Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

I write under the Official Information Act 1982 to request information relating to ACC’s decision to discontinue public reporting of the measure “claims processed per FTE” in its Annual Report.

This request sits squarely within the accountability of Deputy Chief Executive Andrew Milne, responsible for scheme performance and performance reporting, and Deputy Chief Executive and CFO Stewart McRobie, responsible for financial stewardship, cost control and the integrity of the control environment. The removal of this metric occurred during a period of deteriorating productivity, escalating staffing numbers, and mounting scheme pressures.

The “claims processed per FTE” measure showed sustained decline over multiple years. Rather than transparently confronting that deterioration, ACC removed the metric from public reporting at the same time that case manager FTE numbers were being materially increased.

The optics are unavoidable. A productivity measure declines. Headcount rises sharply. The measure disappears.

This sequence gives rise to a reasonable public concern that productivity weakness was not solved, but obscured. Instead of delivering structural efficiency, sustainable reform, or genuine performance improvement, ACC appears to have relied on adding staff to manage backlog and pressure. That is not transformation. It is cost expansion.

As CFO, Stewart McRobie is accountable for financial discipline, cost management and ensuring a robust control environment. The substantial growth in FTE during a period of deteriorating productivity raises serious questions about cost oversight and value for money. As DCE responsible for performance reporting, Andrew Milne is accountable for what ACC chooses to measure and publish. The removal of a deteriorating productivity metric from public reporting inevitably calls into question the integrity of performance transparency under his leadership.

ACC now promotes a Turnaround Plan and highlights selected metrics to demonstrate improvement. However, the removal of this productivity measure prior to that plan limits the public’s ability to assess whether improvements reflect genuine efficiency gains or simply the consequence of throwing more people at the problem.

This issue is especially acute in the context of the Government’s stated focus on public sector efficiency and headcount restraint. If performance gains are being achieved primarily through workforce expansion rather than improved productivity, that is a matter of clear public interest.

Accordingly, I request the following:

1. Claims Processed per FTE – Subsequent Years

For each financial year following the last Annual Report that included this measure, that is from FY2023/24 onwards:

a) The annual “claims processed per FTE” result;
b) The year on year percentage increase or decrease;
c) Any internal targets, forecasts, or expected values set for this measure.

2. Decision to Remove the Measure

All advice, briefing notes, emails, memoranda, Board papers, or formal documentation provided to or from:

ACC Executive Leadership Team

ACC Board

The Minister for ACC

that relate to:

a) The decision to remove “claims processed per FTE” as a publicly reportable Annual Report measure;
b) The rationale for its removal;
c) Any discussion of performance deterioration, FTE growth, cost pressures, reputational risk, or accountability implications associated with continuing or discontinuing publication of this metric;
d) Identification of who recommended and who approved that change.

For clarity, I am seeking the documented governance and decision trail behind the removal of this measure during a period when it was trending negatively and staffing levels were expanding materially.

Given the scale of ACC’s levy funding and public financial stewardship responsibilities, there is a strong public interest in transparency regarding productivity reporting and the integrity of performance disclosure.

If any information is withheld, please specify the section of the Act relied upon and provide reasons for refusal. I request the information in electronic format.

I do not expect an extension to be required.

Yours faithfully,

DC