9(2)(h)

---

Gender Equitable Engagement and Instruction Policy 
3.2 
ACC has adopted the New Zealand Law Society’s and NZ Bar Association’s Gender 
Equitable Engagement and Instruction Policy.  The policy is an initiative that seeks to 
improve the retention and advancement of women within the legal profession.  
Registrations of Interest for external legal representatives 
3.3 
ACC has called for registrations of interest in a nationwide panel of legal professionals to 
represent ACC at reviews and appeals under Part 5 of the Accident Compensation At 2001 
(the AC Act). The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment supports this move, 
acknowledging that the Al  of Government External Legal Services Panel does not provide 
sufficient choice of providers with the necessary combination of general litigation and AC 
Law/Medico-legal experience to efficiently meet ACC’s needs. A new panel wil  also enable 
us to reset the service level expectations of our external legal representatives. This will 
ensure clear and consistent expectations as to the quality and cost efficiency of the legal 
services provided, and that they reflect our organisational and model litigant values. 
4 
Anticipated matters 
9(2)(h)
2 

---

9(2)(h)
Written by: 
Endorsed by: 
9(2)(a)
Deborah Roche,  
General Counsel & Company Secretary 
Chief Governance Officer 
3 

---

4 

---

---

e)
Note, in preparation for final advice to the Minister on LOPE rates, we have included
additional cost information to reflect the Government’s signalled desire to lift minimum
wage rates significantly by 2021 (even though they have not yet taken this decision)
f)
Note a change to the minimum wage rate would increase the cost impact of all options to
change the LOPE rate (including ACC’s preferred one)
g)
Confirm ACC’s previous preferred policy option – to increase the LOPE rate to 100%
minimum wage – considering this additional information
h)
Note an oral update wil  provided at the Board meeting on the current Amendment Bil
before Select Committee, the Government’s health and disability and welfare system
reviews, and the induction for the new ACC Associate Minister.
3 
Legislative modernisation 
Ministerial priorities workstream 
Consequential injury 
3.1 
Earlier this month we provided advice to the Minister on how to implement the extension of 
weekly compensation entitlements to non-earners.  Following that, we need to advise the 
Minister on the treatment of consequential injuries, which is a related issue. 
3.2 
Historically, “consequential injuries” – that is, injuries that are consequent on another covered 
injury – were treated by ACC as part of the same claim as the original injury. The 2012 Kingi 
judgment found that consequential injuries were covered in their own right, and could therefore 
be treated as separate claims. This meant that someone who had a knee injury as a non-earner 
but developed consequential post-traumatic arthritis while working could lodge a new claim for 
the arthritis, and be considered an earner for the purposes of the arthritis claim.  
3.3 
The Kingi judgment overcame the exclusion of certain non-earners from weekly compensation, 
if their conditions fit the definition of consequential injury; but in doing so, created significant 
uncertainty for ACC in the following areas: 
a)
Experience rating – if a new claim is lodged for a consequential injury which develops
after the original injury, should this claim affect the employer’s experience rating?
b)
Vocational independence – in assessing whether a customer’s vocational independence
has deteriorated, ACC must consider whether the deterioration has occurred “due to
injuries that were assessed in the previous vocational independence…assessment”
c)
Interaction between weekly compensation and New Zealand Superannuation qualifying
age, lump sums or independence allowance – customers’ access to certain entitlements
may vary depending on whether their condition is identified as a consequential injury.
3.4 
ACC has not adopted a uniform approach to consequential injury, tending to treat it as a new 
claim either at a customer’s request or where lodging a new claim would be favourable to the 
2 

---

customer. This inconsistency is exacerbated by uncertainty regarding the limits of consequential 
injury.  
3.5 
Given the Minister has taken the decision to extend eligibility for weekly compensation to non-
earners incapacitated by injury while working, the disparity which was addressed in the Kingi 
judgment wil  be removed. ACC therefore has an opportunity to provide necessary clarification 
on consequential injury, given the uncertainties it has created. Options for addressing this are: 
a)
Option one (preferred): Clarify legislation so that consequential injuries are always treated
as part of the initial injury claim, applying the same date of injury
b)
Option two (status quo): Retain current legislation, but treat consequential injuries as
linked to the original claim, unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise
c)
Option three: Retain current legislation, and always treat consequential injuries as
separate claims, with a separate date of injury.
3.6 
The recommended change is intended to provide clarification of cover and wil  have no 
additional cost implications.   
Loss of potential earnings 
3.7 
As signalled at the last Board meeting, we will advise the Minister by the end of September on 
proposed changes to LOPE rates.  The Minister has asked us to consider an increase in the 
rate to 80% of the median wage as a better measure for an individual’s lost life-time earnings.  
As agreed with the Board, we wil  advise the Minister not to make this change. 
3.8 
We had previously advised that a shift back to 100% of the minimum wage, as was in place 
prior to 2010 (from the current 80% of minimum wage), was our preferred option for the 
following reasons:   
a)
On balance, we consider the minimum wage a reasonable basis to compensate for a
minimum level of unrealised earnings, recognising that the scheme generally does not
attempt to compensate other customers for full earning potential.
b)
We favour increasing the rate from 80% of minimum wage to 100%, because a significant
number of LOPE recipients are not expected to ever enter the workforce and, therefore,
paying below the minimum wage as a work incentive is less relevant to this group.
3.9 
We want, however, to provide the Board with an opportunity to reconsider this position, should 
you wish to do so, on the basis of ful  information about potential (but uncertain) cost impacts. 
a)
Earlier costings provided to the Board showed that the OCL impact of a shift to 100%
minimum wage would be approximately $199m – refined costings have now increased
this figure to $238m.
b)
In order to give the Minister a full picture of the total impact of any change to LOPE, we
have now also costed the impact of the Government’s signalled intention to increase the
minimum wage to $20 by 2021.  The Government has not taken this decision formally, so
it has not yet been factored into our model and costings, but as they have signalled a
3 

---

commitment to move in this direction, we intend to provide the Minister with information 
about the combined impact of this change plus any change to the LOPE rate.   
3.10 
An increase in the minimum wage rate to $20 by 2021 would have an $143m OCL impact, 
regardless of whether the LOPE rate is changed.  This means that if the minimum wage was 
increased and ACC’s preferred LOPE option was progressed, the combined OCL impact 
relative to today would $381m ($143m from the minimum wage rise plus $238 from shifting the 
rate from 80% to 100% of minimum wage).  The 80% median wage option (which we wil  advise 
against) is higher – at $451m total impact.   
3.11 
On the basis that there is uncertainty about this minimum wage commitment, our view is that 
ACC retains its preferred option and we are seeking the Board’s confirmation of this, to enable 
us to deliver final advice to the Minister by the end of this month.   
Optimisation workstream 
Supporting injury prevention investment 
3.12 
Following earlier advice to the Minister to include consideration of the legislative test for injury 
prevention within the scope of the project, we wil  shortly provide the Minister with advice about 
how best to do this. 
3.13 
Our advice is stil  being developed but is likely to recommend replacing the Act’s reference to 
achieving an actual or projected reduction in levy rates or expenditure under the Non-Earners’ 
Account with a requirement that injury prevention investment be expected to result in a cost-
effective reduction in the incidence and severity of injury. This would better reflect the broad 
contribution that injury prevention can make to the scheme beyond managing costs. 
3.14 
While our view is that the primary focus of any new investment mandate should be to improve 
the effectiveness of injury prevention in reducing the incidence and impact of injury, we also 
consider that any change to the legislation should: 
a)
Promote efficient coordination of injury prevention across government. ACC’s injury
prevention strategy recognises that effective investment over the next ten years wil
require co-investment with other agencies to address complex, life-long issues, and
achieve desired outcomes
b)
Retain appropriate accountability and transparency for levy-payers on the cost-
effectiveness of spend, coordination across agencies, and mitigate scope creep.
3.15 
It is important to note that the legislative change wil  be an enabling one – it wil  permit ACC to 
invest according to a broader mandate – but further work wil  be needed to give effect to this 
mandate by considering what alternative investment tests and/or models should be adopted that 
assess the costs and benefits of investment decisions.  As part of the IP strategy redesign 
(discussed with the Board in May), a work stream is underway to consider this. 
Technical tidy-ups 
3.16 
Alongside ACC’s key priorities through the legislative programme, there is an opportunity to 
address several technical operational issues which have been identified by areas across ACC 
4 

---

over the past few years.  These changes seek to ensure consistent treatment for customers and 
improve efficiency in scheme governance and administration.  The issues are well-understood 
and have straightforward solutions, with no expected cost implications. 
3.17 
In the coming month, we wil  recommend to the Minister that the legislative programme: 
a)
ensures that disentitlement consistently applies to all imprisoned customers eligible to
receive an independence allowance
b)
removes the requirement for ACC to release review decisions requested by members of
the public
c)
excludes Veterans’ Support Act 2014 weekly compensation top-ups from abatement
against ACC’s weekly compensation payments
d)
disestablishes the Non-Compliers’ Fund, and
e)
clarifies that the ACC Board Committees can issue written resolutions.
3.18 
A table with information on each of these issues is included in appendix 1.  
Next steps 
3.19 
We wil  provide you with copies of briefings on consequential injuries, IP test, and technical 
amendments with the Board weekly report and use the weekly report to update you on our 
discussions with the Minister on these issues. 
3.20 
In next month’s Board update, we wil  provide you with advice on: 
Ministerial priorities work stream 
a)
Preferred solutions and implementation for weekly compensation changes
Optimisation work stream 
b)
Preferred solutions and implementation for the set of changes that support ACC’s client
and business customer changes
c)
Progress update on the six areas of work to reform health purchasing settings
Structural work stream 
d)
Indication on priority changes to be sought through changes to legislative structure.
4 
Proactive release policy 
4.1 
Last month we advised the Board that we are developing a proactive release policy to cover 
formal advice sent to the Ministers, OIA responses and any information that is regularly 
requested under the OIA, and any other information produced that is in the public interest. 
5 

---

4.2 
Since then a paper on strengthening proactive release requirements for Cabinet papers has 
been through Cabinet.  As a result of this decision, Cabinet Committee papers and papers that 
are sent directly to Cabinet (not via a Committee) wil  be subject to a new proactive release 
policy from 1 January 2019.  Further guidance on the policy wil  be released in October and we 
wil  update the Board on the implications for ACC following that. 
5 
Other updates 
5.1 
Oral updates wil  be provided at the Board meeting on: 
a)
The government’s health and disability and welfare systems reviews
b)
The current Accident Compensation Bil  before Parliament, which has recently completed
Select Committee stage
c)
Induction of the new ACC Associate Minister (Peeni Henare).
Written by: 
Endorsed by: 
9(2)(a)
Deborah Roche  
Manager, Policy 
Chief Governance Officer 
Emma Powell  
Chief Customer Officer 
6 

---

Appendix 1: technical legislative changes 
7 

---

Issue 
Discussion 
Management view of 
necessary legislative 
change 
•
The current settings in the AC Act mean that ACC is unable to disentitle customerss who have lodged a
Disentitlement during periods 
claim under the AC Act 2001, but who receive an independence allowance rather than a lump sum, from of imprisonment should apply 
Disentitlment 
receiving the independence allowance if imprisoned. This legislative gap was the subject of an appeal,
to all customers eligible for an 
while in prison 
which was settled by ACC in March 2015.
independence allowance. 
•
This legislative gap appears to be an unintended drafting error, that creates inconsistent and inequitable
treatment of different customers who may have similar injuries.
•
Section 144(5) requires ACC to release a copy of a review decision to any person who asks for it. In
The requirement to release a 
practice this can mean a member of the public can request the review decision of a specific person and
copy of a review decision 
Relese of review 
receive a copy. Although identifying information would be removed, the requestor would know the
should be removed from the 
decisions 
identity of the individual.
AC Act 2001 to prioritise 
customer privacy. 
•
While the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1982 contain the appropriate checks and
balances, due to the presence of section 144(5), it overrides the relevant provisions of those Acts that
would enable ACC to withhold the decisions where release would breach a customer’s privacy.
•
With the removal of section 144(5), the Official Information Act 1982 would allow a member of the public
to request a review decision, but would balance public interest against customer privacy in releasing the
review decision.
•
Where a veteran is entitled to weekly compensation under the AC Act 2001 and the Veteran’s Support
Exclude VS Act top-up 
Act 2014, ACC pays weekly compensation at 80% of the veteran’s pre-incapacity earnings and the VS
payments from abatement 
Abatement of 
Act enables Veterans’ Affairs to top up the payment to a higher level of entitlement.
against ACC weekly 
Veterans’ 
compensation payments, as 
weekly 
•
Where this top-up increases the veteran’s total income over 100% of their pre-incapacity earnings as
the current settings result in 
compensation 
calculated by ACC, payments are considered as “earnings” under the AC Act 2001, and ACC is required
cost shifting from ACC to 
to abate these earnings. Veterans’ Affairs is therefore required to top-up payments again. In the end,
Veterans’ Affairs. 
ACC can end up paying no weekly compensation, with Veterans’ Affairs paying the total.
8 

---

•
The Non-compliers fund was established to fund customers’ statutory entitlements when
Disestablish the fund 
employers did not meet their obligations to insure. In 2002, the Accident Insurance Regulator’s
Non-compliers’ 
role in relation to the NCF was transferred to ACC. At that time, five claims were transferred to
fund 
ACC. Three of these claims were closed by 2003.
•
These claims are funded by, and included in, the Work Account; however, ACC has an
ongoing requirement to prepare financial statementsfor the NCF. This requires ACC finance,
actuarial, and auditor resource which creates an approximate cost of $10,000 per annum. This
cost is disproportionate to the remaining liability in the account.
•
The Crown Entities Act 2004 provides a Board with the ability to make written resolutions in
Clarify that Committees of the ACC 
lieu of meeting. While the Crown Entities Act 2004 also enables a Board to delegate its powers Board should be enabled to issue 
Board committees 
to an appointed committee, this ability does not explicitly include reference to delegating these
written resolutions. 
written resolutions 
Committees of the Board with the ability to make written resolutions.  There is merit is seeking
a clarificatory change in the Act to explicitly enable the Committees to do this.
9 

---

10 

---

---

3.3 
ACC continues to contribute to the Government Health and Safety Lead (GHSL) particularly 
through the Agency Lead Advisory Group.  The GHSL have recently released a Good 
Practice Guide for Public Service Chief Executives and Officers.  The programme of work 
for the GHSL continues through to June 2019. 
Engagement 
3.4 
The Health and Safety Representatives toolkit has been updated.  This provides guidance 
to health and safety representatives on their role within ACC and is the first part of the 
programme of work planned for this year to redevelop the health and safety engagement 
and participation programme to reflect the organisational structure and ways of working. 
3.5 
ACC representatives attended an industry conference focused on employee engagement in 
health and safety, using the workshop sessions within the conference to identify 
development opportunities and strengths within our existing programme. 
Risk Management 
3.6 
The HS&W team are working with the Fleet manager to review the current package of 
controls relating to driver risk, including the incorporation of GPS monitoring systems and 
associated driver training packages. 
3.7 
The Building Policy and associated guidelines (Physical Security, Access Security, and 
CCTV) are being updated to keep these current and as part of the preparation to go to 
market for our security system provider. 
3.8 
An update on the progress related to the seismic status of the Justice Centre as well as the 
other locations in the ACC branches/network is attached as Appendix 2. 
Wellbeing 
3.9 
Planning is underway for Mental Health Awareness Week (8th – 15th October), building on 
the ideas suggested by the ACC representatives at the Government Mental Health 
Conference held in August.  
3.10 
The Wellbeing360 survey is currently available for ACC people to complete and wil  remain 
open until the end of September.  There has been a very good uptake of the survey which 
is being promoted in conjunction with the Tika Wellbeing conversation. 
3.11 
The Request for Proposal for ACC’s professional supervision services has been released 
with the expectation that the provider for the new contract wil  be confirmed in December.  
The implementation of the new contract wil  enable the re-positioning of professional 
supervision as a key control for the risk of harm arising from the impact of work on our 
people. 
2 

---

9(2)(a)

---

3.14 
The lost time incident severity rate is steady due to the ongoing nature of rehabilitation 
programmes for two employees, however these are progressing as expected. 
3.15 
The overall incident reporting rate is increasing and close call reports also have an 
increasing trend. Both of these trends are seen as a positive indication of our people being 
alert to safety risks and being engaged in our reporting practices. 
3.16 
We are continuing to monitor employee turnover as outlined in the detailed report last 
month.  Unplanned leave has increased during the month consistent with a seasonal trend 
we experience most years over winter. 
3.17 
We had slightly more work related stress reports during the month than previous months, 
with 10 reports received during August from across ACC.  
3.18 
Personal and organisational threats remain at a low level with three in total reported for 
August, although there was an increase in the number of abusive phone calls (10) reported. 
These continue to be well managed in line with ACC procedures. 
It is recommended that the ACC Board: 
(a) Note actions underway to mature our safety system, demonstrate safety
leadership and strengthen our safety culture.
(b) Note there were no notifiable events in August 2018.
(c)
Note the health and safety performance indicators.
9(2)(a)
Sharon Champness 
Head of Health, Safety and Wellbeing 
Chief Talent Officer 
4 

---

---

Assurance audit of third party H&S risk 
• Develop our emergency preparedness
capability including contribution to crisis
response planning and delivery of
organisational Shakeout event.
5. Deliver the wellbeing strategy
• Develop and support the delivery of the
to maintain engagement and
wel being programme for 2018/2019 to
support our people through
anticipate and respond to the demands
change
of organisational change
• Select and on-board Professional
Supervision provider
Overall eNPS achieved 
• Work across government and industry
and result from 
to understand current best practice and wel being related 
identify opportunities to leverage
questions improved 
industry initiatives
• Engage Executive and Enterprise
leaders, employee reps and other
internal stakeholders to develop the
wel being strategy for 2019 onwards.
6. Enhance employee and leader • Single sign-on for ACCtivate wellbeing
Increased engagement 
experience of Talent team
portal
with ACCtivate 
service
• Enhance employee experience of injury
Greater satisfaction 
management
reported from ACC 
• Sauce content review and development
people who have 
of user centric content.
experienced injuries 
6 

---

---

ACC BOARD
Matters Arising Report
20 September 2018
Minute
Responsible 
Proposed / Actual 
Matters Arising
Status
Reference
Person
Date of Completion
Management to add a forecast column to 
BRD.18.08.3.1
the Key Performance Measures page from  Chief Financial 
half-year
Officer
Pending
28 February 2019
Management to provide information on how 
BRD.18.08.3.2
Next Gen and the Health Sector Strategy 
Chief Operating 
link together
Officer
Pending
21 March 2019
Management to report back to the Board on  Chief Technology & 
BRD.18.08.4.1
any additional measures ACC could take to  Transformation 
Pending
protect sensitive claims data.
Officer
Management to provide a paper explaining 
BRD.18.08.4.2
the $4.5 mil ion annual administration costs  Chief Customer 
for the workplace safety incentives, and how  Officer
Pending
to reduce those costs.
Management to use amber ratings in 4Q 
BRD.18.07.3.1
report to show where targets were nearly 
Chief Financial 
met, consistent with monthly and other 
Officer
Pending
30 August 2018
quarterly reports
BRD.18.07.5.4
Management to check whether ACC is 
Chief Risk & 
compliant with Holidays Act
Actuarial Officer
Pending
25 October 2018
KPMG privacy maturity report to be updated 
BRD.18.07.5.1
to include context around what it meant to  Chief Governance 
be able to maintain the rating given the level  Officer
Pending
of change at ACC.
In the deep dives, Management to:               
* Segment the drivers into external 
environmental factors, external supply chain 
BRD.18.06.3.1
factors, internal factors, and, where 
Chief Financial 
possible, case mix.                                           Officer
Pending
30 November 2018
*Include the '75% external market factors' so 
the Board can consider causal issues.
Management to circulate a note to the Board 
BRD.18.05.3.1
on how the proposals for achieving reduced  Chief Operating 
neonatal encephalopathy would be 
Officer
Pending
implemented.
Management to provide information about 
'telling the ACC story' for the July Quarterly 
BRD.18.04.3.1
Business Report to the Board. Include an 
Chief Customer 
example of another Crown entity, such as 
Officer
Pending
26/07/2018 Moved to 
October 2018
IRD, that lifted its public trust and 
confidence rating.
Management to seek a benchmark from 
BRD.18.04.3.2
Australian practice for health and safety risk  Chief Talent Officer Pending
20 December 2018
management.
Management to keep the Board informed 
BRD. 1803.4.1
about a forthcoming Ministerial group which  Chief Governance 
includes the Minister for ACC, in relation to  Officer
Pending
27 September 2018
the growing serious injury rate.
BRD.1712.3.1
Management to report back to the Board on  Chief Governance  Pending
27 September 2018
ACC's current monitoring and reviewing of  Officer
consumer products as they relate to injury 
prevention, and provide advice on the 
opportunity for further targeting in this area.

---

Minute
Responsible 
Proposed / Actual 
Matters Arising
Status
Reference
Person
Date of Completion
BRD.1712.3.1
Management to provide the Board with 
Chief Governance  Pending
27/04/2018 Moved to 
information on how the Category 1 and 2 
Officer / Head of 
29/06/2018
privacy breach limits for the financial year 
Privacy
were decided
Agenda Reference Key: Board or Committee. YYMM. Agenda Item – this reference relates to the Board or Commit ee meeting 
in which the action arose. For example: BRD.1708.2.1 means the action arose in the Board meeting held in August 2018 during 
item 2.1. 

---

Title 
Register of Decisions Made out-of-cycle 
Status 
Decision   Information 
Meeting Date 
27 September 2018 
Agenda Item 
8.3 
1 
Recommendations 
1.1 
It is recommended that the ACC Board: 
(a) Confirm the one decision that was made out of cycle for the period 24 August 2018 to 21
September 2018.
Written by: 
9(2)(a)
Manager, Corporate Secretariat 
1 

---

---

completed for Claims 
Lodgement indicate that 
there are no critical or 
showstopper issues 
impacting go-live. 
 
Note that the final IQA report 
wil  be presented to the ACC 
Board Risk Assurance and 
Audit Committee’s October 
2018 meeting. 
 
Note that there are no 
residual high risks relating to 
the project nor expected to 
be introduced into Business 
as Usual as a result of the 
implementation.  
 
Approve the progression to 
CFEE go-live, subject to 
completion of the following: 
Final regression tests 
and approval of the test 
exit reports; 
Successful conclusion of 
the dress rehearsal; 
Confirmation of the auto-
approval tolerances at 
go-live and 
consequential benefit 
impacts (if any); 
A final Go decision 
confirmed by the 
delegated Management 

---

representatives, 
Gabrielle O’Connor, Mr 
Peter Fletcher and Mr 
9(2)(a)
 (Acting 
Chief Operating Officer). 
Note that Management wil  
confirm to the Board when 
the conditions in paragraph 
g) i. to iv. have been met.

---

Board 2018 Annual Work Programme
25 Jan
22 Feb
29 Mar
27 Apr
31 May
29 Jun
26 Jul 30 Aug 27 Sep 25 Oct 30 Nov 20 Dec
Accountability and Public Reporting
ACC Insurance Policies

Annual Report



Budget and Economic Fiscal Update


External Actuarial Valuation


Financial Condition Report  & Updates




Levy Consultation & Recommendations




Minister’s Letter of Expectations

Non-Earners’ Appropriation Report

Quarterly Performance Report




Service Agreement 


Statement of Intent (SOI)




Select Committee hearing 


Strategy and Planning
Health and Safety Strategy

Injury Prevention Strategy

Next Generation Case Management


Risk Appetite Statements

Privacy Maturity Plan

ACC's Health Services Strategy


Whāia Te Tika - Maori Strategy


Legal Strategy

Performance: Delivery and Monitoring 
Chief Executive Report












Health and Safety Report












Legal Report and Policy Update











Operational and Financial Performance Report 








Risk and Compliance Report




Governance
Chief Executive Performance and Succession 



Delegations and Indemnities 

Governance Manual and/or Policy Annexures


Power of Attorney

Shamrock Superannuation Ltd:
(a) AGM Waiver

(b) Scheme Performance Update

Committees’ Terms of Reference
(a) Risk Assurance and Audit Committee

(b) Investment Committee

(c) Governance and Remuneration Committee

(d) Shaping Our Future Committee

Approvals
Policies
Code of Conduct

Identity (Branding)

Health and Safety

Information Management Policy

Contracts
Home and Community Support Services (HCSS) 
- contract redesign

Elective Surgery – Variation Approval

Non-Acute Rehabilitation (NAR) 

Pain Contract Update

High Tech Imaging - Variation Approval

Hand Therapy Contract Renewal

Artificial Limbs

Funding Requests
Analytics

Site Visits
Hamilton


---

---

9(2)(a)
9(2)(a)
9(2)(a)

---

---

Minutes of a meeting of the Board of the Accident Compensation Corporation held at 
the ACC Board Room, Level 7, Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street, Wellington on 
Thursday, 30 August 2018 at 9.00 am. 
Present 
Dame Paula Rebstock 
Chair 
Mr Trevor Janes 
Deputy Chair 
Ms Anita Mazzoleni 
Member 
Mr James Mil er 
Member 
Ms Kristy McDonald QC 
Member 
Prof Des Gorman 
Member 
Via video(until 3.00 pm) 
Mr David May 
Member 
Ms Leona Murphy 
Member 
Via video 
In attendance 
Mr Scott Pickering 
Chief Executive 
Mr Mike Tully 
Chief Operating Officer 
Mr Peter Fletcher 
Chief Technology & Transformation Officer 
Ms Deborah Roche 
Chief Governance Officer 
Mr Herwig Raubal 
Chief Actuarial and Risk Officer 
Ms Sharon Champness 
Chief Talent Officer 
Mr John Healy 
Acting Chief Financial Officer 
Ms Emma Powell 
Acting Chief Customer Officer 
Ms Gabrielle O’Connor 
Head of Client Service Delivery 
9(2)(a)
Head of Provider Service Delivery 
9(2)(a)
Head of Health and Safety Systems 
9(2)(a)
Head of Privacy 
9(2)(a)
Head of Workplace Safety & Levies 
9(2)(a)
General Counsel and Company Secretary 
9(2)(a)
Manager, Corporate Secretariat 
9(2)(a)
Senior Associate Company Secretary 
Page 1 of 27 

---

  Procedural Business 
 Apologies 
There were no apologies. 
 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 
 Chief Executive’s Report 
Mr Pickering discussed the following topics with the Board: 
• Executive appointments.
• Executive team 2018/19 performance objectives and changes to their structure.
• An industrial relations update.
• The ICIP CE overview, including an update on Analytics, Next Generation Case Management,
and the contractual reset with PwC.
• Operational performance with respect to rehabilitation.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Note the Chief Executive’s report. 
 Strategic Risk Discussion – Financial Sustainability 
Mr Raubal explained that the risk discussion was a continuation of the Board’s discussion the 
previous month. Mr Healy introduced the discussion and the three risk areas to be discussed: 
delivery of the Integrated Change Investment Portfolio (ICIP), management of operational 
performance, and management of investment assets, all of which had treatments in place to 
address the risks being managed. 
Page 2 of 27 

---

Delivery of ICIP 
Mr Healy explained the key issues, which included that ICIP’s governance oversight was evolving, 
providing transparency and insights into progress. There was regular Board oversight, with regular 
updates on costs and benefits, and the Board was in control of the release of contingency. ICIP 
monthly reporting now identified that Management was working toward delivery without use of 
contingency. Management was aiming to provide a more transparent picture of cost and benefit 
measurements, and the costs and benefits would be reported on monthly. 
Mr Fletcher explained that Management was looking to the future beyond delivery of ICIP, to try to 
plan for long-term spend on platforms, for financial sustainability and risk management, to ensure 
ACC would not have to do a full-scale systems change again in the future. ACC needed to be a 
transforming business and had an opportunity to move to a more iterative model, working with the 
customer team to feed into the changes.  
The Board queried whether the risk would be down to Amber by December, which seemed 
ambitious. Mr Fletcher explained that there was no reason at this point to suspect the risk would 
not reduce to Amber by December.  
The Board noted that the volume of papers the Board had received could limit the Board’s ability to 
have insight and to engage effectively in some conversations. 
Management of operational performance 
Mr Healy explained that a treatment that would be discussed later during the meeting related to 
analysing cost pressures on claims costs with a link to the outstanding claims liability (OCL). 
Management was trying to be structured about what it could influence and what it had less ability 
to influence—for example, ACC had less influence over capex for housing modifications, where the 
client moves and modifications need to be done again in expensive areas like Auckland, but case 
management of clients or reducing care hours where capital modifications have been done could 
be worked on more. More transparency needed to be provided over the areas ACC could control. 
Analytics could help speed that up. The question Mr Healy was asking his team was: why did costs 
increase by 8% when inflation was only 2%? The answer was likely to be a combination of internal 
and external factors. 
The Board asked Management to take a harder look at external trends when forecasting, for 
example, the change in case mix with an aging population needed to be included.  
The Board commended Mr Healy for the work he was doing. 
Page 3 of 27 

---

Management of Investment Assets 
The Board requested that key person risk and control environment be added to the risks in this 
area.  
The Board discussed whether the information in the paper was focused on the right area, as it did 
not cover Scheme net asset to liability risk and what would happen in various economic shock 
situations. In some situations, the OCL could blow out considerably, and there would be huge 
impacts on levies and on the Scheme’s sustainability. Management should present the risks ACC 
was facing now, even though it did not have control over some of them. ACC was more exposed to 
extreme results now than it had been in a long time and this risk should be updated to reflect that. 
The Board considered that there was a significant residual risk and ACC should have a plan for 
engaging early with stakeholders if this risk eventuated.  
ACTIONS: Management to – 
• Add key person risk and control environment to the Financial Sustainability risk.
• Address the Scheme’s liability risk, given the impact on returns of potential international and
national economic developments.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Review and consider this strategic intention “improve the financial sustainability of the
Scheme” using the Five Lines of Assurance approach.
(b)
Note that the overall (residual) risk profile for this strategic intention is ‘High’ with treatment
plans and assurance activities in place to reduce this to ‘Medium’.
  Operational Reporting 
 Operational and Financial Performance Report 
(a)
ICIP Reporting
Mr Fletcher introduced the report: 
• It had been a good month for ICIP deliveries with nothing to indicate that either of the overall or
yearly spend was at risk. The previous month had been slightly over for the yearly spend.
Page 4 of 27 

---

Management had rearranged priorities, and had been able to come back within yearly spend 
targets.  
• There was work underway on each of the portfolio streams, particularly around dependency
management. That work had active engagement from each programme team.
• Items had been identified that sat outside of the key programmes but that would benefit the
programmes. Ideally, they should be funded and managed separately, rather than via particular
programmes. These items would make it easier to achieve each major programme.
• Regarding the portfolio roadmap, the key issues were the closing out of Juno and the delivery
of Claims Front End Establishment (CFEE) which was on track to be delivered on
17 September 2018. The team was currently managing the pre-go-live activities in preparation
for Dress Rehearsal.
The Board asked Management to provide assurance to the Board that all requirements were met 
before go-live, and to provide the Board with a check-in the week before go-live. Mr Raubal noted 
that Targeted Assessment 15 (TA-15) was expected to be completed around then and that, even if 
it was incomplete, it could be made available to the Board before a go-live decision needed to be 
made. 
Mr Fletcher reported that all key dependency items in the portfolio dependency report that were 
due to complete this month had been completed, and projects were on track.  
The Board’s discussion focused on: 
• Defects with Eos 8.8 and the requirement to get Eos 8.8 running before Next Generation Case
Management (Next Gen) could be launched, and therefore whether there was anything in
Eos 8.8 that could cause a delay. Mr Fletcher acknowledged the dependency and reported that
all the Severity 1 and 2 defects found to date had been resolved. Mr Raubal reported that the
assurance finding concurred with that.
• Progress on Analytics. Mr Fletcher reported that it had been a tough month for progress. While
ACC had a commitment from SAS to deliver on time, internal personnel movement had slowed
the team down. ACC was in the toughest part of the project now. There were mitigation
measures in place, including that the critical outputs had been identified (of the 210 identified,
170 were critical for March 2019) and the team had the ability to ramp up delivery teams to
produce those outputs. The potential impact could be a delay to Eos 8.8 implementation—and
Page 5 of 27 

---

there was a reasonable risk of that happening—and potential y Client Payments or Next Gen. 
Mr Fletcher would have a clearer view on that by mid-September. Once that was determined, 
Management could turn its mind toward other mitigations or alternative delivery plans. In terms 
of other key milestones with Analytics where ACC might fall into the trap of ‘not knowing what it 
didn’t know’, Mr Fletcher considered that one of the biggest challenges was replacing the 
legacy warehouse environment which had at least 15 years of developments on reporting and, 
in some cases, ACC had little understanding about how that information worked or was 
collected. It was likely that some issues would arise. 
• The run rate for spend, which was about $11 mil ion to $12 mil ion per month.
The Board indicated its appreciation for the transparency of reporting for the Board. 
ACTION: Management to provide the Board with TA-15 and check-in with the Board on the 
Proceed framework before CFEE go-live. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Note the ICIP report. 
(b)
Claims Costs
Mr Healy explained the movement of costs between FY2017 and FY2018 set out in Appendix 1 of 
the Report. Key issues identified were: 
• A 4.5% increase for Public Health Acute Services (PHAS) spending. The Ministry of Health
(MoH) had indicated to ACC that the figure could have been larger if MoH had undertaken a
detailed analysis. The Board queried how the PHAS increase compared with MoH’s own
budget—if it received a 1% increase from the government, for example, why would it receive a
4.5% increase from ACC through PHAS funding. Mr Healy reported that he had discussed this
issue with the Treasury and had asked about reviewing the transparency of costs.
• Counselling service volumes, and therefore costs, had increased, largely because of sensitive
claims. However, the average cost had come down, since the claims were usually short term.
• Road ambulance costs would be increasing as they moved away from single-crewing.
Air ambulance costs would also increase as the fleet was renewed and the emergency
response requirements were revised.
Page 6 of 27 

---

• For rehabilitation, there were areas where ACC could influence the cost and areas where it
could not. For instance, while around half of personal support payments were linked to pay
equity, there had also been a 6% increase in hours per claim. Management was investigating
why this was happening; whether it was increased complexity or something else that ACC
could manage. The link between capital expenditure and vocational rehab would also be
looked at. The question was whether capital expenditure should result in fewer care hours.
• Another area that had seen increased costs was concussion services. This was expected, as
ACC had improved the service and increased the volume of early interventions. The main
focus was on sports, and the Board queried whether the service should be promoted in other
areas, such as violence and with cyclists.
In response to a Board query regarding whether ACC modified rental houses, Mr Healy answered 
affirmatively and noted that ACC modified rental properties every time a client had to move; this 
could be a policy or legislative area to discuss in the future. The Board discussed whether ACC 
should be playing a bigger role in submitting on legislative proposals in relation to housing and 
rental property, as ACC could be quite influential.  
In response to Mr Healy’s comment on the current volatility of claims volumes, the Board 
discussed the conversion rate to weekly compensation (WC) claims. Mr Raubal explained that the 
compelling analysis related to the drivers of WC, as the conversion rate was not useful information. 
The Board indicated that it found the report very useful, and was looking forward to gaining new 
insights as Mr Healy undertook the deep dives. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Note the Claims Costs Report. 
(c)
Operational and Financial Performance Report
Mr Healy explained the new layout of the Summary page of the Key Performance Measures, which 
simplified the overview of performance against targets. The status indicator showed whether ACC 
was on track. Reds would appear only if Management considered there was little chance of 
recovering to the target position. Hence the indicators tended to be ambers. In future reports, 
Mr Healy would add the 2017/18 actual numbers for comparison.  
Page 7 of 27 

---

The Board queried the Next Gen Launch Pad metrics against targets. Ms O’Connor explained that, 
when comparing Launch Pad to ACC’s business-as-usual metrics, the latter, which were duration-
driven, were performing better. She explained that Management did not believe that duration 
measures were a good reflection of ACC’s performance or of the wellness of injured people. The 
Board queried whether Next Gen had the right performance measures. It would be difficult to move 
from duration measures without being very sure. It was expected that Next Gen’s longer-duration 
rehab rates would improve. There was discussion regarding whether, at rollout time for Next Gen, 
there would be useful information on the long-term rate. Ms O’Connor responded that there would 
not. The Board noted that this was a risk for ACC. Ms O’Connor explained that Launch Pad was 
integrating longer-term claims into the new environment to better understand how the measures 
worked with all cohorts. The Board reassured Ms O’Connor that it was not backing down from its 
commitment to Next Gen. 
Mr Tully, responding to a business satisfaction question that had been raised by the Board at the 
July 2018 Board meeting, explained that external factors, such as general business confidence in 
the government, could explain part of the decline. Management was doing what it could to raise 
business confidence, but it would take time to get it back and separate ACC from views held about 
the government. Ms Powell would provide to the Board the results of ACC’s last quarter survey of 
business customers. The report had good insights and information about what was driving 
business sentiment.  
Mr Tully reported on the decline in the number of reviews, and the Request for Information for new 
reviewer providers.  
ACTIONS: Management to add a forecast column to the Key Performance Measures page, from 
half-year. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Note the Operational and Financial Performance Report. 
 Next Generation Case Management Stage Gate 3 Results and Rollout Plan 
Ms O’Connor thanked the Board for the challenge it had issued in June 2018 to see if Next Gen 
could move faster or if the rollout time could be compressed. It had caused the team to push 
against some of its own assumptions and barriers, with the following results: 
Page 8 of 27 

---

• Management had committed to providing the Board with the Stage Gate 3 results. Al
measures tracked in Launch Pad were ahead of target.
• Stretch targets had been set, over and above the benefits shown in the Business Case, against
which Management could be held to account. Ms O’Connor considered there were additional
benefits amounting to c.$26 mil ion.
• Three options for reducing the period of uncertainty for staff and clients had been considered,
and the recommendation was to adopt Option C which called for five hubs to be established in
two tranches: a small tranche in May 2019, with the remainder in July 2019. December 2019
would mark the end of the full rollout, but the actual deployment should be completed by
around September 2019, with people in new roles and trained in the new ways of working.
The Board queried the big risk identified in the paper – rollout exceeding capacity to change. 
Ms O’Connor explained that it was not just about Next Gen landing, it was also Eos 8.8, Client 
Payments, and the consultation that needed to happen before everything else in Next Gen. She 
believed that the right controls were in place and the right connections were in place with 
employees, but it was stil  the greatest area of risk. Ms Champness added that doing a smaller 
tranche in May 2019 had the advantage of allowing Management to test how the business 
managed the change. 
Ms Champness further explained that Management was waiting for the PSA to ratify the agreement 
that had been negotiated, but she was confident ratification would occur. The process had been 
positive and well managed from a relationship perspective.  
In response to the Board’s queries, Ms O’Connor explained that: 
• FTE would change at the time of each of the tranches going live: people would start leaving in
May 2019, with the full change completed by September 2019. Morale needed to be watched
closely and Management would continue to visit every site. The uncertainty remained real, and
sharing indicative information had increased anxiety for some while reducing it for others.
• The non-financial benefits were expected to remain constant, as Net Trust Score, and
customer and employee engagement, may not be able to move materially over the already
high targets.
• There had been no change in cost.
• The Board reporting going forward would include reports in September, October, and
December 2018, and likely in March 2019.
• The two main reasons rol out could not start before May 2019 were:
Page 9 of 27 

---

o
People implications. Doing right by ACC’s employees meant genuinely consulting with
them. Given the amount of change, May 2019 was the best date possible, especial y since
Management considered it would be unfair to stagger the consultation before and after
Christmas. In addition, there needed to be time to consider the feedback from some 2,500
employees from the consultation, and then sufficient time to consider the Expressions of
Interest from staff and to make selections.
o
Technical reasons. There were important technology enablers that needed to be in place
for Next Gen to succeed: having an Eos system with a single view of the claim was
necessary to work in the Assisted way, for instance, and an Analytics platform to do
exception-based reporting. The sequencing of the other projects was considered very
important for the success of Next Gen and also helped manage Next Gen migration risks
with clients.
The Board requested that a future report provide information on the links with the Health Sector 
Strategy. Ms O’Connor explained that there was good work occurring to understand the integration 
of the two programmes. 
The Board Chair mentioned that when she had been speaking with Branch Managers the previous 
day they had said they were up for going faster with change. 
ACTION: Management to provide information for a future Board paper on how Next Gen and the 
Health Sector Strategy linked together. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Note the Launch Pad has performed well against Stage Gate 3 performance measures,
that no systemic issues exist across the metrics that would prevent Launch Pad from
achieving its benefits case and that performance reinforces the decision to proceed with roll
out of Next Generation Case Management.
(b)
Note the $26 mil ion of incremental benefits that Management believes are achievable over
and above the business case approved in June 2018.
(c)
Approve the implementation approach (Option C) that wil  roll out Assisted and Enabled
Recovery to five hubs (Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin) and
implement Supported and Partnered Recovery in branches in two tranches starting in May
2019 and completing in December 2019.
Page 10 of 27 

---

  Board Papers 
 Cloud Data Storage 
Mr Fletcher explained that the paper was a follow-up to the Board’s approval of the Analytics 
programme in May 2018, when Management had reported that moving to the Analytics platform 
would mean putting health data in the cloud. Management recognised the sensitivity of the data and 
Mr Fletcher assured the Board that moving data to the cloud was not aimed at cost or efficiency 
gains. It was, instead, the way to best secure the data. The level of controls that would be in place 
was in line with the sensitivity of the data. ACC’s Privacy team had been involved, as had other 
government agencies. 
The Board’s consideration focused on the following: 
9(2)(g)(i)
• Australia’s rules for data moving across its borders. 9(2)(a)
 explained that Australian privacy
law would not apply to ACC data, but the wider Australian privacy practice told a good story
about why ACC felt comfortable holding its information there. The key was the public
perception of the issue, and 9(2)(a)
 agreed that more education was needed. The data
would be encrypted and ACC would hold the encryption keys. Management had considered
the possibility of anonymising data before putting it in the cloud, but that would not be practical,
as the platform could not operate on anonymised data.
9(2)(g)(i)
• Whether Mr Fletcher could assure the Board that ACC held no data that it should not (e.g.,
private information that was no longer necessary to hold). Mr Fletcher agreed he could not.
Page 11 of 27 

---

• ACC’s ability to close off data in the cloud if a hacker accessed ACC’s data. Mr Fletcher noted
that ACC needed to, and would, practice those scenarios regularly.
• Whether the New Zealand government had ever considered putting together an RFP for having
a cloud platform based in New Zealand. Mr Fletcher explained that the government had asked
Microsoft to explore the possibility, twice over the past five years, and that Microsoft’s feasibility
study found that the proposal would not be financially feasible.
• Comparisons with Australia. Mr Fletcher reported that a comparison of cloud controls between
an Australian counterpart and ACC had occurred between both organisations’ Chief
Information Security Officers; it had confirmed that ACC’s controls were at the same level as
the Australian party’s.
• New Zealand comparators. MSD was not at ACC’s level of information maturity and Inland
Revenue, the closest to ACC in terms of maturity, was moving to a cloud-based environment.
ACTION: Management to report back to the Board on any additional measures ACC could take to 
protect sensitive claims data.  
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Note that ACC recognises the sensitivity of some elements of our data and we are
committed to ensuring it is held and managed in the most secure way possible
(b)
Note that ACC has a cloud first strategy which aligns with Government expectations to
accelerate use of the public cloud to realise the benefits of security, cost and accessibility
(c)
Note that the use of public cloud services is critical to the continued success of our
Transformation Programme objectives and future operating model
(d)
Note that the overall risk profile of ACC’s cloud strategy is lower than our current on
premise data storage and provides enhanced security and improved resilience
(e)
Note that ACC is already using public cloud services hosted in Australia to support our
Business Customer Service Delivery model, MyACC and key Digital Enablement
capabilities
(f)
Note that the next step in ACC’s cloud strategy is the Analytics 2.0 programme which will
see all client and staff data replicated into cloud services hosted in Australia
Page 12 of 27 

---

(g)
Note that ACC’s use of cloud services complies with the Privacy Act, the Health Information
Security Framework and GCDO standards for government cloud services.
(h)
Note that Microsoft and Amazon contracts both contain clauses that require them to notify
ACC of any data breach or near breach and provide unlimited liability in relation to privacy
or confidentiality breaches.  Also, should there be a failure of the platform (such as denial of
service or insolvency), the contract can be terminated and we can request support in
finding a new provider.
(i)
Note that ACC wil  be holding a data breach table top exercise later this year that wil
encompass cloud storage.
9(2)(g)(i)
 Workplace Incentives 
Ms Powell introduced the paper. She reminded the Board that two approvals were being sought: 
one for the targeted financial incentives, and the other to make decisions on the Experience Rating 
(ER) and No Claims Discount proposals. This was in preparation for the levy consultation 
discussion which was next on the Agenda, and would determine whether they would be included in 
the proposals being put to the Minister.  
The Board queried whether the Minister had to agree on what ACC consulted on. Ms Powell 
explained that there were elements that the Minister consults on and there were elements ACC 
chooses to consult on and elements ACC was obliged to consult on. The Board sought clarification 
on whether, at this consultation phase, the Minister already had a say on what ACC could consult 
on. Ms Roche explained that legally it was the Board’s consultation process. The Minister wanted to 
use ACC’s consultation process to consult on other issues such as Vehicle Risk Rating (VRR). The 
Board questioned how this would look, since the Minister wanted to consult on removing VRR, a 
move ACC disagreed with. It would need to be clear that ACC was consulting on the Minister’s 
behalf regarding VRR. 
9(2)(a)
 explained that the Minister’s expectation was that ACC would consult on his behalf. 
The Board asked that the consultation document be clearly delineated into three parts: areas ACC 
must consult on for the levy-setting process; areas ACC was consulting on for the Minister, but 
Page 13 of 27 

---

making clear that the views in that document were the Minister’s; and areas ACC wanted to consult 
on but was not required to. 
It was unclear whether the Minister knew that ACC disagreed with his decision to remove VRR. The 
Board suggested that the consultation document clearly identify what the result of its removal would 
be, at least in ACC’s part of the document. 
The Board discussed the proposals for workplace safety incentives. Ms Powell explained the grants 
and subsidies proposals, the proposed changes to ER which would remedy issues that had been 
raised by customers and MBIE, and the proposed removal of the No Claims Discount which had 
created no real difference in performance. The Board was broadly supportive of the subsidy and 
grant proposals, provided robust controls were in place especially where funding would go toward 
research, and provided ACC had robust results measures. There was discussion about the types of 
research that would be eligible for grants. 
There was discussion about the lack of proposals for micro- and small businesses. In light of some 
of the other levies proposals, such as distance charges, the Board was concerned that those 
businesses may feel hard hit. 9(2)(a)
 explained that business associations would be eligible for 
the grants and that many micro- and small businesses belonged to associations (e.g., Master 
Builders, Master Plumbers, etc); they would benefit from their associations’ access to the grants. 
The Board queried the $4.5 mil ion identified in the paper for annual administration costs to run the 
programmes, noting that ACC needed to be careful about signing itself up for such high annual 
administration charges, and querying whether it was typical that a third of the costs would be on 
administration and set up. 
The Board asked whether the proposed removal of the No Claims Discount had been covered in 
the co-design process ACC had undertaken. 9(2)(a)
 explained that it had not specifical y been 
discussed. The Board suggested that this meant small businesses would be hit with the No Claims 
Discount disappearing after already having lost WSD and WSMP last year. The Board expressed 
concern about taking away the No Claims Discount with nothing to replace it; it would be better to 
signal in this levy round that the No Claims Discount would be removed in the next levy round, but 
that further work on something to replace it would be done before the No Claims Discount was 
cancelled. The Board noted that it had expressed its discomfort when the last incentives were 
removed and considered that the lesson should be learned that if ACC wanted to do something like 
this, it must front foot it and have something lined up to replace it. The Board was not prepared to 
remove the No Claims Discount at this point. 
Page 14 of 27 

---

The Board suggested that the consultation document commence each proposal with what ACC’s 
customers were saying. This would show that ACC listened to its customers. 
ACTION: Management to provide a paper for a future Board meeting, explaining the $4.5 mil ion 
annual administration costs for the workplace safety incentives, and how to reduce those costs. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Note that ACC has completed a co-design process with more than 500 customers, workers
and other key stakeholders over an 18-month period to improve the effectiveness of ACC’s
workplace safety incentives.
(b)
Approve funding of $34 mil ion for the five years to July 2023 to deliver targeted financial
incentives to the market (made up of $22 mil ion in workplace injury prevention subsidies
and grants, $7.6 mil ion in establishment costs including design and trial costs, technology
solutions, and the contingency of $1 mil ion, and $4.4 mil ion of operational costs), and that
the funding would come from the Injury Prevention budgets for 2018/19 to 2022/23.
(c)
Note that the Targeted Financial Incentives Business Case is available on request to
9(2)(a)
, Manager Corporate Secretariat. 
(d)
Approve ACC consulting the Minister for ACC about using the September 2018 levy
consultation to also consult on the proposal to improve Experience Rating by making
enhancements and to signal removing the No-Claims Discount.
(e)
Note the proposed average Work Account levy rate for 2019-21 is $0.66 per $100 of liable
earnings, assuming no changes to Experience Rating.
(f)
Note that the proposed enhancements to the Experience Rating Programme for medium to
larger businesses would increase the proposed average Work Account levy rate for 2019-
21 by $0.01 per $100 of liable earnings.
(g)
Note that later in 2018, the Board wil  be asked to consider a proposal to improve the
Accredited Employers Programme should the Minister for ACC decide there is a continued
role for self-insurance in the accident compensation scheme.
Page 15 of 27 

---

 Levy Recommendations 
Mr Raubal explained the changes to the rates. The biggest increase was in the Motor Vehicle 
Account and the Earner’s Account was increasing by 3 cents instead of 1 cent, due to the Board’s 
decision at the July 2018 meeting regarding increasing the contractual amount for the Home and 
Community Support Services contract and to refinements to the expected ICIP benefits. 
In response to a Board query, Mr Raubal explained that removing VRR would not affect the 
average rate, only how it was distributed: cars with higher safety ratings would have an increase 
while other cars would have decreases in levy payments. 
The Board discussed: 
• Increasing motorcycle levies proportionally with the Motor Vehicle Levy, while noting that
motorcyclists were being heavily subsidised by other vehicle users and paying about one-
quarter of what they should be paying. The dollar value of the increase for motorcycles would
be about $25-$30.
• The petrol levy and whether it should be changed in view of the government’s proposal to
remove VRR. The Board considered it was too late to consider changing the petrol levy
proposal.
• Being careful in how the consultation document parts were written, to ensure ACC did not
appear to support the plan to remove VRR.
• Being clear about what ACC was consulting on and having a separate part to the document for
the Minister’s consultation.
• The options to provide discounts to motorcyclists who complete Ride Forever training. Those
were not matters that ACC was required to consult on in this levy round. The $100 incentive for
Ride Forever seemed large, however programmes that kept people from dying or being injured
were worthwhile.
• Multi-vehicle discounts and distance based levying. These were being consulted on now for
insights for the next levy round’s proposals – not for inclusion in the current levy changes.
• Pre-consultation. The Board disagreed with pre-consultation and would not seek the Minister’s
permission undertake it. The Board suggested providing an early embargoed copy to certain
organisations on the day of public release of the consultation document, if Management wished
to take that route.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Page 16 of 27 

---

(a)
Note that the upcoming consultation on the 2019/21 levies period wil  comprise three parts:
i. changes to levy rates, which the Board is legally required to consult on,
ii. changes to levy settings and other levy proposals, which the Board is not legally
required to consult on, but which are included in this consultation to socialise with our
customers.
iii. changes to levy policies, which are the Minister’s proposals.
Board’s proposals where consultation is legally required 
(b)
Agree to the following average levy rates for public consultation:
i. For the Motor Vehicle Account, an increase to $127.68 per vehicle.
ii. For the Earners’ Account, an increase to $1.24 per $100 of liable earnings.
iii. For the Work Account, a decrease to $0.67 per $100 of liable earnings, based on the
Board’s decision to retain the No Claims Discount.
(c)
Agree that Motor Vehicle levies for motorcycles should be increased in proportion to the
average vehicle levy increases for 2019/21.
(d)
Agree that the petrol levy should increase from 6 cents per litre to 7.9 cents per litre so that
current funding split across petrol charges (45%) and registration fees (55%) is maintained.
(e)
Agree that the Motorcycle Safety Levy should be maintained at $25 per vehicle.
(f)
Agree that ACC should include the following proposals, which take effect in the coming
levy period, in the consultation in order to seek customer feedback:
i. Updating minimum and maximum liable earnings.
ii. Updates to fees and discounts for the Accredited Employer Programme.
Board’s proposals where consultation is not legally required 
(g)
Agree that ACC should include the following proposals, which take effect in the coming
levy period, in the consultation in order to seek customer feedback:
Page 17 of 27 

---

i. An incentive programme for riders that complete Ride Forever course.
ii. New injury prevention initiative funding.
(h)
Agree that ACC should include the following proposals in the consultation in order to seek
customer feedback:
i. Shifting to distance based levying.
ii. Discounts for multiple vehicles.
(i)
Note that these two proposals are more exploratory in nature and would not be
implemented in the coming levy round.
Minister’s proposals 
(j)
Note that ACC wil  be consulting on behalf of the Minister, subject to his approval:
i. Classification Unit/Levy Risk Group changes.
ii. Experience rating changes.
iii. Aligning the income year and levy year for self-employed levies.
iv. Maintaining Fleet Saver discounts at current levels.
v. Consultation process
(k)
Delegate sign out of the consultation Cabinet paper to the Board Chair and Mr Mil er.
(l)
Delegate to the Board Chair and Mr Mil er the release of the consultation document to the
Minister. 
(m)
Note that Management wil  consider public submissions and make recommendations to the
Board on final levy rates in November 2018.
(n)
Note that Management intends to discuss public consultation with the Minister for ACC
prior to formal noting by Cabinet in September 2018.
(o)
Note that the following papers are available on request from 9(2)(a)
i. Draft Actuarial pricing reports
Page 18 of 27 

---

ii. Proposed 2019-21 Work Levy Rates (ACC Workplace Cover and ACC CoverPlus)
iii. Proposed 2019-21 CoverPlus Extra rates
iv. Proposed 2019-21 AEP Partnership Discount Plan Discount rates
v. Consultation on 2019/21 and 2020/21 ACC levies Cabinet paper and appendices
vi. How ACC is funded A3 (to support the Cabinet paper)
 Annual Report 
Mr Healy presented the draft annual report, thanked the Board Members for their feedback over 
successive earlier iterations, and noted that there were stil  some actions to be closed off such as 
including the Minister’s forward and obtaining Māori translations of the forwards. 
The Board suggested that the ACC Snapshot in the report should have a line stating the 
percentage of ACC money “invested in the New Zealand economy”, instead of the references to 
investments in bonds and equities. It would also be good to say ACC was the entity most invested 
in the New Zealand share market.  
The Board noted the Environmental, Social, and Governance section and thanked Mr Healy for 
including it. 
The final version would be signed out at the Board’s September 2018 meeting and would be 
provided to the Minister in early October. The Chair of the Board Risk Assurance and Audit 
Committee noted that the only substantive changes would relate to the Taylor Fry valuation. She 
also asked Management to turn its mind to any subsequent events that would need to be included. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Note the draft 2018 Annual Report. 
 Government Priorities in Primary Care 
9(2)(a)
 briefed the Board on the paper which responded to the current government’s policy 
decisions. For ACC, it would mean some changes to the rural GP and urgent care contracts. ACC 
did not have the same levers under the Cost of Treatment Regulations to put in guaranteed price 
reductions, but experience showed there would be around 85% compliance with full pass through. 
The Board discussed the alignment of the proposal with ACC’s strategic direction. The Board 
Page 19 of 27 

---

accepted that the sooner people can obtain care, the more likely it is to minimise the impact of 
injury, which is aligned with ACC’s strategic direction. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Note the ACC Minister has agreed to align with Ministry of Health policy by implementing
Community Services Card (CSC) rates and extending fee-free visits to under 14 year olds
for clients’ injury related presentations.
(b)
Note implementation of CSC rates and extending fee-free visits to under 14 year olds
requires amendments to the Cost of Treatment Regulations and to ACC’s Rural General
Practice and Urgent Care contracts.
(c)
Note the additional annual cash claims costs for implementing the proposed changes into
Cost of Treatment Regulations is $5.8m.
(d)
Note the additional annual cash cost of the proposed changes under the Urgent Care
Contract and Rural General Practice contracts are $4.1m and $2.6m respectively.
(e)
Note cash costs of these initiatives across Cost of Treatment Regulations, Rural General
Practice and Urgent Care Contracts are included within the 2018/19 financial year budget
and Outstanding Claims Liability forecasts.
(f)
Note that, as the Whole of Life Costs (WoLC) is greater than $30 mil ion for both the Urgent
Care and Rural General Practice contracts, under Schedule B4.1 of ACC’s Corporate
Delegations the Board is required to approve the change.  Anticipated WoLC costs
inclusive of the proposed changes are:
(g)
$561m for the Urgent Care Contract period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2023.
(h)
$272.38m for the Rural General Practice contract period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2019.
(i)
Approve the changes for the Urgent Care and Rural General Practice contracts to include
the CSC rates and extending fee-free visits to under 14 year olds.
(j)
Approve engagement with the Minister for ACC via MBIE to implement inclusion of the
CSC rates and extension of fee-free visits to under 14 year olds under Cost of Treatment
Regulations.
Page 20 of 27 

---

(k)
Note the changes are compliant with ACC’s Procurement Policy and the Government
Rules of Sourcing.
 Policies 
(a)
Health and Safety
Ms Champness explained that Management had refreshed the policy with a robust framework. The 
Board complimented Ms Champness on the bowtie analysis, but cautioned that the Board should 
have clarity around the cluster analysis and overlapping health and safety duties. The Board 
preferred to be told where the boundaries were, rather than being told only that Management knew 
where the boundaries were. The Board requested that future policy reviews include a marked-up 
copy to allow the Board to more clearly see what had changed.  
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Approve the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy. 
(b)
Information Management
Mr Fletcher explained that the policy was in line with Management’s commitment to maturing its 
information management functions and responsibilities. The Board noted that the definition of ‘our 
information’ in the policy did not match up with the definition in the Privacy Policy and should be 
amended to clarify ways in which information should be used, with reference back to the Privacy 
Policy. 
The Board requested that the policy not be aspirational in content. From employees’ perspective, 
the policy should be a guide of what they were expected to do in the current environment. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Note the proposed changes to the Information Management Policy.
(b)
Note that a revised policy would be presented to the Board at its next meeting.
(c)
Privacy
The Board discussed the Privacy Policy. 
Page 21 of 27 

---

RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Approve the Privacy Policy. 
 Tranche 1 Close Out Report 
Mr Pickering presented the paper, noting that it had arisen from the Board’s discussion in June 
2018. Since then, Management had changed the tone of the report to reflect what had happened 
and the lessons that had been learned. The report had also incorporated the EY Post 
Implementation Review recommendations. 
In response to a query from the Board, Mr Pickering explained that the report was already serving 
a useful purpose and was a reminder to be open, transparent and up-front. Tranche 1 should not 
be considered a failure; much had been achieved to change ACC to a transforming environment. 
The Board complimented Mr Pickering on the rewrite; it was very balanced. Any further revision 
must accurately reflect the EY review. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Note the changes made to the End Programme Report: Transformation Tranche 1, which
include:
i. Revision of the language and tone through the document.
ii. Inclusion of key findings from EY’s PIR have been included in the Lessons Learned
section of the document.
iii. The factual capture of programme decision points has not changed.
(b)
Approve the End Programme Report: Transformation Tranche 1.
(c)
Approve sharing the End Programme Report: Transformation Tranche 1 with the Minister
and Treasury.
Performance Reports 
 Health and Safety Report 
Ms Champness introduced the Report. Discussion focused on the targets for the year and staff 
turnover. In response to questions from the Board, Ms Champness explained that – 
Page 22 of 27 

---

• For sensitive claims the main issue was difficulties in recruiting replacement staff for the unit in
Wellington. That issue had been resolved by setting up two new teams in Hawke’s Bay.
• There was a plan for high performers during the Next Gen transition phase. While high
performer turnover had previously been over 10%, it had decreased to around 8%.
Mr Pickering thanked Mr May for attending, judging, and presenting at ACC’s Safe Kiwi Awards at 
the beginning of August 2018. Mr May reported that he had enjoyed the judging and seeing the 
team spirit across the network. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Note actions underway to mature our safety system, demonstrate safety leadership and
strengthen our safety culture.
(b)
Note there were no notifiable events in July 2018.
(c)
Note the health and safety performance indicators.
 Policy Update and Legal Report 
The General Counsel update the Board on three matters: 
• Torchlight: A hearing was due to take place on 10 September 2018 concerning the judge's
proposal to publish his judgment. A communications approach would be necessary in the event
of publication.
• In the aftermath of the Bazley Report on Russell McVeagh, ACC had reconsidered whether it
should keep its current practice of using lawyers from Russell McVeagh. None of the lawyers
ACC used were implicated in any of the allegations, and ACC was satisfied it could continue
using the firm. However, ACC would not issue a statement until after MBIE had decided what
to do with the firm regarding the Al  of Government contracts for legal services.
• ACC was seeking a registration of interest in ACC’s appeals work. The General Counsel was
hopeful that a new Panel would be in place by December 2018.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Note the legal report. 
Page 23 of 27 

---

Ms Roche presented the policy report, explaining the issues to be discussed with the Minister on 
the ACC legislative reform issues.  
The Board discussed: 
• Hearing loss and agreed to support the status quo approach.
• Volunteers and work-related cover for volunteers. ACC was suggesting the definition of
volunteer should match the definition in the Health and Safety at Work Act, as that clearly
defined the boundaries; the funding would need to be provided through the Non-Earners’
Account.
• The State Sector Act reform to be launched on 4 September 2018. Ms Roche summarised
the points from the SSC’s pre-consultation documents. There were a number of areas of the
consultation where the reach of proposals was unclear. SSC was inviting submissions from
agency Boards and staff separately. The Board’s view was that ACC, if it chose to submit on
the consultation, must speak with one voice.
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
(a)
Note the Board has previously supported the following issues being included within the
legislative reform programme – extension of weekly compensation entitlement to non-
earners who are earners when incapacitated, extension of work-related cover to volunteers,
and changes to loss of potential earnings (LOPE) rate.
(b)
Note we wil  be providing further advice to the Minister over the next month on:
i. Earner status – the specific incapacity test that would be applied to non-earners in order
that they would be eligible for weekly compensation and account allocation for funding
ii. Loss of potential earnings – reconfirming previous advice on recommended rate
following further work the Minister requested
iii. Work-related cover for volunteers – the definition of volunteer which would apply for the
extension of cover and account allocation for funding
iv. Hearing loss – additional options on the threshold for hearing loss cover and whether to
retain the age-scale for determining the level of age-related hearing loss.
Page 24 of 27 

---

(c)
Note this paper summarises the advice that wil  be provided to the Minister and we wil
provide the Board with copies of the briefings for information via the weekly report.
(d)
Note we continue to work with the actuaries as options are developed to refine the costs of
the changes.  Costs here are latest estimates based on work-to-date.
(e)
Note, given the timetable for legislative change, costs are not expected to impact the
current levy setting time period.
(f)
Note that in September the Minister wil  seek Cabinet’s agreement to the scope of the
legislative programme and to issuing drafting instructions to the Parliamentary Counsel
Office to begin the re-write process.
(g)
Note the Board has reviewed this Cabinet paper and we wil  provide you with a final version
of the paper for information following Ministerial consultation.
Committee Updates 
 Investment Committee 
Mr Janes updated the Board on the matters considered at the Investment Committee meeting on 
29 August 2018, including the discussion that had been had on the KiwiBank valuation. He 
recommended that Management and all Board Members read Mr Paul Dyer’s qualitative paper on 
investment risks. The Committee had approved investing $65 mil ion in Crown Infrastructure 
Partner’s Mil dale project. The Board Chair noted her interest in that matter. 
NOTED: The ACC Board noted the Investment Committee update. 
 Risk Assurance & Audit Committee 
Ms Mazzoleni updated the Board on the papers considered at the Risk Assurance and Audit 
Committee meeting on 29 August 2018. The key items were: 
• The annual report and accounts.
• The ESCO ratings which were provisionally the same as for the past year, but there was a
clear path noted to move to very good next year on all but financial control environment
which could take a longer time as manual processes needed to change.
Page 25 of 27 

---

• The audit was unqualified, but the Taylor Fry report was stil  awaited.
• In the risk monitoring report, the two front of mind issues were business continuity planning
and cyber security in Investments.
• The KPMG compliance review, which provided a fit-for-purpose rating, but noted areas
where ACC needed to achieve a step change.
• There had been a good report from Integrity Services regarding progress with its change
process.
• The assurance plan had been pulled, but would be brought back.
Board Administration 
 Minutes of Meeting held on 26 July 2018 
APPROVED: The Board resolved to approve the minutes of the Board meeting held on 26 July 
2018. 
 Schedule of Matters Arising  
The Board noted that a number of actions were outstanding. 
 Confirmation of Decisions Made Out of Cycle 
Note that there were no decisions made out of cycle. 
 Annual Work Programme 
NOTED: The ACC Board noted the annual work programme. 
General Business 
The Board congratulated Ms Powell on being appointed to the position of Chief Customer Officer. 
The Board thanked Professor Gorman and expressed appreciation for his six years on the Board, 
and especial y for his contribution to the Health Sector Strategy. 
Page 26 of 27 

---

The Board Chair noted she would be attending the Trans-Tasman cyber-security delegation in 
Dublin in September 2018 and that she would report back upon her return. 
The Board Chair informed the Board she had attended a signing ceremony with the Acting Chair of 
WorkSafe to sign the Agreement for Injury Prevention Measures. 
RESOLVED: The ACC Board resolved to: 
Note that the Board Chair signed the Agreement for Injury Prevention Measures undertaken by 
WorkSafe and ACC, the funding for which the Board approved at its February 2018 meeting. 
Appoint Mr Mil er to the Governance and Remuneration Committee. 
Confirmation of Next Meeting 
To be held at the ACC Board Room, Level 7, Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street, Wellington on 
Thursday 27 September 2018 at 9.00 am. 
Closure 
The meeting closed at 4.25 pm. 
Approved 
Chair …………………………………………………………. 
Date ……………………………… 
Page 27 of 27 

---

Document Outline

• 6.1(a) September 2018 Legal Report
• 6.1(b) Monthly Board Policy Update - September 2018
• 6.2 Health Safety and Wellbeing Report 2018 August
• 8.2 Schedule of Matters Arising
• 8.3 Decisions made out of cycle
• 8.3(a) Board Decision and Noting Register 2017-18
• 8.4 Annual Work Programme [BRD (18) 03]
• Board Agenda September 2018
• Board minutes 30 August 2018

---