The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has apologised after a whistleblower complaint revealed it wrongly withheld the true cost of a senior executive’s farewell in Wellington. The Chief Ombudsman has found ACC “acted unreasonably” when it excluded nearly $10,000 in travel and accommodation costs from its official disclosure.

The farewell, held in Wellington for outgoing deputy chief executive and chief Māori and equity officer Michelle Murray, cost $17,287.29 in total. The figure included almost $17,000 for domestic travel, accommodation, and meals for staff, and $294 for catering. It also covered $603 for the flights and accommodation of a family member of the departing executive, described by ACC as being “in accordance with tikanga requiring ACC to hand executive leaders back to their whānau.”

When journalists requested under the Official Information Act (OIA) a list of events costing more than $10,000, ACC said none met that threshold. However, the Ombudsman’s investigation found that the agency had excluded costs “unreasonably,” reducing the total to around $7,500 by claiming part of the spending was related to “other work.”

The watchdog’s ruling followed a protected disclosure made in September 2023, alleging that senior ACC management “manipulated data” to keep the farewell below the $10,000 mark. After months of review, the Chief Ombudsman, John Allen, confirmed ACC “failed to demonstrate” that the additional costs could be separated from the farewell itself.

“It is my opinion that ACC has acted unreasonably in its management of its response to the OIA requests,” Allen said. “ACC has failed to demonstrate the case that approximately $9,703 of the farewell costs can be attributed to ‘other work’ and that those expenses would have occurred regardless of the farewell.”

Internal messages reviewed during the investigation showed that some ACC staff were deeply uncomfortable with the decision to exclude certain expenses. One employee wrote in a chat, “‘Other work’. This is wrong. Fundamentally wrong.” The comment was acknowledged by ACC’s head of government engagement, who replied, “Everybody knows that … including [the chief executive].”

The Ombudsman found ACC’s explanations vague and poorly supported. The agency could not produce detailed records to prove that staff would have travelled to Wellington even without the farewell. Some evidence provided included meeting invites for certain attendees, but no formal minutes or notes existed to confirm that “other work” took place.

“This is concerning given it is a matter of public funding,” Allen said. “ACC’s sensitive expenditure policy states that records should hold up to parliamentary and public scrutiny. This is not possible with poor record keeping.”

ACC’s chief executive, Megan Main, issued a direct apology to journalists who made the OIA requests, admitting the corporation’s handling of the issue was wrong. “I apologise for ACC’s failure to disclose information that we should have,” Main said in a letter. “We 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.”

The farewell, which took place in Wellington, came under scrutiny at a time when public concern was high about government agencies spending large sums on staff farewells. Journalists made the OIA requests in August 2023, shortly after it was revealed that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples had spent nearly $40,000 on a similar event.

The Ombudsman said that while ACC’s conduct was flawed, the corporation has since taken steps to improve transparency. Among the changes, it has introduced a new travel policy that prohibits travel “solely for the purpose of attending farewell events or other staff celebrations.” Now, farewells can only be held for retirements, and any costs exceeding $250 must get approval from a deputy chief executive.

ACC has also created a “dedicated Workplace Integrity function” to help guide ethical decisions and to encourage staff to raise concerns safely. It has strengthened its record-keeping and monitoring of travel spending to prevent similar issues in the future.

Allen said he was encouraged by these improvements and recommended only that ACC formally apologise, which it has already done. He added that the Ombudsman’s findings will be published to ensure other public agencies are aware of the conclusions.

The ruling and apology have sparked discussion across Wellington, where the farewell took place and where ACC’s head office is based. The case has reignited public debate about government accountability and the responsible use of taxpayer money.

For Wellington residents, the controversy hits close to home. Many see it as a reminder that public institutions must uphold the highest standards of honesty and transparency—especially when spending public funds.

As one Wellington public servant put it after the report’s release, “When agencies start massaging numbers, trust disappears. People in this city deserve better.”

ACC has promised it will learn from the Ombudsman’s findings and rebuild public confidence. “We are 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,” Main said.

With the watchdog’s report now public, Wellington will be watching closely to see if ACC truly delivers on that promise.