services.
•  Currently, ACC was in Phase 1 – the Awareness phase. Phase 2 took on a new approach,
using focus groups and a customer centric approach. Thousands of New Zealanders were
spoken to, including a Māori focus group in Auckland which provided much value.
•  In terms of benefits, first was awareness, then a move to the public seeing value in ACC, then
enhancing/protecting ACC’s reputation, improved customer engagement. A quarter of the
engagement strategy focused on talking with Māori.
•  The plan was to have six months of campaign engagement from January 2020.
The Board asked how Management could stop the engagement from leading to more testing of the
boundaries of the Scheme and creating confusion as to who was entitled to services.
9(2)(a)
explained that the campaign was not about entitlement but services and the Newsroom
platform was ready to receive questions from customers. The Board commented that it was
important not to create a wrong expectation through the campaign that had to be corrected
elsewhere. 9(2)(a)
explained that there would be strict testing to make sure that when people
were exposed to the messages, they had clarity on what it meant.
In response to a query from the Board as to the extent to which the engagement addressed non-
injured stakeholders, such as providers and business, 9(2)(a)
explained that engagements
were already underway with these stakeholders.
9(2)(a)
took the Board through the presentation depicting the two creative concepts being
tested. “Life in Aotearoa New Zealand” and “Two Sides of The Story”. These were explored
through four themes—Our relationship with water; Complexity of Relationships; Return from Work
Safely; and Sport.
9(2)(a)
explained the work in modelling how ACC could reach people and understand their
feedback. There would be a mix of digital, print and radio; this would reach 90% of the country.
The core audiences were youth and Māori. The strategy included an innovation fund to explore
opportunities and tactical moments to make the most of engagement (e.g. Orientation Week at
Universities). It was a fluid and reactive approach informed by feedback data.
The Board asked how Management would assess the ROI for each phase of the strategy.
9(2)(a)
explained that the key KPI for the first phase was awareness, and there would be
operational measures to assess, for example the time between injury and claim. The Board asked
Page 5 of 20

that Operations and frontline staff be prepared for higher engagement as a result of the campaign
and asked that future reporting to the Board on the next phase incorporated the ROIA into the
KPIs.
The Board expressed that the Team had the Board’s support, particularly in ensuring that the
foundation of the strategy was built first and asked that the Board’s feedback on provider and
business be taken on board.
ACTION: Management to ensure that future reporting to the Board incorporates ROI into
engagement strategy KPIs.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Note that as at June 2019, 45% of New Zealanders had low awareness of ACC, a figure that
increases to 57% for Māori.
(b)  Note that ACC proposes a five-year Engagement Strategy with the following phases:
i.
phase 1 — connect ACC employees to organisational purpose (underway)
ii.
phase 2 — tell the untold story of ACC to New Zealanders to increase broad public
awareness and understanding of ACC’s role and services (January to June 2020)
iii.  phase 3 — create relevance and public respect for ACC’s role and value, including
a recommended brand refresh to reflect a high-performing, customer-led
organisation (post 2020 general election)
iv.  phase 4 — create a trusted partnership with New Zealanders (2021/22 to
2023/24).
(c)  Note that an integral part of the Engagement Strategy is engaging with Māori, in line with
Whāia Te Tika and ACC’s Service Agreement 2019/20.
(d)  Note that the Engagement Strategy has a cost of approximately $3 mil ion per year over five
years (excluding any brand refresh) to 2023/24, totalling $15.22 mil ion, which wil  be
absorbed into the Customer Group budget.
(e)  Note that the Executive has endorsed the approach, design and timing of the Awareness
phase of the Engagement Strategy.
(f)  Note that Management wil  be presenting the creative concept for the Awareness phase of
the Engagement Strategy, built by ACC’s customers, to the Board on 31 October.
(g)  Note that a paper on a recommended brand refresh to align with the Engagement Strategy
wil  be presented to the Board in April/May 2020.
(h)  Note that the Minister wil  be informed of phases 2 to 4 of the Engagement Strategy (the
external phases) prior to the commencement of phase 2 in January 2020.
Page 6 of 20

(i)
Note that Management wil  report to the Board on progress with the Engagement Strategy in
April/May 2020.
Degenerative Conditions – Progress Update
Ms Roche introduced the paper:
•  This was a report following a request from the Board to speed up operational changes. This
could be seen in terms of changes to the cover letter, MyACC and further areas.
•  On the policy side, Ms Roche had spoken to a range of District Health Boards (DHBs) and the
Ministry of Health (MoH). During this process, MoH announced a Planned Care strategy
through the next four or five months, which focused on how to better support patients to
transition into self-care and rehab, and what the financial implications of this were. ACC was
working with MoH on developing the strategy and ACC’s role in supporting that.
The Board discussed the paper, with questions and comments focusing on the following:
•  During the last levy consultation, ACC had received feedback that ACC was ‘not for elderly
people’. Ms Roche responded that ACC can only legally pay for the consequences of an
accident, and previous degeneration may make them ineligible for cover. DHBs
acknowledged that better supported handover with ACC, similar to sensitive claims, would
go a long way.
•  Whether there were stil  issues around consistency of decision making, which could be
unfair. 9(2)(a)
explained the importance of expectation setting which would help with
customer experience but legislative change would be required to really address the fairness
issue. This was feasible but might cause unintended consequences and considerable
expansion of the Scheme. The Board asked whether anything else that be done to manage
expectations. 9(2)(a)
pointed to the Next Steps section of the paper on work with GPs
particularly to keep them informed of decisions made about their patients.
The Board commended Management on the paper and the good progress made, noting that the
operational improvements were exciting to see.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Note that, at the May meeting, the Board discussed three options for addressing
degeneration: legislative change, joint funding approaches, and operational improvements.
The Board agreed to ACC pursuing discussions with MOH and DHBs about joint funding,
and requested an update on progress with operational improvements.
Page 7 of 20

(b)  Note that initial discussions with DHBs and MOH have indicated that there may be
opportunity for better alignment between the two systems, and that two vehicles are available
to explore this alignment: the Review, and the Government’s changes to non-acute care
(Planned Care Strategy).
(c)  Note that an update on our work with the Review and discussions with MoH and DHBs on
the Planned Care Strategy wil  be provided in November.
(d)  Note that good progress has been made in making operational changes, and there is an
intention for further changes to be made in future.
(e)  Agree that ACC wil  provide a report back in May 2020 of progress with operational
improvements and sector-wide collaborative approaches so that the Board can consider
whether further analysis of legislative options should be advanced.
Accredited Employers Programme Redesign
Ms Powell and 9(2)(a)
introduced the paper, focussing on the following points:
•  The Accredited Employers Programme (AEP) covers 390,000 workers. The programme
had not been amended for 18 years. Return to work rates were declining and there was
similar health and safety performance to those agencies not in the programme despite
extra funding being available.
•  Management had undertaken extensive co-design work in partnership with accredited
employers, workers and TPAs and identified areas for improvement focused on the
operational pain points, customer issues, and issues raised by MBIE.
•  This paper introduced a three-phased approach alongside continuous improvement to
implement change. Phase 1 involved foundational BAU changes that did not require
legislative or framework changes and could get underway immediately. Phase 2 included
more specific performance improvements where a framework change would enable moving
to more modern audit standard, and phase 3 rounded out the change. The changes would
be funded out of the current operational budget.
•  The challenges with the AEP centred around lack of performance management, with few
levers to pul  to manage this. The only real lever was to exit the programme.
The Board disputed the theory that the only way to gain the attention of AEP agencies was to exit
them from the programme or increase their levies. If the audit was high quality, the board of
directors would take it extremely seriously. The Board asked that Management immediately
explore means to escalate poor audit performance to boards and Governance Committees.
Page 8 of 20

ACTION: Management to immediately explore means to escalate poor audit performance of AEP
agencies to Boards and Governance Committees.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Agree to ACC adopting a three-phase delivery approach within continuous improvement,
with the purpose of improving programme performance through delivering redesign features
(set out in the Appendix of this paper).
(b)  Note:
i.  that the redesign is similar to the current AEP but with improvements across all
components, and
ii.  that Management wil , in November, update the Minister on co-design and how the
redesign wil  address Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) review
recommendations, and ACC delivery decisions and implications, and share the output of
co-design with stakeholders following this.
(c)  Agree that Management wil  begin Phase 1 ‘Business as usual’ improvement delivery in
2020, and report back to the Board in early 2021 on Framework change implications and
decisions for Phases 2 and 3.
(d)  Agree that Management wil  immediately explore means to escalate areas of concerns to
Boards and Risk & Assurance Committees.
Unclaimed ERA Reimbursements
The Board’s discussion focused on the following:
•  Whether in this case it was right to refund the money, when ACC had not made the mistake. All
companies involved were aware of the process and the money available for reimbursement as
ACC had worked with them, but it was deprioritised within the business.
•  The Board referred to the risk that under the proposal that ACC may pay out more than was
owed.
•  Mr Tully summarised that a date would be selected for when the old ERA system would be
closed, and this would be communicated with agencies. The Board acknowledged that the
communication may prompt claims which would be paid by ACC even if it were outside the 15-
day limit but suggested that ACC should not proactively chase the agencies for claims.
Page 9 of 20

•  In response to a question from the Board, Mr Healy confirmed that, given there was no legal
obligation to pay the money, it would not need to be carried on the balance sheet. 9(2)
(h)

.
•  The Board queried the amount that was owed to ACC. Ms Champness confirmed that there
were no outstanding ACC claims over the previous two years.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Note that during reproduction of the business approach for the ERA payments, an estimated
$39.7 mil ion of outstanding ERA reimbursements to employers has been identified, due to
employers not yet requesting reimbursements.
(b)  Note that the proposed approach for resolving the outstanding reimbursements is to
proactively pay all outstanding reimbursements between 2009 – 2019 based on claim
information available to ACC.
(c)  Note that the future ERA process wil  prevent any unclaimed reimbursements being
generated in the future.
(d)  Did not approve the proposed resolution and payment of $39.7 million for unclaimed ERA
reimbursements, and instead requested that Management:
i.  Continue making reimbursement payments requested by agencies, even if those
requests were not within the 15-working day deadline; and
ii.  Notify affected agencies of the forthcoming change in the reimbursement system, and of
the associated cut-off date for making outstanding reimbursement claims,
9(2)(h)
.
LEK Final Report
The Board took the paper as read and noted its continuing worry regarding staff comments about
workload. The Board asked that Management come back to the Board in six months on this issue
once NGCM was rolled out, and asked for assurance that if a response to workload required
something different than what was originally planned, that it would be done. Mr Tully responded
that a core element of the work through NGCM was workforce management, to ensure that there
was the right skil set, the right volume of work allocated on a national basis, and the ability to move
Page 10 of 20

work when needed. There was weekly monitoring of resource levels across the network, including
looking at pipeline needs and joint recruitment across the business.
In response to a query from the Board, Ms Champness confirmed that Management had erred on
the side of over-resourcing when deciding the level of resource to put into NGCM rollout based on
the experience of LaunchPad.
The Board expressed its gratitude for the detailed Management Response to the LEK Report.
ACTIONS: Management to report back to the Board—
•  Regarding the effectiveness of staffing levels/workloads under NGCM.
•  On the completion of the NGCM rollout .
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
a)
Accept the final report on the Drivers of Weekly Compensation (WC) Volume Growth –
Summary of findings (the report) from LEK.
b)
Note that Management’s planned responses to the recommendations in the report, as
well as actions already underway, are set out in full in the appendix to this paper and
include:
i.
Monitoring key economic indicators
ii.
Undertaking a full review of the Expected Claim Outcome model
iii.  Applying Management’s economic forecasting to resources modelling
iv.  Initiating research to better understand factors behind return to
work/independence, as well as the barriers, including the impact of mental health
v.
Identify and track potential client and provider influence points
vi.  Responding to provider behaviour, and tracking delivery of benefits as Health
Services Strategy initiatives are implemented at scale
vii.  Tracking and responding to client behaviour and other key metrics in WC claims.
c)
Note that Management wil  follow the progress of actions through the Quarterly Business
Report.
d)
Note that Management wil  provide a review of those actions to the Board in Quarter 1 of
the next financial year.
e)
Note that a copy of the final report wil  be provided to the Minister and the Treasury.
Page 11 of 20

Budget 20 – Non-Earners’ Cost Pressure Submission
Mr Raubal introduced the paper, noting:
•  This was the process for obtaining funding for the Non-Earners’ Account (NEA) and the non-
earners’ portion of the Treatment Injury Account. The funding requests had not been approved
by the Government in last five years. The new process was designed to make it easier for
Cabinet to approve the funding.
•  If under-funding continued, the fully funded approach would effectively be abandoned. The
Treasury and MBIE had made that point in the Funding Policy Review submissions to
Ministers. The Account was $30 mil ion above pay-as-you-go currently. If Ministers wished to
move to pay-as-you-go, it should be a conscious policy decision. It was inevitable that the
Account would drop to below pay-as-you-go by the year after next if things continue.
•  The Funding Policy Review was likely to introduce a 15% cap on increased funding for the
NEA. This had not been reflected in the submission, as it had not yet been agreed by Cabinet.
The outcome of the review would be known by the end of November, and if it is received
before the submission was sent, the submission would be amended.
•  Due to the drop in interest rates, claims costs increases, and the hangover from under-funding
in previous years, an additional $610 million was being requested. This excluded any changes
to ambulance funding, which would be $22 million at most.
The Board’s discussion focused on the following:
•  The Board requested, 9(2)(h)
, that the submission be clear
about expectations. This could be expanded in the background, including the forecast deficit,
the overall funding ratio and the history of declined funding requests.
•  The Board confirmed that there was no risk of a qualified audit option, and that there was no
need to request a Government guarantee on the NEA.
The Board asked Mr Raubal to circulate to the Board Chair and the Chair of the Board Risk
Assurance and Audit Committee the revised wording on the background following feedback, for
final approval.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
a)
Approve the release of the cost pressure submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation
and Employment (MBIE) and Treasury, subject to approval by the Board Chair and the chair
Page 12 of 20

of the Board Risk Assurance and Audit Committee of the revised wording requested by the
Board.
b)
Note the request for an increase in the Non-Earner’s Appropriation for 2020/21 and out
years.
Seismic Rating for New Office Space
Mr Healy introduced the paper, noting that it was in response to a question from the Board in
September 2019 regarding the relationship of NBS ratings and ‘life and limb’ safety. Mr Healy
continued that the NBS rating of a building was only one indicator, and that a number of other
factors were taken into account by ACC when buildings were assessed, such as secondary
building elements. He provided the example of the decision to move staff out of the Albany office in
Auckland due to the use of hollow core flooring, which was determined to be low NBS rated
following a focused engineering assessment.
Mr Healy noted that recommendation (c) should be an approval recommendation rather than a
noting recommendation, for the Board to approve the proposed new minimum seismic standard for
buildings occupied by ACC. The Board asked that recommendation (c) include an approach for
leases expiring at current sites where the NBS rating was 67-79% (taking the opportunity to require
the building owner to improve the strength of the building) if there was no alternative option. The
Chief Executive agreed that this was fair, noting that ACC would have leverage at that time as a
valuable tenant to the Landlord. Ms Bearsley noted that recommendation (d) would be deleted.
Mr Healy confirmed that the benchmark used by other government entities was 67% and that ACC
had always taken a higher standard, and the Board confirmed that ACC would not re-assign a
lease of a low rated building.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Note ACC’s current seismic approach to the New Building Standard (NBS) ratings for ACC
locations is, in summary, as follows:
% of NBS
Approach for current sites
Approach for proposed/new sites
100% or more  Remain
Acceptable
67-99%
Remain
Not acceptable
(b)  Note that it is very difficult to find new office space with an NBS rating of 100% or higher.
(c)  Note Approve Management’s proposed new minimum seismic standard for buildings
occupied by ACC is, in summary, as follows:
Page 13 of 20

% of NBS  Approach for current sites  Approach for
Approach for expiring
proposed/new sites
leases
80% or
Remain
Acceptable
Remain
higher
67-79%
Remain
Do not consider
Continue the lease if the
rating is improved to 80%
or above, if there are no
better options to move to
(d)  Note that the main feature of the proposed new minimum seismic standard is that rather than
requiring that any new buildings be rated ‘A+’ (100% of the New Building Standard or NBS),
any proposed new ACC sites must instead have earthquake ratings of at least ‘A’ grade
(80% NBS or higher).
(e)  Note the NBS rating of any building is calculated in line with the most recent engineering
guidelines, which may mean that a site’s NBS rating increases or decreases from time to
time even if the nature of the building itself has not changed.
(f)  Note that this proposed standard is only in relation to buildings occupied by ACC as tenant.
(g)  Note that a lower NBS score does not precisely correlate to an increased risk of injury to
people, and is just one piece of information ACC takes into account in assessing the
suitability of a building.
Finance Policy
The Chair of the Board Risk Assurance and Audit Committee had provided feedback on the
Finance Policy, which she confirmed had been incorporated.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
Approve the Finance Policy.
Renewal of Deed Granting Power of Attorney
9(2)(a)
introduced the paper, noting that the current Power of Attorney expired on the day of
the Board meeting. The Power of Attorney was required for the Investments Team, and also
covered the Chief Executive and other members of the Executive.
The Board asked that Mr Paul Dyer and Ms Simmonds be added to the Deed.
9(2)(h)

.

Page 14 of 20

RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
a)
Note that ACC’s Deed Granting Power of Attorney dated 27 September 2018 (the Deed)
expires on 31 October 2019 and requires renewal to enable ACC’s investments activities to
continue without interruption.
b)  9(2)(h)

.
c)
Note that the Deed as proposed to be amended would be valid through to 31 October 2020
(Updated Deed).
d)
Approve the Updated Deed, attached as an Appendix to this paper, subject to adding Mr
Paul Dyer and Ms Ainsley Simmonds to the Deed.
e)
Authorise the Board Chair and Temporary Deputy Chair to execute the Updated Deed.

Board Investment Committee Terms of Reference
The Board had discussed this paper during Board only time, and had requested a change to the
final paragraph of the Terms of Reference (under the heading Appointed Directors) as follows:
Where ACC appoints a Board Member or a staff member to a governance role in an entity in which
ACC has an interest, that person must disclose to the Company Secretary any remuneration
entitlement. The Company Secretary wil  advise on the approach to the remuneration. The Board
Governance and Remuneration Committee wil  approve any remuneration entitlement.
Ms McDonald QC noted that the Governance and Remuneration Committee had been asked to
look at the rules around that.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
a)
Note that the Board Investment Committee has endorsed the changes to its Terms of
Reference and recommends to the Board that they be accepted.
b)
Approve the updated Terms of Reference for the Board Investment Committee attached to
this paper as Appendix 1.
  Performance Reports
Health, Safety and Wellbeing Report
Ms Champness presented the Report, focusing on the following:
Page 15 of 20

•  The AEP audit of ACC as an accredited employer was underway at the time of writing the
report. While ACC had not received the final report, the feedback received was very positive.
•  The Quarterly health, safety and wellbeing indicators in Appendix 1 of the Report contained
many red numbers, which were accompanied by reasonably detailed commentary in the paper.
Much of the turnover was occurring at the sites most effected by NGCM. Overall, the employee
turnover rate had come down in the last month, and high-performer turnover was at 8%.
The Board referred to the threats described in paragraph 4.7 of the Report. Ms Champness
confirmed that in each case the strict controls in place had worked, the Police had been responsive
to the threats, and ACC’s people were very good at raising these issues. She had asked the
Health and Safety team to provide advice to see if there was anything that could be done
differently. Mr Pickering added that the Executive team was debriefing on these issues each week.
He noted a similar spike in the wake of the Ashburton shooting, and that a number of threats being
reported appeared to be linked to the Christchurch attacks. Often it was the case that once the
situation had been de-escalated, the individual had no real intention of carrying out the threat, and
was expressing a sense of frustration.
The Board confirmed that there should be zero tolerance for threats against staff. The Board asked
for a report in six months about the investigations into threats and what more could be done.
The Board asked about the work-related stress incident reporting and whether it was expected to
decline. Ms Champness responded that it was already starting to decline in October, and the
stress incidents were mainly related to individuals not getting roles through the NGCM
appointments, particularly in Nelson and Christchurch.
ACTION: Management to report on ACC’s actions and improvements regarding managing threats
including benchmarking with local and overseas.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Note progress toward becoming a leader in heath, safety and wellbeing.
(b)  Note there were no notifiable events in September 2019.
(c)  Note the health, safety and wellbeing performance indicators.

Page 16 of 20

Legal Report and Policy Update
(a)  Legal Report – LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
The Acting General Counsel reported that a fixture had been obtained for the Stafford judicial
review proceedings, set down for 20 April 2020.
In response to a Board query regarding the expected date for receiving external advice on the
Feltex matter, Ms Simmonds reported that the barrister was taking a very thorough approach, and
she expected the opinion within the next two weeks. The Board asked that that the opinion be
circulated to Ms McDonald and Mr Mil er when it was received. Ms Simmonds confirmed to the
Board that a group of 15 shareholders would be giving evidence on their losses in the Feltex
matter on 4 November but that ACC was not involved at this point.
ACTION: Management to circulate Feltex opinion, when received, to Ms McDonald and Mr Mil er.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Note ACC’s application to appeal the High Court decision in Calver was heard on 18 October
2019, and the Court granted leave to appeal.
(b)  Note that ACC is seeking external legal advice on its involvement in the class action in
Feltex, and that some claimants, but not ACC, are party to a hearing in early November
2019.
(c)  Note that Counsel are seeking a date in May 2020 for the judicial review proceedings arising
out of the Stafford litigation.
(d)  Note that the General Counsel team is assisting on several ACC projects.
(b)  Policy Update
Ms Roche introduced the Policy update and highlighted that there would be a joint conversation
with Ministers by ACC, MoH and NASO, encouraging a broad ranging review of how ambulance
services were run in New Zealand, rather than dealing with further funding requests. Board
discussion focussed on the following:
•  The information contained in the appendix to the paper presented a clear framework for how to
think about the potential changes.
Page 17 of 20

•  The report should consider best practice in overseas jurisdictions such as Australia and
Singapore. Ms Roche responded that Australia had recently undertaken a similar review and
decided to centralise services, and that NASO had looked into this.
•  When regional monopolies are created, ACC was unable to contract in the normal way. The
tender process did not work, and this needed to be addressed.
•  Many of the broader ambulance issues related to governance of the services. The current
structure could work if there was good governance.
•  There was no long-term goal related to efficiency, and the equitable health outcome goal did
not relate to the quality of outcomes. Ms Roche responded that ACC had given similar
feedback to MoH., but the goals were not that material in terms of the way forward.
The Board discussed the joint venture on family violence sexual violence:
•  Family and sexual violence was a perpetually troubling area, and the Board queried whether
ACC knew how big the problem was. Ms Powell responded that the available statistics could
be provided to the Board (perhaps attached to the Weekly Board Report) and showed that 1 in
3 women in New Zealand suffer abuse of some kind, where the most at-risk populations were,
where there was repeat victimisation or victimisation of people with a disability.
•  This was an area that had been largely underinvested in and ACC had the ability to make a big
leadership contribution.
•  Ms Powell confirmed that ACC had been working collaboratively with the Ministry of Social
Development.
•  In response to further queries, Ms Powell explained that the Joint Venture involved 10
agencies. While it was still in set up phase, it appeared to be on the right path. It was being
developed from a purely Māori base which was a different approach from the past. Given the
over-representation in the statistics, this would make a marked difference.
ACTIONS: Management to provide sexual violence stats to Board.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
(a)  Endorse the proposed content of the attached document ‘Future direction of ambulance
services: overview of the system settings’, which wil  form the basis of a meeting between
ACC and Ministry of Health representatives and the Minister for ACC and Minister of Health
on 5 November 2019.
Page 18 of 20

(b)  Note that the Minister for ACC and Minister of Finance have agreed with the
recommendations from the Funding Policy Review report, with the exception of the proposal
to retain the current two-year levy cycle.
(c)  Note that the Minister for ACC and Minister of Finance intend to recommend to Cabinet that
the levy cycle be extended to three years.
(d)  Note that Cabinet wil  soon consider a proposed new Carers’ Strategy Action Plan 2019-
2023, under which ACC is taking a joint lead role for three actions, which wil  build on
existing work and ACC’s existing services.
(e)  Note that agencies that are part of the Joint Venture for Family Violence and Sexual
Violence have worked closely with Interim Te Rōpū to develop a draft National Strategy for
eliminating violence – “te Hau Tangata”.
(c)
Public Service Bill
Ms Roche informed the Board that ACC’s submission on the Public Service Bil  had been sent the
previous day to the State Services Commission and to Ministers. The submission would be loaded
into Diligent, and Ms Roche would update the Board when a response was received.
The Board queried whether the submission outlined ACC’s desire to be treated similarly to
NZ Super for the investment side of the business. Ms Roche explained the challenge given ACC’s
role in purchasing and delivery of health care services.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to:
Note the Public Service Bil  submission was submitted, and the Board wil  receive an update in
due course.
  Board Administration
Minutes of Meeting held on 26 September 2019
APPROVED: the ACC Board approved the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2019.
Schedule of Matters Arising
The Board noted the Schedule of Matters Arising.
Page 19 of 20

Confirmation of Decisions Made Out of Cycle
RESOLVED: the ACC Board resolved to note that there were no decisions made out of cycle for
the period of 20 September 2019 to 24 October 2019.
Annual Work Programme
NOTED: The ACC Board noted the annual work programme.
  General Business
The Board had greatly enjoyed the day’s lunch and conversations shared with leaders from
Dunedin sites.
  Confirmation of Next Meeting
To be held at the ACC Board Room, Level 11, PwC Tower, 188 Quay Street, Auckland on
Wednesday, 27 November 2019 at 9.00 am.
Closure
The meeting closed at 2.10 pm.
Approved

Chair ………………………………………………………….
Date ………………………………

Page 20 of 20

Document Outline