In my post yesterday, I documented a whole series of ways in which Neil Quigley, Reserve Bank board chair (appointed by the Minister of Finance) appeared to have actively misled the public (and overseen the misleading of Reserve Bank staff) on the day Adrian Orr’s resignation was announced. Some of that material is here

Since writing that post, I’ve seen the excellent brief piece by Dan Brunskill of interest.co.nz who had taken the initiative to ring up Quigley and ask about what appear to have been deliberate and active misleading.

Just breathtakingly awful. From the chair of a powerful public sector board: the public had no right to know, and he wasn’t going to be questioned by a journalist doing his job (“like a lawyer” apparently).

In this morning’s Post their political columnist Luke Malpass has a particularly trenchant take on another angle of the whole debacle (which is probably too kind a word, as all of this was done consciously and deliberately by very highly paid people supposedly working in the public interest). This was the attempt to sell us all on the story that the resignation was just a “personal decision”, with no deeper meaning or significance. The headline is “Orr omnishambles redux: the “Personal decision” that wasn’t.” and this is just a sample

Or “the worst sort of media management bends or has little regard for the truth, treating the public or customers like morons. After the past few years of inflation and hip-pocket hurt, the last thing the Bank should have done was not to be honest with both its staff and the public….”

You might find this surprising after my commentary in recent years but I’ve always been reluctant to believe the worst of Quigley (we used to have quite a bit to do with each other) but we are now at the point where, after yesterday’s disclosures, it is impossible to take at face value a single word he says, at least on Reserve Bank matters (for which he is earning a cool $200000 per annum for a part-time job).

You might be wondering why the board, and particularly its chair (Quigley) are still in office after this shambles (which started from the blowing the previous Funding Agreement spending limit so badly this time last year).

It isn’t easy to dismiss members of the Board. One can debate the merits of that (relative to other government boards) but this is what the law says about grounds

One could mount a case that that standard has now been met, but as a purely legal matter it might be arguable and (more messily) contested.

The same standard does not apply to the Board chair, who can be removed pretty much at will by the Minister

(Having been removed the former chair would still be a board member)

So it is quite clear that the Minister can remove the Board chair for any reason whatever (although needs to consult him first), and probable that she could not formally dismiss board members.

However, in the face of this “omnishambles” and active deceit of the public, how plausible is it that if the Minister were to communicate to the Board and chair that the government no longer had confidence in their stewardship (not on grounds of policy differences – where it is important to respect operational independence – but on basic stewardship and obligations of integrity, accountability, and dealing with staff in good faith) that any half-decent board member would refuse to resign. And if they were to refuse to resign, the government would be in a very strong position to call out and shame them in public for the conduct for which they’ve been responsible. This stuff matters, both because of the disgraceful stuff that has already happened – and that barefaced refusal of scrutiny yesterday by Quigley – but because of the key gatekeeper role the Board plays in selecting which name goes forward to the Minister as nominee to be next Governor. Can anyone have confidence in them to do that sort of selection after all this?

Of course, it has long been a mystery why Willis reappointed Quigley last year. But a whole new series of questions need to be asked now. I hope, for example, Brunskill took that dismissive answer from Quigley to Willis and asked her if she considered that was acceptable behaviour in the chair of the board of a powerful public entity.

And, of course, there is that other utterly supine and useless body, supposed to be holding public agencies and their boards/managements to account, Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee. But they weren’t even bothered when Orr repeatedly lied to them, so I suppose we shouldn’t expect them to care when Quigley and the rest of the Board actively misled the public, seemed (in Quigley’s) case to be proud of it, and then refused to even take questions.