ACC on Monday directly apologised to the journalists who made the requests, acknowledging the Ombudsman\u2019s view that its decision was \u201cunreasonable and wrong\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cI apologise for ACC\u2019s failure to disclose information that we should have,\u201d a letter from chief executive Megan Main says. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe recognise that we should have handled the approach to your request differently and accept the decision we made to exclude those costs from the scope of the request and response was unreasonable.\u201d <\/p>\n
It said it had taken \u201csignificant steps\u201d to strengthen its record-keeping processes and improve transparency, as well as revising its travel policy so that travel \u201cto be undertaken solely for the purpose of attending farewell events or other staff celebrations\u201d is not allowed. <\/p>\n
ACC head Megan Main has apologised for the OIA responses. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell<\/p>\n
The requests were made in August 2023 off the back of revelations the Ministry of Pacific Peoples had spent nearly $40,000 on farewelling its former chief executive. Journalists wanted to know about other agencies\u2019 expenditure on events costing above $10,000, including any hosted by ACC. <\/p>\n
According to a report from the Ombudsman, ACC initially identified the farewell event for outgoing deputy chief executive, chief M\u0101ori and equity officer Michelle Murray, cost \u201cin the region of $18,000\u201d and was therefore within the scope of the OIA requests. <\/p>\n
However, in the process of gathering information and drafting a response to the requests, staff considered whether to exclude employee costs \u2013 such as on travel and accommodation \u2013 if they had attended the event but had travelled to Wellington for what was described as \u201cother work\u201d. <\/p>\n
Internal correspondence within ACC said this \u201cother work\u201d included \u201ctransition planning, board and engagement planning and learning\u201d. <\/p>\n
One staff member said they advised another it depended on whether the \u201ccore purpose\u201d of their travel was to attend the event, \u201ci.e. would they have been traveling to Wellington had the farewell event not occurred?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the answer is yes, their travel and accommodation is out of scope. If the answer is no, then the core purpose of that travel\/accommodation is the farewell, and it should be included,\u201d the employee\u2019s advice is reported as. <\/p>\n
The Ombudsman, John Allen, said it initially appeared ACC would disclose the cost, estimated at around $18,000, with a caveat explaining that 11 staff travelled to Wellington \u201cto attend the farewell but were also there on other business\u201d. <\/p>\n
To evidence the \u201cother work\u201d, ACC provided the Ombudsman with meeting invitations showing some, but not all, of the 11 travelling staff members\u2019 names. <\/p>\n
\u201cACC provided high-level descriptions on the purpose of the gathering and the meetings but confirmed that no formal documentation such as minutes, was available,\u201d the report said. <\/p>\n
However, changes were then suggested for the OIA response. For example, the ACC media team is reported to have advised removing a section that broke down the direct costs associated with the event ($7584), and the costs of travel and accommodation for staff who attended but also did other work while in Wellington ($9703). <\/p>\n
ACC\u2019s head of government engagement also asked staff for spreadsheets of costs.<\/p>\n
One staff member replied, asking if \u201cflights and accommodation for those who \u2018travelled to Wellington to attend [DCE] farewell but did work too\u2019 are not in scope?\u201d The head of government engagement responded that \u201cpeople who did other stuff aren\u2019t included\u201d. <\/p>\n
They estimated that \u201ctakes 9k off\u201d. <\/p>\n
The Ombudsman\u2019s report states \u201csome ACC colleagues appear to express concerns\u201d, with one employee commenting in the work online chat, \u201c\u2018other work\u2019. This is wrong. Fundamentally wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n
The head of government engagement is reported as acknowledging the comment and saying: \u201cEverybody knows that … Including [chief executive].\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201c[Name of Staff 1], can you please change the sign-out on the letter to my name and title. I\u2019ll send you my signature. I\u2019m not going to ask [colleague] to sign this one out and will do it instead. I am sorry both. I worked as hard as I can to get this to land somewhere that I was comfortable with.\u201d <\/p>\n
The final OIA responses were then sent, advising the requestors that no events had been identified within scope, meaning above the $10,000 threshold. <\/p>\n
Chief Ombudsman John Allen has been investigating the OIA response. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell<\/p>\n
In September 2023, the Ombudsman\u2019s office received a protected disclosure that alleged that senior ACC management \u201chad manipulated data relating to a farewell event in 2023 for a DCE [deputy chief executive]\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt was alleged that the actual cost of the event was approximately $18,000 and that ACC purposely manipulated that data to bring the event cost to under $10,000 and as such out of scope of the OIA requests,\u201d the Ombudsman\u2019s report says. <\/p>\n
The Ombudsman\u2019s office contacted ACC for information and began an investigation in April last year, leading to today\u2019s ruling. <\/p>\n
Considering the information, the Ombudsman said it was its determination \u201cACC has acted unreasonably in its management of its response to the OIA requests\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt is my opinion that ACC has failed to demonstrate the case that approximately $9703 of the farewell costs can be attributed to \u2018other work\u2019 and that those expenses would have occurred regardless of the farewell.\u201d <\/p>\n
The Ombudsman said ACC hadn\u2019t provided information \u201cwhich adequately details the specifics of what \u2018other work\u2019 entailed and that it would have occurred regardless of the farewell\u201d. <\/p>\n
It was also \u201cclear\u201d some staff were \u201cuncomfortable\u201d with ACC\u2019s position, Allen said.<\/p>\n
ACC\u2019s \u201cretrospective information analysis\u201d to determine if staff would have been in Wellington regardless of the farewell also suggested \u201cpoor record keeping and \u201cpotentially a failure to actively monitor costs\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis is concerning given it is a matter of public funding. ACC\u2019s sensitive expenditure policy states that records should hold up to parliamentary and public scrutiny, and be consistent with standards of probity and financial prudence. This is not possible with poor record keeping.\u201d <\/p>\n
The Ombudsman\u2019s report contains ACC\u2019s response, including its acknowledgement that it could have handled the OIA requests differently.<\/p>\n
Changes have been made at ACC to strengthen processes and introduce a new travel policy, effective from August this year, prohibiting travel solely for farewell events or other staff celebrations. Farewells are also only allowed in the case of retirement and costs exceeding $250 must get DCE approval.<\/p>\n
Other adjustments include ensuring travel activity is tracked and reviewed and creating a \u201cdedicated Workplace Integrity function to support ethical decision making\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cFinally, ACC stated that it is committed to fostering a culture where staff feel safe and supported to raise concerns where they feel ACC is not acting in line with best practice or ACC values.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Ombudsman said it was \u201cencouraged\u201d by ACC\u2019s steps and, given the improvements it had made, it\u2019s only recommendation was for ACC to apologise, which it had already agreed to do.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo ensure that other agencies are aware of this investigation and its conclusions. I consider it appropriate to publish my opinion on the Ombudsman\u2019s website.\u201d<\/p>\n
In ACC\u2019s apology letter, Main confirmed the total costs of the farewell was $17,287.29, including nearly $17,000 in domestic travel, accommodation and meals for staff attending it and related meetings, and $294 for catering.<\/p>\n
These costs also include $603 for flights and accommodation for one family member of the outgoing DCE, \u201cin accordance with tikanga requiring ACC to hand executive leaders back to their wh\u0101nau\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe event was attended by a number of ACC kaimahi, including 18 staff members who travelled to Wellington. While some of these staff also participated in strategic planning meetings, their presence at the farewell was considered culturally appropriate and encouraged.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jamie Ensor is a senior political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. He was a finalist this year for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"ACC on Monday directly apologised to the journalists who made the requests, acknowledging the Ombudsman\u2019s view that its…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":76654,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59784,1081,74,38860,43507,4282,9063,334,12797,45435,802,8231,49477,4377,4053,2688,1866,71,42,15415,12898,22055,43,5908,59787,12792,9478,5034,5843,61,40,38,41,39,59786,13026,59785],"class_list":["post-76653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headlines","tag-acc","tag-accident","tag-after","tag-apologised","tag-apologises","tag-boss","tag-celebration","tag-compensation","tag-complaint","tag-corporation","tag-costs","tag-event","tag-excluded","tag-executives","tag-exposes","tag-farewell","tag-find","tag-from","tag-headlines","tag-information","tag-investigation","tag-leads","tag-news","tag-official","tag-oia","tag-ombudsman","tag-requests","tag-response","tag-senior","tag-to","tag-top-news","tag-top-stories","tag-topnews","tag-topstories","tag-unreasonably","tag-watchdog","tag-whistleblower"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76653\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/76654"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}