The Treasury file note of the 24 February meeting

A few minutes ago I had this email from The Treasury

This is the document that my source last week claimed Quigley went ballistic about when he learned of its existence,

Taking Treasury’s caveats re the views expressed by anyone including Orr, can we conclude at least from the description of events that Orr walked out of the meeting in the middle of the Funding Agreement discussion, having undercut his own governing board’s views in front of the minister and his chair?

Oh, and credit to The Treasury for releasing this in full now.

UPDATE: I just wanted to put the record out there rather than write much commentary. However, I’ve had a few people get in touch suggesting that the record is capable of a more benign (for Orr) interpretation, noting that the Deputy Governor, Christian Hawkesby is also shown as having left the meeting part way through. However, I don’t think this alternative interpretation is correct. Hawkesby is shown leaving at a natural break point, where the banking regulation and supervision discussion ends. His main role at the Bank at the time was responsibility for those functions. He was not on the Board and Funding Agreement issues were mainly a matter for the Board and chief executive (supported by other DCEs on the financial management side of the Bank), so it seems quite natural that he would have left at that point.

By contrast, Orr is recorded as having highlighted differences between himself (and management more generally) and his board, and then to have sounded off at Treasury (“expressed frustration” is an official’s record, not that of a fly on the wall biographer, so likely to be understated), and then is recorded as leaving the meeting while the Funding Agreement discussion is still going on. It has also been suggested that perhaps the Minister had simply asked Quigley to stay behind. That interpretation seems unlikely given that the Treasury team (and MoF’s office advisers) were all still there (a later one-on-one might not be a surprise, but Treasury officials would not have been there to record that).

In the end, we do not know with certainty, although either Willis or Quigley (or Orr for that matter) could give us straight answers (so could Rennie, but it isn’t his role to).

5 thoughts on “The Treasury file note of the 24 February meeting

  1. This previously secret letter now exposed proves what we already knew to be true. Finance Minister Willis wanted the Capital Review done because the Big Banks had been lobbying her. Orr was strongly opposed, but was ambushed by a gang of two – Willis and Board Chair Quigley (who at the time needed Willis to approve his medical school). A nation cannot long endure with a crooked Finance Minister like Willis. Now she’s in cahoots with the Big Banks again to make the proposed consumer credit law bill retrospective to wipe the claims of their customers. Willis is the cause, not the fixer, of the cost of living crisis. Michael Reddells OIA letter proves she’s guilty – and up to her eyeballs in cahoots with the oligarchs – be they the banks, supermarkets or Fonterra.

    Like

  2. Good one Steve. You seem to not know why NZ is stagnating and the current level of political corruption unprecedented in our country’s history. I was so horrified by what I discovered that decided to quit most economic commentary here. Good luck with your “hinged” status quo and supporting the jerks, most of them from the Key era, who Luxon re-appointed, and who are currently running NZ (into the ground).

    Like

Leave a reply to Orr, Quigley, and Willis: 31 July edition – Point of Order Cancel reply