As we know, the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority have been playing the populist politicians, “demanding” that banks (in particular) prove that they are not guilty of the sort of misconduct coming to light in the Australian Royal Commission. The Governor had told us he thought New Zealand banks were different, until either he saw which way the political winds were blowing, or saw the FMA getting on the bandwagon and didn’t want to be left behind. But proving your own innocence is simply not something anyone in a free society should be required to do.
But what about the regulatory agencies themselves? They don’t deal directly with the general public very much, but if they are mounting their bully pulpits and demanding banks (private businesses) prove themselves, we might first reasonably expect the highest possible standards from them. After all, the FMA and the Reserve Bank are public institutions; they work for us.
How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
How, for example, do the boards of these institutions handle conflicts of interest? This is a particularly significant issue for the FMA, where the Board has direct responsibility for all the agency’s decisionmaking (the administration of things like the Financial Markets Conduct Act and associated rules and regulations). They make decisions directly affecting specific businesses, and interests.
It is less of a direct issue at the Reserve Bank, where the Board itself has few powers. But Board members are still privy to considerable amounts of inside information, and have preferential access to the ear of the Governor. The Bank runs a commercial business (NZClear), and has significant property interests (the building on The Terrace) and major commercial contracts around notes and coins.
A few months ago when the Independent Expert Advisory Panel reviewing the Reserve Bank Act reported, they included in their report this reference
114. The Board has a code of conduct. The Panel recommends that this be reviewed in light of the legislative changes.
So I asked for it, lodging a simple request
Please supply me with a copy of the code of conduct.
And the Bank responded quite quickly. There was, I was told,
no Board document of that name, but the Charter outlines conduct expected of Directors.
The text of the “Charter” is at that previous link. I’ve written about the so-called charter previously. But one thing I didn’t notice then – and recall, they say this document describes expected behaviours of directors – is that there was nothing dealing with possible conflicts of interests, and how those should be handled. That seems more than a little surprising.
I’ve previously had minutes of Board meetings released to me under the Official Information Act, and there was no sign in any of them that conflicts of interest are appropriately disclosed, and handled, or rules meaning that no member with a conflict is able to participate in matters relevant to that discussion. For example, one Board member is also a director of an insurance company, and the Bank is prudential regulator of insurers. The Board, and the Bank, can’t control who ministers appoint to the Board, but they have clear responsibility to manage any conflicts.
I’m not suggesting actual impropriety – I assume they must (surely?) have some unwritten practices – but I wonder how they would prove their innocence to some crusading bureaucrat or politician? Paper trails matter and, as I’ve noted previously, the Board has form in that area, being in clear breach of the Public Records Act in the way it conducts its regular business. For a government agency, that is pretty clear misconduct.
What of the FMA Board? They get marks for this explicit statement on their website
The FMA Board recognises conflicts of interest as serious governance issues. The FMA maintains a Board Conflicts Policy which manages how interests are to be disclosed, registered and properly managed in relation to any matter that the FMA is considering.
So I asked specifically for this document, which they released in full a few days ago.
For the most part, it looks pretty good. They seem to define conflicts reasonably broadly (at least in some respects), and recognise that such conflicts might arise from the interests and activities of spouses, partners, and children. There is active requirement to disclose, and an encouragement to be open and broad in applying the policy – members are even referred to a relevant Supreme Court case.
6. A Member who is interested in a matter:
(a) must not vote or take part in any discussion or decision of the Board or any Committee relating to the matter or otherwise participate in any activity of FMA that relates to the matter;
(b) must not sign any document relating to the entry into of a transaction or the initiation of the matter; and
(c) is to be disregarded for the purpose for forming a quorum for that part of a meeting of the Board or Committee during which a discussion or decision relating to the matter occurs or is made.
And they are required to advise the Minister of any breach of the policy. I was quite impressed. Until I came to this, near the end.
The Chairperson may, by prior written notice to the Board permit one or more Members to remain involved in a matter to which they have an interest if the Chairperson is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. Such permission may be subject to any condition which the chairperson considers necessary. All such permissions must be disclosed in FMA’s annual report.
Not even a majority of the Board has to agree, just the chair. How can it ever be appropriate for someone with a conflict of interest to be, or remain, involved in the FMA’s determination of a matter in which they have an interest? The Board has a range of members, and presumably can call on outside expertise on any matter on which it needs advice. It seems almost unconceivable that there could be a circumstance in which a person’s contribution was so unique and irreplaceable that they should remain involved despite having declared and established a conflict of interest. It is, perhaps, some small comfort that any such occasions have to be disclosed in the Annual Report (I didn’t see any in the latest Annual Report) – but the Annual Report comes out with a considerable lag (and probably isn’t widely read). Since making this sort of exception isn’t a breach of the rules, it doesn’t even need to be disclosed to the Minister at the time.
That rule, set up by the Board to govern its own conduct, falls well short of the sort of expectations we should have for a powerful public agency. It should be clear and straightforward: if you have a conflict, you take no further involvement, and go out of your way to stay clear of this issue. At very least, it is potential misconduct – inappropriate conduct – by the Board of the FMA, an institution content to demand that banks prove their innocence.
I could go on. Compliance with the letter and the spirit of the Official Information Act is one of those standards of conduct we might expect from our regulatory agencies. The Reserve Bank falls a long way short of the mark on that one (they are, for example, still fighting to keep secret their analysis, from last November, of the extent to which Kiwibuil might crowd out other construction).
And then there were some of the issues I wrote about a couple of weeks ago, whether neither the Bank nor the FMA could reasonably be considered to have met the sort of standard they expect – under law, or not – from others.
One thought on “Conduct among the regulators”
You make some good points Michael. Regulators must have the trust of the regulated AND the public to be effective.
It would be interesting to find out in what possible scenarios would the “public interest” test be applied, and what the courts hold to be the public interest. It seems a highly subjective test.