Adrian Orr

Dismissing top public officials

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, MPC

In both monetary policy and policing there is a case for a considerable degree of operational independence from politicians. The case is (by far) strongest in respect of the Police, where it would be just egregiously unacceptable to have a system in which politicians got to decide who was and wasn’t arrested or charged. It isn’t a foolproof system, because Police Commissioners can have their own biases and preferences, and if there are some (eventual) protections against them arresting people for things that aren’t crimes or on allegations that have no real foundations, or against them simply making up evidence, there are no real protections against them just choosing not to enforce the laws Parliament has written. But constabulary independence is better than the alternative.

The case in respect of monetary policy is technocratic, and views have come and gone on the strength of that case. Operational independence has been the fashion of the last few decades, although in many countries (including New Zealand) there has always been scope for political overrides.

But, whatever your views on the case, in a free society operational independence has to be matched by effective accountability. If you wield great power you must be accountable for its use, and “accountability” here cannot just mean something as feeble as having to publish an Annual Report or front up once in a while at a select committee. The standard form of accountability – really in any job, but certainly in public life – is the threat of losing your job. That is, after all, what happens to politicians: when enough of us disapprove enough of their performance they lose the election, and office.

Both the Police Commissioner and the Reserve Bank Governor can be dismissed, but it is interesting to compare and contrast the statutory provisions.

First, from the Policing Act 2008

I hadn’t known until yesterday (when stories were around as to whether the new Minister of Police would or would not express confidence in the current Commissioner) that the Police Commissioner could be dismissed at will. It isn’t old legislation, and there don’t seem to be any process etc requirements in the Act around potential dismissal. All it seems to take is the signature of the Governor-General acting on advice.

My family used to be keen watchers of the New York police show Blue Bloods and I was always struck then by the fact that the mayor could dismiss the police commissioner at will, a point both (fictional) parties noted fairly often. It had the feel then of something open to abuse (and like all these things, in practice conventions and ex post scrutiny act as restraints) but I guess it recognises that ultimately the law and the enforcement of the law – the coercive powers of the state – are political matters.

To be honest, dismissal at will (with no compensation) seems a rather dangerous provision when it comes to the Commissioner of Police. It might be quite reasonable for a new government to want a different style of policing, and thus a different sort of person to run the Police, but if so they should be prepared to (and required to) state their reasons, and offer some compensation for loss of office. But what we shouldn’t want is a Commissioner of Police pandering to the minister behind the scenes to save his or her job, whether the pander involved things nearer to policy or things nearer to protection for some mate of a government (the latter might seem low risk, but we build institutions against tough times and risks of attempts to pervert the system).

I’m not overly interested in Police or the current Commissioner, and don’t have any strong views on his fate (although it probably isn’t irrelevant that his term only has 16 months to run) but I am interested in the Reserve Bank, and particularly the contrast between the dismissal provisions for the Police Commissioner and those who exercise official power at the Bank, notably the Governor. The statutory provisions in the Reserve Bank legislation are a little more complex.

Take the Governor first

The Governor can be dismissed at any time, but only “for just cause”. That immediately makes it much harder to dismiss a Governor, because it injects the potential for the courts to become involved in reviewing whether any cause cited by a Minister of Finance in dismissing the Governor was a just one. That makes dismissal almost inconceivable as a practical option, except perhaps in a truly egregious case of public disgrace (eg Governor charged with a serious criminal offence), or physical or mental incapability, because with so much power resting in the Bank we could not reasonably have months of market uncertainty while a court process, and appeals, were worked through.

What might constitute a just cause? You’ll notice in section 90(2) there are two sub-clauses. The first (2a) allows the Minister to seek to dismiss the Governor if (and only if) the Bank’s Board has made a recommendation to dismiss (for the current situation, remember that the entire Board was appointed in one go by the previous Labour government, and signed off on the Governor’s reappointment only last year). That particular provision is narrow – relating specifically to relations between the Governor and the Board.

The more general case is 2b, where the Minister can seek to dismiss whether or not the Board agrees. And what does the Act say counts as “just cause”?

It needs to be read together with this, which applies also to other MPC members

It is a long list, but it is really quite restrictive. Against the backdrop of Adrian Orr’s performance, probably only 92(1a) and 25(1a) are likely to be relevant. And, although the lawyers may have a different view, I’ve take these provisions as applying only to things done (or at least apparent) in the Governor’s current term of office. It isn’t obvious that he could be dismissed for the failures (of which there were many) in his first term, which expired in March this year, even if those failures were captured by these specific grounds for dismissal.

What of 92(1a)? I doubt anyone could mount a seriously credible argument that Orr was unable to perform the duties of his office or that he had neglected his duties (his focus on many other things not his responsibility notwithstanding). What of “misconduct”? I reckon actively misleading (or worse) the Finance and Expenditure Committee this year should count – it is a clear breach of Parliament’s own rules – but…..it is probably a stretch against the wording of this particular piece of legislation.

And so that brings us to section 25 in the schedule covering MPC members, including the Governor. On paper, 25(1)(a) sounds most promising. But what are the ‘collective duties’ of the MPC?

The MPC, under the lead of the dominant Governor, may have burned through $12 billion of taxpayers’ money, delivered inflation well above target for three years in a row, failed to deliver much in the way of speeches or serious supporting analysis……..all things that seem like clear marks of failure in the job, but it is simply impossible to envisage a court accepting that policy was not formulated (at the time) in a manner consistent with the Remit. It clearly was. It was just done very very badly, with not a sign of any contrition since from any of them. The sort of thing that should mean you could lose your job. But not, it appears, when you are the Governor or MPC member. Could continuing to run a big open punt on the bond market now (years on from Covid) count? I doubt it, as I doubt it would be considered now as “formulating monetary policy”, and it clearly had the support of the Board and the previous Minister of Finance.

The final possibility might be

I don’t think actively attempting to mislead FEC, in his role as Governor and MPC member, is acting “with honesty and integrity”…..but it seems a stretch.

Were Orr operating under Police Commissioner rules (law) he – and his fellow MPC members (especially the externals) – could be dismissed at will. It is not a choice that should ever be made lightly (and the terms of two externals in any case expire shortly), but when you (individually and collectively) have done as badly as Orr and his colleagues have in recent years it should be an option open to an incoming Minister. After all, the new government can impose a new Remit – against which the MPC has to operate – pretty much at will (doesn’t require legislation, at least within quite wide bounds) so why shouldn’t it be able to dismiss the key individuals and ensure that those holding these powerful offices genuinely enjoy the confidence of ministers?

If I could wave a wand I’d make it easier to dismiss Governors and MPC members and a bit harder to dismiss the Police Commissioner. As it is, it reminds me of an article I wrote perhaps 15 years ago – which the the Bank’s Board weren’t too comfortable with and insisted on changes – suggesting that in practice accountability for the Governor mostly existed at the point of reappointment. And since then governments have amended the legislation to make it a bit harder to dismiss the Governor, while limiting to two the number of terms any Governor can serve. Over the objection of the Opposition parties, Robertson chose to reappoint Orr last year, and since he is now on his second term (as are all the external MPC members) and can’t be reappointed again we are in this unacceptable position of someone exercising enormous power (doing it poorly, and having done a particularly poor job in recent years) and facing no effective accountability at all.

Of course, there are always options of seeking to buy out the Governor – whether directly or through the offer of another public role – but that would be to reward failure and poor performance, not punish it.

Were the Governor an honourable man he would already have resigned. But were he an honourable man he would at some point have expressed some serious contrition in recent years. Instead, he wields the power and we – and the incoming government – are left with massive financial losses, a huge inflation shock, and a poorly performing institution.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was nothing there

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, Fiscal policy, Monetary policy, MPC

I’ve written a few posts in the last few months about the strange approach that the Reserve Bank has been taking to thinking and talking about the impact of fiscal policy on demand since May’s Budget. Background to the material in this post is here (second half, from July), here (mid-section, commenting on the August MPS), and here (September, in the wake of PREFU.

Up to and including the February MPS the Reserve Bank’s approach to fiscal issues was pretty much entirely conventional. What mattered mostly for them – and for the outlook for pressure on demand and inflation – was not the level of spending or the level of revenue or the makeup of either spending or revenue, but discretionary changes in the overall fiscal balance. Adjust the headline numbers for purely cyclical effects (eg tax revenue falls in economic downturns) and from the change in the resulting cyclically-adjusted surplus/deficit from one year to the next you get a “fiscal impulse”. That is/was an estimate of the pressure discretionary fiscal choices were putting on demand and inflation. For a long time, The Treasury routinely reported fiscal impulse estimates – and estimates they always are – along these lines, and had developed the indicator specifically for Reserve Bank purposes twenty years ago.

If the cyclically-adjusted deficit (surplus) is much the same from year to year the fiscal impulse will be roughly zero. A central bank typically isn’t interested that much in whether the budget is in surplus or deficit, simply in those discretionary changes. Back in the day, for example, we upset Michael Cullen late in his term when he was still running surpluses, but shrinking ones, when we pointed out that the resulting fiscal impulse (from discretionarily reducing the surplus) was putting additional pressure on demand and inflation, at a time when inflation was at or above the top of the target range. Whether or not what he was doing made sense as fiscal policy, it nonetheless had implications for the extent of monetary policy pressure required, and it was natural for us to point this out (as with any other major source of demand pressure).

Among mainstream economists none of this is or was contentious. International agencies, for example, routinely produce estimates of cyclically-adjusted fiscal balances, partly to help readers see the direction of discretionary fiscal policy choices. Plenty of past Reserve Bank documents will have enunciated this sort of approach.

It was also this sort of thinking that led to an amendment to the Public Finance Act in 2013

(NB: The Treasury has made analysis of this sort harder in recent years, as in 2021 they changed the way they calculate and report the fiscal impulse, in ways that make little sense and reduce (but don’t eliminate) the usefulness of the measure as they report it. These changes further undermined the usefulness of New Zealand official fiscal indicators – already generally not internationally comparable – but do not change the fundamental economics, which is the focus in this post.)

But suddenly, in the May Monetary Policy Statement – a document released just a few days after the government’s election-year Budget – there was a really major change in the approach the Bank and the MPC were taking to fiscal policy.

No one much doubts that the Budget was expansionary. Here, for example, was the IMF’s take in their Article IV review of New Zealand, published in August but finalised just 6-8 weeks after the Budget

There also wasn’t much doubt that the Budget (and thus demand pressures over the following 12-18 months – typically the focus of monetary policy interest) was more expansionary than had been flagged in the HYEFU at the end of last year. As I’d noted in the first post linked to above

For the key year – the one for which this Budget directly related – the estimated fiscal impulse had shifted from something moderately negative [in HYEFU] to something reasonably materially positive [in the Budget]. The difference is exactly 2.5 percentage points of GDP. That is a big shift in an important influence on the inflation outlook – which in turn should influence the monetary policy outlook – concentrated right in the policy window.

But how did the Reserve Bank treat the issue?

They were at it again in the August MPS, and in the next day’s appearance at FEC.

These sorts of lines – including one of the Governor’s favourites that fiscal policy was being “more friend than foe” – helped provide cover for the Minister of Finance, who was fond of suggesting to reporters that after all the Reserve Bank wasn’t raising any issues.

Some mix mystified and frustrated, I lodged an OIA request with the Bank seeking

If they really did have a thoughtful and well-researched new approach to thinking about fiscal policy and the impact on demand pressures, surely they’d be keen to get it out there. It didn’t seem likely there was anything – there were no footnoted references to forthcoming research papers etc – but….you never know.

But we do now. The Bank responded last month (I was away, and then distracted by election things so only came back to it last week). Their full response is here

RBNZ Sept 23 response to OIA re fiscal policy impact on demand and inflation

They withheld in full the relevant sections of the forecast papers that go to the MPC prior to each OCR review. This is a point of principle with the Bank whereby they assert that to release any forecast papers from recent history would “prejudice the substantial economic interests of New Zealand” (I did once get them to release to me 10 year old papers, from my side as point of principle too). It is a preposterous claim – and needs to be fought again with the Ombudsman (or perhaps a Minister of Finance seriously committed to an open and accountable central bank) – in respect of documents that are many months old, but for now it is what it is.

That said, it would be very surprising if there was anything at all enlightening on the Governor’s change of tack in those withheld papers. The Bank’s economic forecasters rarely did fiscal analysis very well and those sections of the forecast papers were often fairly perfunctory (recall that the Bank takes fiscal policy as conveyed to them by the Treasury, just adjusting the bottom line deficit/surplus numbers for differences in macroeconomic forecasts (eg affecting expected revenue for any given set of tax rates)). More importantly, in the documents released there is nothing else from prior to this change of official approach in May – no internal discussion papers, no draft research papers, no market commentaries circulated approvingly, no overseas academic pieces, just nothing.

In fact, the first document dates from 31 July this year, a 14 page note from analysts from a couple of teams in the Economics Department with the heading “Fiscal policy – seeking a common understanding”. Had there been a serious analytically-grounded push for a new approach, you might have expected such a paper to have been prepared and presented to internal groups and to the MPC well before such a change featured in the MPS. But that change was in May…..and the document dates from the end of July (may have been prepared with the then-forthcoming August MPS in mind). It has a distinct back-filling feel to it.

Here is the paper’s summary

You notice that again they are invoking alleged potential jeopardy to New Zealand “substantial economic interests” to tell us which fiscal indicators these two analysts favour – rather weirdly given that the Governor has already told us (in MPSs) and told Parliament’s FEC which ones he thinks matter most.

But that withholding quibble aside, there isn’t anything really to argue about in that summary. I’m not entirely convinced that a fiscal multipliers approach is the best way of tackling the issue, but having done so they report nothing – not a thing – suggesting that what matters for monetary policy is primarily government consumption and investment spending (as distinct from transfers, taxes, or overall fiscal balances). It is an entirely orthodox position, but quite at odds with the line the Governor and the MPSs had been spinning.

(The paper does have a short box noting in the Bank’s economic model – NZSIM – government consumption and investment are identified separately, while the model itself does not have explicit components for tax rates or transfers but – sensibly enough – this gets no further comment in the paper, and does not mean that changes in tax or transfer policy make no difference to the projections the MPC is considering).

There isn’t very much in the paper on the interaction with monetary policy, but there is this

which is all fine and shouldn’t be at all contentious, but none of its suggest that changes in fiscal deficits don’t matter for the extent of monetary policy pressure and that – as the Governor took to claiming in the wake of the expansionary Budget – that all that mattered was government consumption and investment.

At the back of the paper there is a five page Appendix on all the Treasury measures of fiscal policy. Each appears to have been scored for “usefulness for monetary policy purposes” and while the comments have been released they appear to have withheld – jeopardising those substantial economic interests again apparently – scores or rankings of each item.

They do have items for Government Consumption and Government Investment. Under “usefulness for monetary policy purposes” the comment – on both – is simply “Government consumption [investment] provides information about the type and size of government activity”. Quite so, but…..not really about monetary policy.

But then we come to the item “Total Fiscal Impulse”. Here is what they say

These analysts from the Bank’s Economics Department are entirely orthodox. I would qualify their comments slightly because – as alluded to above – this new “Total Fiscal Impulse” measure is clearly inferior for purpose than the previous Fiscal Impulse, but they are clearly on the right track. They recognise that changes in fiscal balances can affect the outlook for demand and inflation (and hence monetary policy pressure). They go on to briefly note that the impulse was estimated to be strongly positive in the 2023/24 fiscal year (the primary focus for monetary policy at the time).

It isn’t a startlingly insightful paper, but that is fine. It is largely rehearsing long-established conventional perspectives, and if it was at odds with anyone……well, it was only with the Governor and the MPC. And I guess one can’t really expect junior analysts to take on the powers that be. But it is still just a little surprising perhaps that this 31 July paper contains no reference – not one – to the strange new Orr model that had suddenly overtaken the MPS. One might, for example, have hoped that the Chief Economist might have provided a lead, and even perhaps affixed his name to the paper…..but then he is an Orr-appointee and must have signed up to the weird MPS approach too.

There is one more document in what the Bank has released to me. It is undated, has no identified author, and is headed “Fiscal policy in the August 2023 MPS”, suggesting that there is a reasonable chance it was written specifically for the purposes of responding to my OIA.

There are two parts to this 1.5 page document. The first page lists four statements on matters fiscal from the August MPS and outlines “supporting evidence”. Of those, three are simply irrelevant: there has never been any dispute about the fact that in the 2023 Budget real government consumption and investment was expected to fall as a share of GDP over the next few years (although note that for setting monetary policy in mid 2023, what might or might not happen to some components of the budget in 2026 is simply irrelevant – monetary policy lags are shorter than that).

The fourth is “interesting”

You might have supposed that this statement had appeared in the August MPS. It doesn’t. “Fiscal policy” hardly appears at all (and nothing about what it will be doing over the period monetary policy is focused on) and “discretionary fiscal policy” doesn’t appear at all.

But beyond that it is still just spin. What happens by 2027 is (again) irrelevant to today’s monetary policy, and even if the cyclically-adjusted deficit is still forecast to narrow in the shorter-term the extent of that narrowing by Budget 2023 was materially less than what had been envisaged – and included in the RB forecasts – at HYEFU 2022. Fiscal policy is putting more pressure on inflation and demand than had been envisaged at the end of last year, exacerbating pressures on monetary policy. That was – and apparently is – the point the Governor still prefers to avoid acknowledging…..something Robertson was probably grateful for.

The second half of this little note is headed “Why haven’t we referred to other measures of fiscal policy?”

Of the four bullets, again there is no real argument with three of them

To which one can mostly only say “indeed”, but then no one suggested the central bank should look at either of the allowances – which in any case are only on the spending side of the balance. As for the operating balance, I’m not going to disagree, but……mentioning it would be typically less bad than the highly political mention of only one bit of the overall fiscal balance (direct government consumption and investment).

What of the fourth?

That is just weird. Take that penultimate sentence: it is a change measure that you want when it is monetary policy and inflation you are responsible for. The change is what changes the outlook for demand and inflation. But then there is the rank dishonesty of the final sentence. They prefer to “supplement the total fiscal impulse” do they? But there was no reference to it – or to words/idea cognate to it – in either the May or August MPS. And the claim that they can somehow sensibly supplement as fiscal balance based measure – which already includes taxes, transfers, and real spending – with “real government spending” is, it seems, simply plucked from thin air. It doesn’t describe what they’ve actually done these last two MPSs, it isn’t an approach even mentioned in the Economics Department’s July note (see above), and as far as I can see it has no theoretical or practical basis whatever.

It is just making stuff up.

We’ve had several previous attempts by Orr to actively mislead (Parliament or public) or make claims that prove to have no factual analytical foundations. There was the claim to FEC that the Bank had done its own research on climate change threats to financial stability, claims trying to minimise the extent of turnover of senior managers, claims regarding the impact of this year’s storms on inflation, claims that inflation was mostly other people’s fault (notably Vladimir Putin). Each of these has been unpicked in one way or another – the first via the OIA, the second via a leak, the third via one of his own staff piping up to correct things in FEC, the fourth simply be patiently setting down the numbers and timing. There have also been entirely tendentious claims around the LSAP, including his attempt – repeated in the recent Annual Report – to assert that the LSAP made money for taxpayers, despite the simplest review of the exercise he used in support of this claim showing that it simply didn’t provide any serious support for his view.

Every single one of those was bad, and should have been considered unacceptable, by both the Minister of Finance and the Bank’s Board. A decent and honourable Governor would simply never have done them. But bad as they were, those were self-serving misrepresentations.

What has gone on around fiscal policy this election year seems materially worse. We make central banks operationally independent in the hope that they will do their job without fear or favour, and without even hint of partisan interest. But faced with a Budget that complicated the task of getting inflation down, that was materially more expansionary than had been envisaged just a few months previously, Orr (and his MPC colleagues, reluctantly or otherwise) chose to completely upend the traditional approach to thinking about fiscal impacts on demand and inflation pressures, and tell a story – and a story it was – that tried to gloss over what the Minister of Finance had done, ignoring what mattered in favour of what was at best peripheral. Whether that was for overt partisan purposes is probably unknowable from any documents likely to exist, but it is hard to think of any other good explanation for what was done, espeically when – as this release shows – it was all based on no supporting analysis or research whatever.

The Official Information Act plays a vital role in helping expose events like this. It was never likely there was anything of substance behind Orr’s fiscal spin. But now we know.

(As to the attitudes of other MPC members, who clearly all went along since not a hint of a conventional perspective is in the minutes of the meetings around either MPS, there is a tantalising bit that was also withheld

Only one of the three relevant MPC meetings during this period, but the most recent.  Was there some gentle unease from perhaps one member?  We may never know, but at least this withholding appears to confirm that there are fuller minutes of MPC meeting, not just the bland summary published with each OCR announcement.)

PS.  It is perhaps no surprise that the Reserve Bank has chosen not to put this OIA release out on their  OIA releases page, even though that page was updated just a couple of weeks ago.  It does not put the Bank in a good light.  

What should be done about the Reserve Bank?

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, MPC, Reserve Bank Act reforms, Reserve Bank Board

Monday’s post was on the important place effective accountability must have when government agencies are given great discretionary power which – as is in the nature of any human institutions – they will at times exercise poorly. My particular focus is on the Reserve Bank, both because it is what I know best, because it exercises a great deal of discretionary power affecting us all, and because in recent times it has done very poorly in multiple dimensions (be it bloated staffing, demonstrated loss of focus, massive financial losses, barefaced lies, or – most obvious to the public – core inflation persistently well above target).

What has happened under the current (outgoing) government is now an unfortunate series of bygones. What has happened, happened, and some combination of Orr, Robertson, Quigley (and lesser lights including MPC members and the Secretary to the Treasury) bear responsibility. Not one of them emerges with any credit as regards their Reserve Bank roles and responsibilities.

But in a couple of weeks we will have a new government, and almost certainly Nicola Willis will be Minister of Finance. The focus of this post is on what I think she and the new government should do, if they are at all serious about a much better, and better governed and run, institution in future. It builds on a post I wrote in mid 2022 after someone had sought some advice on a couple of specific points.

Thus far, we have heard very little from National on what plans they might have for the Reserve Bank. When they were consulted, as the law now requires, they opposed Orr’s reappointment (although on process grounds – wanting to make a permanent appointment after the election, something the legislation precluded – rather than explicitly substantive ones). And anyone who has watched FEC hearings over the past 18 months will have seen the somewhat testy relationship between Orr and Willis (responsibility for which clearly rests with Orr, the public servant, who in addition to his tone – dismissive and clearly uninterested in scrutiny – has at least once just lied or actively and deliberately misled in answer to one of Willis’s perfectly reasonable questions). In the Stuff finance debate last week I noticed that when invited to do so Willis avoided stating that she had confidence in Orr, but she has on a couple of occasions said that she will not seek to sack him, stating that she and he are both “professionals” (a description that, given Orr’s record, seems generous to say the least).

Even if she had wanted to, it would not be easy to sack Orr.

From last year’s post, these are the statutory grounds for removal

Note too that his current term in office started only in March this year, and the more egregious policy failures occurred in the previous term (and thus probably not grounds for removal now). I have my own list of clear failures even since March – no serious speeches, no serious scrutiny, no serious research, actively misleading Parliament, and so on – such that it would be much better if Orr were gone but seeking to remove him using these provisions would not be seriously viable, including because any attempt to remove him could result in judicial review proceedings, leaving huge market uncertainty for weeks or months.

Were the Governor an honourable figure he would now give six months notice, recognising that the incoming parties do not have confidence in him and that – whatever his own view of his own merits – it actually matters that the head of an agency wielding so much discretionary power should have cross-party confidence and respect (which does NOT mean agreeing with absolutely everything someone does in office).

Historically (and even when I wrote that post 18 months ago) I would have defended fairly staunchly the idea that incoming governments should not simply be able to replace the central bank Governor. The basic idea behind long terms for central bank Governors was so that governments couldn’t put their hand on the scales and influence monetary policy by threat of dismissal. But many of those conceptions date from the days before the modern conception of the government itself setting an inflation target and the central bank being primarily an agency implementing policy in pursuit of that objective. Even when the Reserve Bank of New Zealand legislation was first overhauled in 1989 the conception was that Policy Targets Agreements should be set and unchanged for five year terms, beyond any single electoral term. That (legislated) conception never survived the first election after the Act was passed, but these days the legislation is quite clear that the Minister of Finance can reset the inflation target any time s/he chooses (there are some consultation requirements). If the government can reset the target any time they choose, then it isn’t obvious that they shouldn’t be able to replace the key decision-makers easily (when the key decisionmakers – specifically the Governor – have influence, for good and ill, much more broadly than just around pursuit of the inflation target).

(There is a parallel issue around the question of whether we should move to the Australian system where heads of government departments can be replaced more easily, but here I’m focused only on the Reserve Bank, which exercises a great deal of discretionary policy power, and isn’t just an advice or implementation entity.)

By law they can’t make such changes at present. They could, of course, amend the law, but to do so in a way narrowly focused on Orr (ie an amendment deeming the appointment of the current Governor as at the passage of this amendment to be terminated with effect six months from the date of the Royal Assent) would smack rather of a bill of attainder. Governors have been ousted this way in other countries, but I don’t think it is a path we should go down.

Some will also argue that Orr should simply be bought out. If the government was seriously willing to do that – and pay the headline price of having written a multi-million-dollar cheque to (as it would be put) “reward failure” – I wouldn’t object, but it isn’t an option I’d champion either. (Apart from anything else, a stubborn incumbent could always refuse an offer, and once this option was opened up there really is no going back.)

So the starting point – which Willis has probably recognised – is that unless Orr offers to go they are stuck with him for the time being.

The same probably goes for the MPC members and the members of the Bank’s Board. The incoming Minister of Finance could, however, remove the chair of the Board from his chairmanship (this is not subject to a “just cause” test). The current chair’s Board term expires on 30 June next year, and it might not be thought worth doing anything about him now, except that he is on record as having actively misled Treasury (and through them the public) about the Board’s previous ban on experts being appointed to the MPC, and he has been responsible for (not) holding the Governor to account for the Bank’s failures in recent years. Removing Quigley would be one possible mark of seriousness by a new government, and a clear signal to management and Board that a new government wanted things to be different in future.

The current Reserve Bank Board was appointed entirely by Grant Robertson when the new legislation came into effect last year. It was clearly appointed more with diversity considerations in mind than with a focus on central banking excellence, and several members were caught up in conflict of interest issues. The appointments were for staggered terms but – Quigley aside – the first set of vacancies don’t arise until mid 2025. It would seem not unreasonable for a new Minister to invite at least some of the hacks and token appointees to resign.

There are three external appointees to the Monetary Policy Committee. None has covered themselves in any glory or represented an adornment to the Committee or monetary policymaking in New Zealand. All three have (final) terms that expire in the next 18 months, two (Harris and Saunders) in the first half of next year. This is perhaps the easiest opportunity open to a new Minister to begin to reshape the institution, at least on the monetary policy side, because appointments simply have to be made in the next few months. As I noted in a post a couple of weeks ago, OIAed documents show that the current Board’s process for recommending replacements is already largely completed, with the intention that once a new government is sworn in they will wheel up a list of recommendations. If the new government is at all serious about change, this should be treated as unacceptable, and the new Minister should tell the Board to rip up the work done so far and start from scratch, having outlined her priorities for the sort of people she would want on the MPC (eg expert, open, willing and able to challenge Orr etc). It would also be an opportunity for her to revisit the MPC charter, ideally to make it clear that individual MPC members are expected to be accountable for, and to explain, their individual views and analysis. Were she interested in change, it is likely that the pool of potentially suitable applicants might be rather different than those who might have applied – perhaps to be rejected as uncomfortable for Orr at the pre-screening – under the previous regime.

The Reserve Bank operates under a (flawed) statutory model where a Funding Agreement with the Minister governs their spending for, in principle, five years at a time. The current Agreement – recently amended (generously) with no serious scrutiny, including none at all by Parliament – runs to June 2025. The incoming government parties have been strong on the need to cut public spending by public agencies on things that do not face the public. They need to be signalling to the Reserve Bank that they are not exempt from that approach, and if the current Funding Agreement cannot be changed it should be made clear to the Board and management that there will be much lower levels of funding from July 2025. Indulging the Governor’s personal ideological whims or inclinations to corporate bloat are not legitimate uses of public money.

If she is serious about change, the incoming Minister also shouldn’t lose the opportunity to deploy weaker but symbolic tools at her disposal. Letters of expectation to the Governor/MPC and the Board can make clear the direction a new government is looking for, as can the Minister’s comments on the Bank’s proposed Statement of Intent. Treasury now has a more-formal role in monitoring the Bank’s performance, and the Minister should make clear to Treasury that she expects serious, vigorous and rigorous, review.

All this assumes the incoming Minister is serious about a leaner, better, more-excellent and focused Reserve Bank. If she is, and is willing to use the tools and appointments at her disposal, she can put a lot of pressure on Orr. If that were to lead to him concluding that it wasn’t really worth sticking around for another 4.5 years that would be a good outcome. But at worst, he would be somewhat more tightly constrained.

I haven’t so far touched on the two specific promises National have made. The first is to revise the legislation (and Remit) to revert to a single statutory focus for monetary policy on price stability. I don’t really support this change – the reason we have discretionary monetary policy is for macro stabilisation subject to keeping inflation in check – but I’m not going to strongly oppose it either. The 2019 change made no material difference to policy – mistakes were ones of forecasting (and perhaps limited interest and inattention thrown in) – and neither would reversing it. Both are matters of product differentiation in the political market rather than a point of policy substance. The proposed change back risks being a substitute for focusing on the things that might make for an excellent central bank – as it was with Robertson. I hope not.

The other specific promise has been of an independent expert review of the Bank’s Covid-era policymaking. It isn’t that I’m opposed to it – and there is no doubt the Bank’s own self-review last year was pretty once-over-lightly and self-exonerating – but I’m also not quite sure what the point is, other than being seen to have done it. Action, and a reorientation of the institution and people, needs to start now, not months down the track when some independent reviewer might have reported (and everyone recognises that who is chosen to do the review will largely pre-determine the thrust of the resulting report). It isn’t impossible that some useful suggestions might come out of such a report, but it doesn’t seem as though it should be a top priority, unless appearance of action/interest is more important than actual change. I hope that isn’t so either.

What of the longer term, including things that might require more-complex legislative change?

I think there are number worth considering, including:

  • how the MPC itself is configured.   I strongly favour a model –  as in the UK, the US, and Sweden –  in which all MPC members are expected to be individually accountable for their views, and should be expected routinely to record votes (and from time to time make speeches, give interviews, appear before FEC).  I’m less convinced now than I once was that the part-time externals model can work excellently in the long haul, even with a different – much more open, much more analytically-leading – Governor.  One problem is the time commitment, which falls betwixt and between. External MPC members have been being paid for about 50 days a year, which works just fine for people who are retired or semi-retired, but doesn’t really encourage excellent people in the prime of life to put themselves forward (I’m not sure how even university academics – with a fulltime job –  can devote 50 days to the role).  In the US and Sweden all MPC members are fulltime appointments, and in the UK while the appointments are half-time they seem to be paid at a rate that would enable, say, an academic to live on the appointment, perhaps supplemented with some other part-time (non-conflicted roles).    I also used to put more weight on the idea of a majority of externals, which I now think is a less tenable option than I once did.  External members can and should act as something of a check on and challenge to management, but it will always be even more important to have the core institution functioning excellently (at senior and junior levels).  We should not have a central bank deputy chief executive responsible for matters macroeconomic who simply has no expertise and experience, and is unsuited to be on any professional MPC.
  • I would also favour (and long have favoured) moving away from the current model in which the Board controls which names go to the Minister of Finance for MPC and Governor appointments.  It is a fundamentally anti-democratic system (in a way with no redeeming merits), and out of step with the way things are done in most countries.  We don’t want partisan hacks appointed to these roles, but the Board – itself appointed by (past) ministers –  is little or no protection, and Board members in our system have mostly had little or no relevant expertise.  Appointments should be made by the Minister –  in the case of the Governor, perhaps with Opposition consultation – and public/political scrutiny should be the protection we look to.  I would also favour all appointees to key central bank roles have FEC scrutiny – NOT confirmation- hearings before taking up their roles (as is done in the UK).
  • I would also favour (as I argued here a few years ago [UPDATE eg in this post]) looking again at splitting the Reserve Bank, along Australian lines, such that we would have a central bank with responsibility for monetary policy and macro matters and a prudential regulatory agency responsible for the (now extensive) supervisory functions.  They are two very different roles, requiring different sets of skills from key senior managers and governance and decision-making bodies.  Accountability would also be a little clearer if each institution was responsible for exercising discretion in a narrower range of area.  Quite obviously, the two institutions would need to work closely together in some (limited) areas, but that is no different than (say) the expectation that the Reserve Bank and Treasury work effectively together in some areas.  (Reform in this area might also have the incidental advantage of disestabishing the current Governor’s job).  Reform along these lines would leave two institutions with two boards each responsible for policymaking (and everything else) the institutions had statutory responsibility for.  The current vogue globally has been for something like having a Board and an MPC in a single institution, the former monitoring the latter.  But the New Zealand experience in recent years is illustrative of just how flawed such a model is in practice: not only is the Board still within the same institution (thus all the incentives are against tough challenge and scrutiny) but typically Reserve Bank Board members have no relevant expertise to evaluate macro policy performance or key appointments in that area).  Monitoring and review matter but if they are to be done well they will rarely be done within the same institution with (as here) the chair of the MPC (Orr) sitting on the monitoring board.  The new Board’s first Annual Report last week illustrates just how lacking the current system is in practice, and although a new minister might appoint better people, we should be looking to a more resilient structure.

As I said at the start of this post we – public, voters, RB watchers – really don’t have much sense of what National or Willis might be thinking as regards the Reserve Bank. I tend to be a bit sceptical that they care much, but would really like to be proved wrong. There are significant opportunities for change, which could give us a leaner, better, much more respected, central bank. It is unfortunate that these matters need to be revisited so soon after the legislative reforms put in place by the previous government, but they do – we need better people soon, but also need some further legislative change.

UPDATE: A conversation this afternoon reminded me of the other possible option for getting Orr out of the Reserve Bank role: finding him another job. There might not be many suitable jobs the new government would want someone like Orr in, but I have previously suggested that something like High Commissioner to the Cook Islands might be one (having regard to his part Cooks ancestry, and apparent active involvement in some Pacific causes). More creative people than me may have other (practical) suggestions.

What did the RB have to deal with?

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, inflation, Monetary policy

I’ve used this chart before to illustrate how diverse the (core) inflation experiences of advanced economies have been in this episode. It isn’t as if they’ve all ended up with similarly bad inflation rates, and the point of focusing on those countries with their own monetary policy and a floating exchange rate is that core inflation outcomes are a result of domestic (central bank) choices (passive or active) in each country.

Yesterday’s post focused on the rapid growth in domestic demand that the Reserve Bank had facilitated and overseen. But, it might have occurred to you to ask, what about foreign demand? It all adds up.

And if you look more broadly you might reasonably have thought New Zealand would be a good candidate for being towards the left-hand end of this chart.

The central banks in Australia, Canada, and Norway have faced big increases in the respective national terms of trade (export prices relative to import prices) over the last 3+ years. All else equal, a rising terms of trade – especially when, as in each of these cases, led by rising export prices – tends to increase domestic incomes and domestic consumption and investment spending and inflation. It isn’t mechanical or one for one (in Norway, for example, they have the oil fund into which state oil and gas revenues are sterilised) but the direction is clear: a rising terms of trade is a “good thing” and more spending, and pressure on real resources, will typically follow in its wake.

Here is the contrast between New Zealand and Australia over recent years.

In Australia a 25 per cent lift in the terms of trade is roughly equal to a 5 per cent lift in real purchasing power (over and above what is captured in real GDP). A 10 per cent fall here would be a roughly equivalent to a 2.5 per cent drop in real purchasing power. As it happens, over the last couple of years (since the tightening phases began) the terms of trade have been weaker than the Reserve Bank expected, all else equal a moderate deflationary surprise.

But the other big deflationary influence was the closed borders. I’m not here getting into debates about the merits of otherwise of such policies. Central banks simply have to take whatever else governments (and the private sector) do as given and adjust monetary policy accordingly to keep (core) inflation near target. The fact was that our borders were largely closed to human traffic for a long time, New Zealand has more exports of such services (tourism and export education) than imports, and exports of services are far from having fully recovered pre-Covid levels.

We don’t have easily comparable tourism and export education data across countries, but we can look at how exports of services changed as a share of GDP. From just prior to Covid to the trough, New Zealand exports of services fell by 5.7 percentage points of GDP, a shock exceeded only by Iceland (-12.7 percentage points) – the fall for Australia was just under half New Zealand’s, and for most advanced economies (of the sample in the chart above) the fall was 1-2 percentage points of GDP. In most countries, that trough was in mid 2020, while in New Zealand it was not until early 2022.

Some ground has been recovered (most starkly in Iceland) but New Zealand (and to a lesser extent Australia) are still living with a material deflationary shock from this side of the economy. Real services exports in 2023Q1 were 26 per cent (seasonally adjusted) lower than in 2019Q4, just prior to Covid.

Now, again you will note that this isn’t the entire story. After all, New Zealanders couldn’t travel abroad easily for much of the time either, and money they would have spent abroad seemed to be substantially diverted to spending at home (probably more so than was initially expected). That reduction of imports of services was large (3 percentage points of GDP, with Australia 4th largest of this advanced country grouping) but early – the trough for New Zealand as for most of these advanced countries was as early as 2020Q3.

But that was then. This chart shows the change in imports of services as a share of GDP from just pre-Covid to our most recent data (2023Q1). That share has fully recovered here, with an increase very similar to that of the median country.

So, relative to pre-Covid (and pre-inflation surge), imports of services as a share of GDP are about where they were, and exports of services were still materially lower as at the last official data.

With a deflationary shock like this you might have reasonably thought that the Reserve Bank, if it was to keep inflation near target, would need to induce or ensure faster growth in domestic demand (than some other countries). Yesterday I showed this chart (remember, GNE is national accounts speak for domestic demand). New Zealand was at the far right side of the chart (strongest growth in domestic demand as a share of GDP).

But what if we treated the change in the services exports share of GDP as an exogenous shock that, all else equal, the central bank legitimately had to respond to? In this version of the chart I’ve subtracted the reduction in services exports as a share of GDP.

It makes a material difference to the New Zealand numbers, but even so we are still left with an increase in the share of GDP that is third highest on the chart, about the same as the UK which (as is well known) is really struggling with inflation. (In case you are wondering Korea has relatively modest core inflation now – so first chart – but still about 3.5 percentage points higher than it was just prior to Covid; for us the increase has been about 4 percentage points.)

There are lots of numbers and concepts in this post and it isn’t always easy to keep them straight. But the key points are probably:

  • echoing yesterday’s post, don’t be distracted by the Governor’s spin about Russia or the weather or whatever (they just don’t explain core inflation to any material extent) or spin (probably more from the Minister) that every advanced country is in the same boat (they aren’t, see first chart),
  • more than other advanced countries, we should have been predisposed to being able to have kept inflation in check a bit more easily, having had both a fall in the terms of trade (very much unlike Australia and Canada) and a sustained fall in exports of services that as a share of GDP is materially larger than any other advanced economy has seen.  To be clear, those are bad things, making us poorer, but all else equal they were disinflationary forces,
  • and yet, core inflation here is in the upper half of the group of advanced economies and (as the MPS acknowledged) is not yet really showing signs of having fallen (unlike some other advanced countries, notably Australia, the US, and Canada),
  • the difference is about Reserve Bank choices and forecasting errors.  The Reserve Bank can’t control the terms of trade or exports of services, but its tool – the OCR – is primarily about influencing domestic demand.    They ended up producing some of the strongest growth in domestic demand (absolutely or relative to nominal GDP) anywhere in the advanced world.  It wasn’t intentional, but it was their job, and their mistake resulted in high core inflation.

The Reserve Bank doesn’t publish forecasts of nominal GNE – and note that my charts have shown a big increase in GNE relative to GDP – but even their nominal GDP forecasts, even just starting from two years ago when they first thought it was time to start tightening, have materially understated domestic demand growth

and over this period they have actually over forecast real GDP growth.

Again, I’m going to end on a slightly emollient note. Macroeconomic forecasting is hard, and especially in times as unsettled as these. I heard an RB senior person the other day noting (fairly) that they couldn’t tell when the borders would fully reopen, or how quickly people flows would respond when they did. Personally, I’m less inclined to criticise them for getting their forecasts wrong (“let him who is without sin cast the first stone”) than for the sheer lack of honesty and straightforwardness, and the absence of either contrition (in respect of failures in a job they individually chose to accept – no one is compelled to be an MPC member) or hard critical comparative analysis. But…..relative to other countries they had advantages which should have given us a better chance of keeping inflation near target, and things ended up as bad or worse as in the median advanced country.

If forced to confront these arguments the Governor would no doubt burble on about “least regrets”. But the least regrets rhetoric a couple of years ago was really about – and they know this – the risk that inflation might, if things went a bit haywire, end up at 2.5 per cent or so for a year or two, rather than settling immediately around the target midpoint of 2 per cent. It wasn’t – was never even suggested as being – about the risk of two or three years of 6 per cent core inflation, and a wrenching adjustment to get it back under control.

They may still claim to have no regrets. They should have many. We certainly should. They took the job, did it poorly, and now won’t even openly accept (what they know internally) that it wasn’t the evil Russian or a cyclone or….or….or…it was them, Orr and the MPC. They made mistakes (they happen in life), with no apparent consequences for them, and not even the decency to front up, acknowledge the errors, and say sorry.

Excess demand

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, inflation, Monetary policy

Particularly when he is let loose from the constraints of a published text, the Reserve Bank Governor (never openly countered by any of the other six MPC members, each of whom has personal responsibilities as a statutory appointee) likes to make up stuff suggesting that high inflation isn’t really the Reserve Bank’s fault, or responsibility, at all. It may be that Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee is where he is particularly prone to this vice – deliberately misleading Parliament in the process, itself once regarded by MPs as a serious issue – or, more probably, it is just that those are the occasions we are given a glimpse of the Governor let loose.

I’ve written here about just a couple of the more egregious examples I happened to catch. Late last year there was the line he tried to run to FEC that for inflation to have been in the target range then (Nov 2022) the Bank would have to have been able to have forecast the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2020. It took about five minutes to dig out the data (illustrated in the post at that link) to illustrate that core inflation was already at about 6 per cent BEFORE the invasion began on 24 February last year, or that the unemployment rate had already reached its decades-long low just prior to the invasion too. It was just made up, but of course there were no real consequences for the Governor.

And then there was last week’s effort in which Orr, apparently backed by his Chief Economist (who in addition to working for the Governor is a statutory officeholder with personal responsibilities), attempted to brush off the inflation as just one supply shock after the other, things the Bank couldn’t do much about, culminating in the outrageous attempt to mislead the Committee to believe that this year’s cyclone explained the big recent inflation forecasting error (only to have one of his staff pipe up and clarify that actually that effect was really rather small). See posts here and here. Consistent with this, in his interview late last week with the Herald‘s Madison Reidy, Orr again repeated his standard line that he has no regrets at all about the conduct of monetary policy in recent years. It is consistent I suppose: why regret what you could not control?

It is, of course, all nonsense.

But there is, you see, the good Orr and the bad Orr. The bad – really really bad, because so shamelessly dishonest – is on the display in the sorts of episodes I’ve mentioned in the previous two paragraphs.

The good Orr – some of you will doubt you are reading correctly, but you are – is a perfectly orthodox central banker informed by an entirely orthodox approach to inflation targeting. You see it, even at FEC, when for example he is asked about the role the “maximum sustainable employment” bit of the Remit plays. He has repeated, over and over again and quite correctly as far I can see, that there has not been any conflict between it and the inflation target in recent years. That is how demand shocks and pressures work. And whereas in 2020 the Bank thought inflation would undershoot target and unemployment be well above sustainable levels, in the last couple of years the picture has reversed. He told FEC again last week that when inflation was above target and the labour market was tighter than sustainable both pointed in the same direction for monetary policy: it needed to be restrictive. There was, for example, this very nice line in the MPS, which I put big ticks next to in my hard copy.

The Bank doesn’t do many speeches on monetary policy, and those few they do aren’t very insightful but this from the Chief Economist a few months ago captured the real story nicely

and this from the Governor, describing the Bank’s functions, was him at his entirely orthodox

We aim to slow (or accelerate) domestic spending and investment if it is outpacing (or falling
behind) the supply capacity of the economy

Demand management, to keep (core) inflation at or near target is the heart of the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy job, assigned to it by Parliament and made specific in the Remit given to them by the Minister of Finance.

Domestic demand is known, in national accounts parlance, as Gross National Expenditure (or GNE). It is the total of consumption (public and private), investment (public and private) and changes in inventories.

I’ve been pottering around in that data over the last few days, and put this chart (nominal GNE as a percentage of nominal GDP) in my post last Thursday.

This ratio has tended to be low in significant recessions and high around the peaks of booms – investment is highly cyclical -but for 30+ years it had fluctuated in a fairly tight range. The move in the last couple of years has been quite unprecedented, in the speed and size. There was huge surge in domestic demand relative to (nominal) GDP.

One of the points I’ve made a few times recently is that country experiences with (core) inflation have been quite divergent over the last couple of years. The Minister of Finance in particular is prone to handwaving about “everyone faces the same issue” around inflation, and the Bank isn’t a lot better (doing little serious cross-country comparative analysis). But the differences are large.

And so I wondered about how those domestic demand pressures had compared across countries.

One place to look is to the change in current account deficits as a share of GDP. This chart, using annual data from the IMF WEO database, shows the change in countries’ current account balance from 2019 to 2022 (Norway is off this scale; what happens when you have oil and gas and another major supplier is being shunned)

There has been a fair amount of coverage of the absolute size of New Zealand’s current account deficit, and even a few mentions of the deficit being one of the largest in any advanced country. But for these purposes (thinking about monetary policy and demand management) it is the change in the deficit that matters more. Over this period, New Zealand’s experience has not just been normal or representative, instead we’ve had the third largest widening in the current account deficit of any of these advanced countries (those with their own monetary policy, and thus the euro-area is treated as one). Both Iceland and Hungary have slightly higher inflation targets than we do, but they have a lot higher core inflation (see chart one up).

The current account deficit is analytically equal to the difference between savings and investment. Over that 2019 to 2022 period investment as a share of (nominal) GDP increased in all but two of the advanced countries shown. Of the four countries where it increased more than in New Zealand, three are those with core inflation higher than New Zealand.

National savings rates (encompassing private and government saving) paint a starker picture. Somewhat to my surprise, of these advanced countries the median country experienced a slight increase in national savings over the Covid/inflation period.

Norway is off the scale again, because I really want to illustrate the other end of the picture. That is New Zealand with the third largest fall in its national savings rate of any advanced country.

What about that chart of nominal GNE as a share of nominal GDP? How have other countries gone with that ratio? There is a diverse range of experiences, but that sharp rise in the New Zealand share really is quite unusual, equal largest of any of these advanced countries.

(If you are a bit puzzled about Hungary – I am – all the action seems to have been in the last (March 2023) quarter’s data).

But lets get simpler again. Here is a chart showing the percentage change in nominal GNE (growth in domestic demand, the thing monetary poliy influences) from just prior to the start of Covid to our most recent data, March 2023.

It looks a lot like that earlier chart comparing core inflation rates across countries. In this case, New Zealand had the fourth fastest growth in domestic demand of any of these countries over this period (and those with higher growth are not countries with outcomes we’d like to emulate). And in case you are wondering, no this wasn’t just a reflection of super-strong GDP growth: over this period New Zealand’s nominal GDP growth was actually a little below the growth in the median of these advanced economies. The economy simply didn’t have the capacity to meet the nominal demand growth the Reserve Bank accommodated and the imbalance spilled into a sharp widening of the current account deficit and high core inflation. It wasn’t Putin’s fault, or that of nature (the storms), it was just bad management by the agency charged with managing domestic demand to keep core inflation in check.

I’ve also done all these chart etc using real variables. The deviations are often less marked, but no less substantive for that. Real GNE (real domestic demand) growth from 2019Q4 to the present in New Zealand was third highest among this group of advanced economies, and only Iceland (see inflation and BOP blowouts above) had a larger gap between growth in real domestic demand and real GDP.

I don’t really want to divert this post into an argument about fiscal policy over recent years (monetary policy has to, as the Governor often notes, just take fiscal policy as it is, as just another demand/inflation pressure) but for those interested the government share of GDP has been high (which usually happens in recessions since government activity isn’t very cyclical) but private demand is what really stands out).

Bottom line: all those stories trying to distract people, including MPs, with tales of the evil Russian or the foul weather or whatever other supply shock he prefers to mention, really are just distractions (and intentionally misleading ones by the Bank). The Bank almost certainly knows they aren’t true, but they have served as convenient cover for the fact that the Bank simply failed to recognise the scale of the domestic demand (right here in New Zealand, firms, households, and government) and to act accordingly. We are now still living with the 6 per cent core inflation consequence. It is common – including in the rare Bank charts – in New Zealand to want to compare New Zealand with the other Anglo countries. But what the Bank has never acknowledged – and just possibly may not have recognised – is much larger the boost to domestic demand happened in New Zealand than in the US, UK, Canada or Australia. And domestic demand doesn’t just happen: it is facilitated by settings of monetary policy that were very badly wrong, perhaps more so here than in many of those countries.

Perhaps one could end on a slightly emollient note. Getting it right in the last few years has been very challenging, and it wouldn’t entirely surprise me if when all the post-mortems are done some of relative success and failure proves to have been down to luck (good or bad). But as in life, central banks help make their own luck, but digging deeper, posing and publishing analysis even when they don’t know all the answers, and by taking a coldly realistic view, not attempting to hide behind spin, misrepresentations, and what must come close to outright lies. Even by acknowledging errors, the basis for learning better, and being able to feel and display those most human of qualities, regret and contrition. We need a Governor and MPC members doing all this a lot more than has been on display here in the last year or two. Our lot show little sign of trying, or of even being interested in feigning seriousness.

Misleading Parliament

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, Monetary policy

In my post on Thursday I commented briefly on the appearance by the Governor and his Chief Economist at Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee. They tried to suggest to the Committee that to the extent there had been inflation forecast errors over the last year – responding to a question from Nicola Willis – that much of it was down the summer storms including Cyclone Gabrielle. But then a helpful staffer in the back row – who may not have been so popular with management after that – piped up and explained to FEC that the impact of the cyclone was perhaps 0.1 or 0.2 per cent. The forecasting error Willis had asked the Governor about was 1.9 percentage points (the Bank had last August forecast that inflation would be 4.1 per cent in the year to September 2023, but now think that inflation rate will be 6.0 per cent).

It was pleasing to see yesterday that veteran journalist Jenny Ruth has emerged from her restraint of trade purdah after leaving Business Desk to begin a new Substack newsletter (free for the first few weeks) and that one of her first columns was about the very same Reserve Bank appearance. Her piece is worth reading. She and at least one other journalist have commented on the Governor having “toned down his hostility” towards Nicola Willis in this appearance. The tone may have been less bad, but the substance was just as contemptuous as ever – and not just of Willis but of Parliament itself. That was, once upon a time, treated as a serious matter. This is from Parliament’s own website

My Thursday post was written from listening to the appearance live and scrawling a few notes as I went. Jenny Ruth’s column prompted me to go back and listen to the recording (you can find it here), being able to stop as needed and take fuller notes. I pick up that segment of the appearance with Orr closing his opening remarks declaring that he was very proud of the Monetary Policy Statement document.

Nicola Willis then asked “what is going on? Inflation has been out of the target range for 27 months. Why is it taking so long to get inflation out of our economy?

The Governor responded along the lines of “Good question. It is a global question. The drivers of inflation have been changing through time, but all biased up, There were lockdowns, supply constraints, the Ukraine war and pressure on commodity prices, and now supply shortages in New Zealand, with severe storms. The drivers have changed but we are confident, subject to the next shock, that inflation pressures are easing”.

Nicola Willis asked if the Bank had stimulated the economy too much, and the response was yes.

The Bank’s Chief Economist (and MPC member) Paul Conway added that “it had been one supply shock after another, citing Covid, the Ukraine War, the pressure moving from goods prices to services prices, and all in all a very unusual period.

He added that the Reserve Bank had however been one of the first central banks to tighten and one of the first to signal that they thought they had reached a peak.

Nicola Willis then asked about the contrast with the US, where inflation had come down faster and appeared to be doing better.

Conway responded that he had “been amazed at the performance of the US, that it was a very different economy, a very flexible one”. He noted that unemployment had rocketed upwards when Covid began and then had fallen very sharply with resources being reabsorbed. The US was “leading the globe when it comes to inflation coming down”, but that “without thinking about it too much” New Zealand had been somewhere in the middle of the pack over the last year.

Willis observed “it strikes me how inaccurate the Reserve Bank’s forecasts have been”, citing the August 2022 forecast that CPI inflation for the year to September 2023 had been 4.1 per cent, and that the latest forecast was for 6 per cent. “Have you looked at the inaccuracies and what is going on there?”

Orr responded that “yes, we do so constantly”, stressing that the great thing about monetary policy was that it as a repeat game, reviewed afresh every six weeks, when they could reflect on surprises relative to forecasts. He indicated that the Bank was working across a whole range of different issues on how to improve. Recent forecasts erros had been “very well explained” by supply shocks, noting that a year ago they had not known about cyclone Gabrielle.

Willis then asked “how much of the difference of 1.9 percentage points is down to Gabrielle?”

The Governor responded “I don’t have that”.

Willis responded that “it seemed a stretch” that cyclone Gabrielle could account for that much of it.

Conway responded that they could back the numbers out to look at exactly that question, and then launched into a bit of a defence of the Bank’s inflation forecasting more generally, argued that they were “pretty good” relative to other forecasters but that it was challenging even in normal times, but that these had not been normal times and that the supply shocks had been “incredibly disruptive”. He said that the Bank had an active programme underway to better understand economic dynamics.

Anna Lorck (a Labour backbench MP) then asked “just for clarity, how much lower would inflation be without Gabrielle?”

At this point the Bank’s forecasting manager, who was sitting at the back of the room, piped up. She was invited to come forward and grab a chair. Her response was that the cyclone effect on inflation had been less than initially expected and was probably 0.1 to 0.2 per cent, mostly in fruit and vegetable prices. Conway noted that the cyclone had been a negative supply shock (boosting those prices) but would also be a positive demand shock (rebuild activity), and either he or the forecasting manager noted that they did not have estimates for any eventual effects on construction costs more generally.

At this point discussion moved on to other topics.

There are several things worth noting just from that record:

  • not once did the Governor or the Chie Economist suggest that excess demand had had anything to do with inflation.  All the talk was about the sequence of supply shocks,
  • it was pretty clear from the answers that actually the Bank had done no serious analysis of the forecast errors over the last year or so,
  • it was also clear that the Bank had done no serious work on trying to understand lessons from other countries, whether those where core inflation has turned down (US, Canada, Australia) or those where it hasn’t,
  • the Governor wanted MPs to believe that the storms/cyclone were a big part of the story for why inflation had been so much higher than the Bank was forecasting just a year ago,
  • the Chief Economist seemed more interested in backing up the Governor rather than providing straight answers to the parliamentary committee, and
  • they might have gotten away with it (well, even more than they will anyway) if it weren’t for one of their capable staff in the back row giving the answer to the question from MPs, an answer very different from what her bosses had been trying to imply just minutes earlier.

There is no way any of this was simply the result of information not previously having been passed up the line.  As Orr had noted in his press conference the previous day, the OCR/MPS decision came as the culmination of “8-10 days” of meetings and deliberations, and paid tribute to staff and MPC members for the work that went in.   I’m sure in substance the meetings are little different than they ever were: lots of detailed papers, lots of presentations, lots of opportunity for questions, and lots of little snippets like “we think the direct effects of Gabrielle on the CPI have been about 0.1 to 0.2 per cent, a bit less than we’d initially expected.  The Governor and Chief Economist knew (that it was very small, relative to the difference Willis was asking about) and chose to mislead the Committee anyway).

But having listened to the FEC appearance again, I went back to the Monetary Policy Statement itself, dozens of pages of text, charts and tables.

First I searched the document for “storms”, “cyclone” or “Gabrielle”.  There were no mentions at all.  “storm” did appear once, but only to note some reduction in March quarter horticulture exports (fine and good to note, but…..the Governor was talking about (and being asked about) inflation.

But surely “supply shocks” would appear in the document. After all, the Governor (and chief economist) had just told MPs that the series of supply shocks were the inflation story.  Perhaps with pardonable license they only meant a big part of the story (remember that the question was about the last 12 months’ forecast error)?  But anyway, “supply shock(s)” doesn’t appear in the MPS either.  I did find two references to “supply constraints”, but they were both good news stories

rather than explanations for why the Bank’s forecasts had again so under-forecast inflation. A few references to “supply chains” (bottlenecks etc) were also all positive, with things having markedly improved (so all else equal lowering inflation) rather than explaining why inflation this quarter is now expected to be 6 per cent when a year ago they expected it to be 4.1 per cent.

The contrast is just staggering, and really pretty shameful when one reflects that these were senior public figures, appointed by the Minister of Finance, testifying to a parliamentary committee when inflation is far outside the target band the MPC had been given.

I’m not even sure why honesty and contrition – whatever their innate virtues – need have been so hard. Forecasting at times like these is really challenging: were it otherwise we (and a whole bunch of other countries) wouldn’t have 6% (eg) inflation in the first place. But for reasons known only to them Orr in particular, and Conway, chose just to make things up, rather than provide honest testimony to one of the bodies charged with holding them to account. (I guess they must take lessons from their Board chair, although his just-so story was “only” to The Treasury, another body charged with monitoring the Bank, not to Parliament itself.)

As I noted in the earlier post (and as Jenny Ruth reminded readers at more length) the deceptions and misrepresentations have become a disconcerting pattern under Orr’s watch. For a certain class of person, why wouldn’t one if there are no consequences to doing so. But down that path lies the further erosion of any sort of serious accountability – accountability supposedly being the quid pro quo for operational autonomy and all the power and status that goes with it,

As a reminder, from the earlier post, here were the inflation forecasts Willis had raised

and these were the parallel unemployment projections

It wasn’t mostly about “supply shocks”, but about misjudging the extent of capacity pressures and the speed at which they would ease. But that would have been to have focused attention on the demand side, and the big misjudgements there, by the Reserve Bank, which is charged with cyclical demand management to keep core inflation in check. All these numbers are part of the MPS suite of documents on the Bank’s website.

(There was quite a bit more spin and highly questionable claims in Orr’s soft interview with a Herald journalist, but we really should be able to expect better – straightforwardness, messages actually consistent with the document he was speaking to, serious transparency, and so on; little things lilke that – when the Governor of the central bank faces a parliamentary committee.)

(Oh, and although it is an old line, it is still not true: Conway claiming to FEC that the Reserve Bank had been one of the first central banks to raise rates. There are 21 central banks making their own monetary policy (20 countries and the ECB) in the OECD. Of them, 7 started tightening earlier than our central bank, and another moved on the same day. The Reserve Bank was scarcely a stellar outlier. They did move earlier than the central banks of Australia, Canada, the US, the UK and the euro area, but then it seems now that Australia, Canada and the US have seen core inflation begin to abate earlier and further than it has here. One of the virtues of the MPS itself is that it doesn’t shy away from that fact that New Zealand core inflation is still holding up. And that, surely, is the relevant accountability test.)

Central bank losses and the BIS

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, LSAP

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is a club of central banks. That isn’t a pejorative label, just a straight factual description. 63 central banks (including the RBNZ) are the shareholders and the institution exists primarily to generate material for, and host meetings of, central bankers. They collate statistics and generate research with a central banking focus. They still provide some financial services to central banks. The chief executive (“General Manager”) is chosen from the ranks of highly-regarded senior central bankers (the current incumbent, Agustin Carstens was (among other things) formerly Governor of the Bank of Mexico and Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund).

As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, Adrian Orr had been citing material published recently by the BIS in defence of his suggestion that central bank losses from discretionary interventions really don’t matter and are more of an “accounting issue” than an economic one. When that material came out last month I drew attention to it, and (briefly) to the limitations, on Twitter, but since the Governor suggests that the BIS has the answers I thought it might be worth taking another look and unpicking what is, and isn’t, there in the two short BIS pieces. The first is an op-ed from Carstens, published in the Financial Times but the full text of which is on the BIS website and the second is a six page note by several BIS staff “Why are central banks reporting losses? Does it matter?

The Carstens op-ed is short enough I can take it paragraph by paragraph.

It begins with the title “Central banks are not here to make profits”. That is both true and a distraction. First, hardly any aspects of what governments do exist to make money, Second, unlike most arms of government, central banks should typically be at least modestly profitable (as monopoly provider of zero interest banknotes and of residual liquidity to the financial system). Third, when discretionary interventions are being considered the likely profits or losses, and the associated risk to taxpayers, should be at least one part of the full assessment of the pros and cons. And, finally, when interventions are being evaluated ex post, financial outcomes should be at least one part of a full assessment. Costs and benefits both matter.

As context here, one might note that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which used to have a low-risk small and stable balance sheet, made a profit each and every year for decades (without support from taxpayer indemnities). It was the normal state of affairs (seignorage earnings, with some volatility up and down as the proceeds of the note issue and the Bank’s equity were typically held in government bonds).

But on to the text

Unlike businesses, central banks are designed to make money only in the most literal sense. They have a mandate to act in the public interest: to safeguard the value of the money they issue so that people can make financial decisions with confidence. The bottom line for central banks is not profit, but the public good.

As noted, this does not mark out central banks from other government entities. Resources used, risks assumed, need to be rigorously evaluated along with programme effectiveness.

Today, following an extraordinary period in economic history, some central banks are facing losses. This is particularly true if they bought assets such as bonds and other securities to stabilise their economies in response to recent crises. Many will not contribute to government coffers for years to come.

“believing that by doing so” they would stabilise their economies. Note that in a formal sense that final sentence is not true of the RBNZ, since the Crown indemnity means losses from their interventions are borne directly by the taxpayer, not via impaired central bank capital. More generally, whatever the formal arrangements – and they differ widely across countries – mark to market accounting reminds us that the best guess is that large losses have already happened.

Does this mean that central banks are unsound? The answer is “no”. Losses do not jeopardise the vital role played by these institutions, which can and have operated effectively with losses and negative equity. And the unique nature of central bank tools means that sometimes losses are the price to pay for meeting their objectives – to support growth and jobs, ensure stable prices and help keep the financial system safe and stable.

In normal times, it is possible for central banks to both fulfil their mandates and earn profits without taking on significant financial risk. Traditionally, being the unique issuer of money provides a reliable revenue stream. But central banks with large foreign exchange reserves, built to cushion external shocks, will often experience ups and downs in income from exchange rate fluctuations. This means they sometimes make losses when pursuing their goal of a stable currency.

Agree entirely with the first two sentences, but they aren’t really the point and I’m not aware of any serious observer arguing to the contrary. The third sentence is much much more arguable, and neither in the brief op-ed nor in the longer Bulletin does the BIS really defend the claim. Most discretionary central bank interventions, if justified at all, should be stabilising and thus profitable (eg the Bank of England bond market interventions late last year). As Carstens notes, for countries with large foreign reserves holdings, exchange rate fluctuations will typically generate substantial year to year gains and losses simply from passive holdings but if that is an issue for Switzerland (where the BIS is based) it isn’t for most of the advanced country central banks we usually compare the Reserve Bank to. And there is likely to be a difference in how one sees passive structural positions and active discretionary interventions.

In times of crisis, central banks may also need to take on additional risks. And they do so with their eyes wide open. One example is the purchases of government bonds, including those made during the great financial crisis and more recently during the Covid-19 pandemic, in order to avert economic disaster by supporting financial stability, keeping credit flowing and boosting economic activity.

All this simply asserts what it does not show. But there is also an important distinction, not drawn here, between interventions to help restore market functioning (the initial QE back in 2008, and the initial bond buying in March 2020) which, support them or not (there are, after all, some moral hazard risks), should typically be expected to be profitable, perhaps even on a risk-adjusted basis, and large scale bond-buying with the goal of influencing the entire level of the yield curve. There is little evidence that many central banks (notably the RBNZ) really did much serious advance analysis on the use of this tool, the financial risks associated with it, the likely effectiveness of it, let alone exit strategies. In a NZ context, we should give no weight to the suggestion in the final sentence that the LSAP was necessary to “avert economic disaster”.

In the last decade, with inflation and interest rates low for a long period, these bond purchases boosted income. In fact, some central banks were able to transfer unusually large profits to governments. But in the wake of the pandemic and given the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, inflation has returned. This requires higher interest rates to contain spiralling prices – and exposes central banks to losses related to assets purchased in past successful rescue efforts.

Here Carstens touches on one of the problems with the 2020 QE interventions: central banks, including our own, seem to have been lulled into a degree of complacency about the risks they were taking on by the fact that QE done in other countries in the wake of the 2008/09 recession had not ended up costing central banks or taxpayers lots of money because the longer-term trend of falling real interest rates had continued. There was, however, no reason to suppose it would do so indefinitely, and a continuation was in any case less likely with bond yields near 1 per cent than with bond yields at, say, 5 per cent.

Central banks should put purpose above profits. Would it make sense for a central bank with large foreign currency reserves to increase their value by haphazardly triggering a devaluation of its own currency just to generate a windfall? Or for a central bank with domestic currency assets to keep interest rates low, even in the face of high inflation, just to preserve low-cost funding and generate profits? Such actions would be wildly inappropriate, violate their mandates and destabilise the economy.

By this point in the article, handwaving and straw men are well and truly to the fore. The issue is much more about the risk analysis – financial and otherwise – undertaken before the initial discretionary intervention (and at each stage of it), not how one clears up the mess afterwards. No one I know has suggested central banks should not allow interest rates to rise simply to protect their own financial positions, but there are serious questions about whether those (known to be) highly risky asset swaps should have been done in the first place.

The soul of money is trust. To operate effectively, business must maintain the trust of investors. And central banks must maintain the trust of the public.

Governments also have a role to play in the face of today’s central banks’ losses. Because these institutions are ultimately backed by the state, trust in money requires sound government finances and good financial management.

Blah, blah, blah. But one might add that maintaining the trust of the public in a modern era typically involves both demonstrated competence, openness and transparency, and acknowledgement of errors – not just patting people on the head and telling them “don’t worry, its complex, we are the experts and we have it in hand” even as staggering real losses are run-up and realised.

And finally

Losses matter because they may inflict a bruise on public finances but a far greater injury would result from central banks neglecting their mandates in order to avoid a loss. The public, via elected officials, have given central banks the job of price and financial stability because of their enormous societal benefits. Now, and in the long term, the costs from central bank losses are insignificant compared to the costs of runaway inflation and prolonged economic crisis.

Perhaps that first phrase is key. Losses matter, they are real. Nowhere does Carstens suggest they are “just an accounting issue”. The rest of that paragraph is really just handwaving and distraction, culminating in that outrageously misleading final sentence which seeks to suggest that there is some inescapable tradeoff between “insignificant” central bank losses and “runaway inflation and prolonged economic crisis”. There simply isn’t – and starkly there clearly wasn’t when central banks like the RBNZ launched and kept up their highly risk bond buying in 2020. With hindsight – and no matter what people might have claimed to believe back then – large scale bond-buying kept on well into 2021 or in some cases 2022 did not keep us from “runaway inflation and prolonged economic crisis”. Instead, overall central bank responses to Covid delivered us a really severe outbreak of (core) inflation, which central banks are now grappling to get back down again.

The Carstens piece is best seen as distractive spin for central banks by the chief executive of their own club. That needn’t necessarily mean there are no useful points their own lobbyist could ever make, but there were almost none relevant to the issues at hand, or the challenges that have been posed to Orr, in this piece.

More generally – and if this is a central bankers’ conceit, they probably aren’t the only interest group to suffer this fault – there is no sense anywhere in the Carstens piece that central banks might ever make mistakes, that some interventions might be worthwhile and appropriate and others not. But when central banks have done even their core job so poorly over the last couple of years – see core inflation rates across much of the world – the absence seems particular notable.

I’m not going to attempt a similar paragraph by paragraph treatment of the longer BIS staff note. It has some useful material in it, particularly for those less familiar with these issues, even if it has a strong focus on “whether losses matter for a central bank” (as they note, losses do not compromise a central bank’s technical ability to fulfil its mandate), rather than whether they matter for taxpayers, citizens, and those wishing to hold a central bank to account. I wanted to pick up briefly just the last couple of paragraphs, on how central banks should respond to losses.

“Effective communication” does not include trying to spin public audiences or MPs with assertions that real economic losses – that leave taxpayers poorer – are “just an accounting issue”. It should not include handwaving assertions about the wider benefits being “multiples” of the losses. It should include careful analysis and research evaluating the actual macroeconomic impact, including by comparison with the gains that less financially risky interventions might have offered. It should include careful ex ante disclosed risk analysis (the case for which was all the stronger for central banks coming late to the QE party, like the RBNZ or RBA). And it should include explicit recognition by central banks that they can, and sometimes do, make mistakes, even substantial ones. None of that has characterised the Reserve Bank of New Zealand through this episode.

And what of that final paragraph? It has the feel of editorial spin. Although it has become common in this field to claim that big financial losses are sometimes the price that has to be paid, there is rarely any rigorous attempt made to demonstrate the truth of that claim in respect of discretionary ad hoc interventions like the LSAP (or peer programmes abroad). Central banking done well should be profitable, from the nature of the institution – not because a central bank sets out to maximise profits (such a beast would be dangerous indeed) but because of its position in the market/economy and the monopolies the state gives it central bank.

Finally, and reverting specifically to New Zealand, one of my consistent criticisms of the LSAP programme is that there is no evidence in any of the material that has been released that the Reserve Bank or Treasury ever conducted or provided a robust analysis of what could go wrong when seeking the approval of the Minister of Finance for such huge punts on the bond market (and punts they were).

As just one example, consider this Treasury report to the Minister dated 1 May 2020 (so six weeks after the LSAP had been launched, and well after the initial US-led disruption to bond markets had settled down), in support of the Reserve Bank’s bid to expand the LSAP programme, and increase the associated financial risks. Here is the relevant bit of the financial risks section

Written in a way to suggest the programme was more likely to make money than lose it (despite the record low interest rates at the time) and with a “large but plausible” downside scenario involving the OCR only getting back to 1 per cent by this year, with no attempt at all to offer tail risk estimates of the extent of the possible loss. It simply isn’t the sort of analysis that should prompt any degree of confidence in either the Reserve Bank or the Treasury.

But this is the sort of stuff that Orr apparently stands by 100 per cent, with no regrets for anything he or the MPC were responsible for.

Central bank inadequacy and spin

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, LSAP, Monetary policy

Last Friday the Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, gave a keynote address to the Waikato Economics Forum. This event seems to have become part of the annual economic policy calendar, with Waikato University boasting that

The forum will bring together an outstanding lineup of top economists, business leaders and public sector officials, who will share their expertise on how we can address the major challenges facing our country today.

Sold that way, you might have thought that when a really senior and powerful public official turns up for a keynote address to an assembled economically literate audience he’d have delivered some fresh and interesting insights, going rather deeper than he might to, say, a provincial Rotary Club. Doubly so when in that official’s area of policy responsibility things have proved so challenging in the last few years, when so much taxpayers’ money has been lost, and when core inflation is so far outside the target range the government has set. It was just a couple of weeks after the latest Monetary Policy Statement, so would have been a great opportunity for the Governor to expand on the issues and shed light on how, and how rigorously and insightfully, he sees things .

Instead we got “Promoting economic wellbeing: Te Pūtea Matua optimisation challenges”, a title that held out little or no hope and offered less across a sprawling 12 pages of text. Attendees must have wondered whether it had really been worth getting out of bed early enough to hear the Governor at 7:40am. As for me, I read it twice, just to be sure.

Faced with major policy failures – and the core inflation outcomes cannot really be considered anything else, no matter how many allowances might be made – there is not a single fresh or interesting insight in the entire speech, In fact, it is the sort of address one of Orr’s junior staff could easily have given, as a “functions of the Reserve Bank” talk, to a Stage 2 university economics class.

Perhaps it would be one thing if (a) little or nothing interesting was going on in the economy or with inflation, or (b) if the Governor and other members of the Monetary Policy Committee were giving speeches on monetary policy matters every couple of weeks, although one might still – given the character of the audience – have reasonably expected more, including because good and thoughtful speeches offer insights into the quality and character of decisionmakers and their advisers. As it is, a great deal is going on, a great deal that has taken the Bank (and most others) by surprise, and that is still ill-understood (eg why did almost everyone get it wrong, what did we miss, what do we learn?), and serious speeches by MPC members on things to do with monetary policy, inflation etc are – unlike the situation in most other advanced countries – very rare. As far as I can see, the last serious monetary policy speech the Governor gave was to the Waikato forum a year ago, the chief economist has not given any speeches on monetary policy or inflation (nor, perhaps mercifully, has his boss), none of the external MPC members has ever given a speech on these topics or put their names to specific views or lines of analysis/reasoning/evidence, and the Deputy Governor’s last speech on monetary policy was 18 months ago, when the Bank was barely worried about inflation at all.

It is inexcusable in people who wield so much power, perhaps for good longer term but certainly for ill in the last couple of years. And it seems to speak of some combination of the utter arrogance Orr routinely displays when he does speak, and the probable absence of any fresh or interesting analysis in the entire institution. If they had such insights, such research, such analysis, surely they’d be wanting to impress us with it? But the Bank now publishes hardly any formal research and it is rare to find even an insightful chart in an MPS. If spin seems to be the order of the day, and it so often does (see below) they aren’t even very good at generating supporting material, let alone providing any serious accountability.

There really wasn’t much interesting in this keynote address at all, but I did want to highlight just a few of the spin lines.

On the straight economics there was this

Low and stable inflation is a necessary outcome for economic wellbeing in the longer term

I’m deeply committed to the case for price stability (ideally, an even lower inflation target than we have now) but this is simply overblown nonsense, which discredits the case for low and stable inflation. A more serious Reserve Bank in years gone by might, much more reasonably, have framed the point simply as “tolerating high inflation won’t make us any richer, and will come with all sorts of distortions and costs, and in the longer term if price stability doesn’t determine whether or not we are prosperous and productive, it is still the best limited contribution monetary policy can make.

Then there was the corporate spin

Looking ahead, in striving to be exceptional in our work,

Perhaps it is good to aim to be exceptional (although few people or institutions ever are), but…..the Orr Reserve Bank, when we get speeches like this, and few of his decisionmakers ever expose themselves to any sort of serious scrutiny, and when leading from the top the Governor is reluctant to ever express regret for anything he/they might have done, or failed to do. Great institutions – especially powerful public ones – acknowledge openly and learn from their mistakes.

I’ll skip the empty waffle about climate change (“we have a key part to play”) or the political posturing about the Treaty of Waitangi (which is apparently part of a “move from being a good to a great Central Bank” – who granted them even a rating of “good?)

At the end of the speech there is a section headed “Our research programme”, where Orr asserts

Te Pūtea Matua has a long tradition of pursuing policy-relevant research and as a full service central bank our research programme covers all three strands of work we are tasked to deliver.

It used to be true that the Bank had a strong record of policy-relevant research on things around monetary policy, inflation, and the cyclical behaviour of the economy. But no more – just check out how little research they’ve published in those areas in recent years, It has (sadly) never been true that the Bank has had any sort of sustained tradition in policy-relevant research around either its mushrooming financial regulatory and stability responsibilities (in fact, there were conscious decisions by successive Governors not to invest in such research), or its cash responsibilities, and there is no sign that has changed for the better. Instead, we just get spin like this.

And then in conclusion Orr asserts that

We are a learning institution and we enjoy collaboration.

Learning institutions engage, learning institutions aren’t prickly and defensive, learning institutions don’t just make stuff up, learning institutions don’t claim to regret nothing, learning organisations – especially amid the biggest surprises/policy failures in decades – don’t give keynote addresses like this. And collaborative institutions don’t engage in the sort of defensive abuse Orr is sadly all too well known for.

Learning organisations, agencies that are exceptional in their work, great central banks, don’t just make stuff up. Orr does.

The Herald’s Jenée Tibshraeny had a nice piece yesterday on just the latest example, from the question time after Orr’s Waikato speech. He was asked a question about central bank losses from things like the LSAP bond-buying programme (about 1.03 hrs into the video of the day), specifically citing the (recently newsworthy) losses the German central bank had been recording and disclosing. Instead of responding seriously and substantively, Orr blustered, attempting to imply that these were really just accounting issues (as if good record keeping doesn’t matter), muddying the waters by getting into questions about how much central bank equity matters, and condescendingly suggesting that while such issues “hurt the brain” people need to start exercising their brain, and “calm down”. The questioner himself clearly wasn’t satisfied, and asked a follow-up, but Orr simply talked out the clock, even suggesting (astonishingly) that the BIS – a bunch of technocrats in Basle – had explained it all for the public.

There are two points people like the BIS have made that are of course true, and as general points have never really been disputed by serious commentators and observers.

First, central banks don’t exist to maximise profit. They exist (in their monetary policy functions) to deliver low and stable inflation, and

Second, central banks can in principle function perfectly well with low, zero, or even negative equity (I spent a couple of years working for one that not only had negative equity but wasn’t even able to produce a proper balance sheet for a prolonged period).

But harping on those sorts of points is simply irrelevant in the face of the huge real losses to taxpayers that central banks have sustained in the last couple of years.

In New Zealand’s case, as it happens, the negative (or impaired) equity issue doesn’t even arise, since the Bank in advance wisely sought a government indemnity for any losses the LSAP might lead to. As a technical matter they didn’t need to – they could have run through all the equity the government had given them and recorded huge negative equity. Nothing about the Bank’s ability to function would have changed one iota, but some hard questions no doubt would have been asked, and Orr reasonably enough preferred to have any blame shared.

But none of that changes the fact that the MPC’s choices around the LSAP – signed off on by the Minister of Finance, with Treasury advice – have cost taxpayers in excess of $9 billion: not “just accounting issues” but real losses. That is what happens when a government agency (central bank) does a huge asset swap, transforming much of the government’s long-term fixed rate debt into effectively floating rate debt just before short-term rates rocket upwards. Had the LSAP programme never been launched – or even if it had been halted a few weeks in once bond markets had settled down from the US-led turbulence of March 2020 – taxpayers and the Crown would be that much better off, in real purchasing power terms. And none of Orr’s spin and distraction – and none of the BIS material – ever seriously engages with those real losses. Instead they respond to points that are not those serious critics are making.

And if one happens to think the LSAP made a meaningful economic difference – as Orr still seems to claim – then that only reinforces the point, since it added to the level of stimulus that helped deliver the core inflation, miles outside the target range, that central banks are now struggling to get under control and reverse. Better not to have had the real economic losses, and of course with hindsight we know the level of monetary stimulus was too large for far too long.

(As I’ve argued in numerous posts here over the last 3 years, I don’t believe the LSAP made much meaningful difference to anything – simply added huge risk, without any serious advance risk analysis, culminating in huge losses. I was encouraged to see in Tibshraeny’s article that the former Deputy Governor, Grant Spencer – able economist and former bank treasurer – seems to have the same view

“The main benefit was that it smoothed the disruption to the bond market that occurred in April/May 2020 when there was some real volatility in the bond market and bond rates spiked up,” Spencer said.

“After that, the rest of the purchases, I would say, had very little effect on the term structure of interest rates.”

Well quite. The initial intervention may not have been necessary but could have been highly profitable on a small scale. The latter purchases made no difference to short to medium interest rates (set by the OCR and expectations about it) and little to longer-term rates. Had they wanted short rates lower, the OCR could always have been cut by another 25 basis points, at no financial risk to taxpayers.

Orr seems to have backed away somewhat from a line he gave Tibshraeny in an interview last year, where he claimed that the macro benefits of the LSAP programme were “multiples” of the losses (and the Bank’s five-year monetary policy review last year provided no serious support for such claims) preferring now just to rely on bluster, distraction, and the hope that people will eventually get tired, or confused, and forget.

Orr’s comments on Friday reminded me that I’d heard that Orr had also been trying on the handwaving “it’s just an accounting issue” at FEC after the recent Monetary Policy Statement. I hadn’t listened in at the time and finally did so this morning.

If National Party members don’t always ask very good questions on this issue, at least they show no sign yet of being willing to let it go. In doing so, they bring out Orr at his prickly, blustering, and basically dishonest, worst.

Willis asked if it was not regrettable that there had been a direct fiscal cost from the LSAP programme of about $9bn. Orr’s response was a single word: No.

Willis followed up asking if he was really saying that these losses were justified. This time, she got a three word response “Yes, I do”.

Orr went on to state that he “100% stood by” the LSAP and its losses, getting a bit more expansive and asserting/reminding the Committee that central banks could operate with negative equity – as noted above, this is pure distraction in the NZ context since the Reserve Bank’s capital was not impaired at all (although taxpayers’ “equity interest” in the NZ government was) – and explicitly going on to assert that it was “an accounting issue not an economic one”. As applied to the LSAP, that is simply false, yet another outrageous attempt to mislead Parliament.

And he wasn’t finished. Willis asked if he was saying he had no regrets at all. His response? “Those were your words”, before falling back on his regrets for things he had no responsibility for – regrets Covid, regrets Ukraine, regrets Gabrielle, even passively regrets that New Zealanders are experiencing high inflation – but no regrets for any choices he made might have actually made, not ones that costs taxpayers $9 billion, and certainly not ones that led to core inflation of about 6 per cent and likely “need for” a recession. Spinning again, he repeated the line he is fond of that if they’d tightened one quarter earlier it would have made very little difference. No doubt so, but the big mistakes – perhaps pardonable, perhaps even understandable, but big mistakes nonetheless – weren’t about one quarter, but about fundamental misjudgements in 2020 and early 2021, on things Parliament has delegated Orr and his MPC responsibility for, as supposed technical experts. And yet they refuse to take any real responsibility, falling back on attempts to distract MPs and avoiding serious engagement with anyone else.

There has been a lot of focus in the last week or so on Rob Campbell’s mistakes, for which he has rightly paid a price and no longer hold Crown appointments.

But Orr managed to lose billions – having done no advance risk analysis, having talked rather negatively on bond-buying strategies only a few months prior to Covid – and delivered us very high core inflation, core inflation reflecting largely domestic demand imbalances well under Reserve Bank monetary policy influence, refuses to engage seriously, actively and repeatedly misrepresents things and misleads Parliament, and treats those to whom he is accountable with prickly disdain and no respect whatever, and yet keeps his job, and starts a second term later this month. It is a sad reflection on how degraded New Zealand politics and policymaking has become when accountability now appears to mean so little.

Reappointing Orr – some documents

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, Reserve Bank Board

Yesterday’s Herald had an interesting article on the reappointment late last year of Adrian Orr as Governor of the Reserve Bank. The article appeared to have been prompted by the Bank’s response to an OIA I lodged last year asking for background material on the reappointment. A link to that OIA response is now on the Bank website.

The key quote was this, from the letter from the Board chair Neil Quigley to the Minister of Finance recommending Orr’s reappointment.

“The governor will also model the highest standards of behaviour in promoting a safe environment for debate and in treating with respect those people with different views from their own, consistent with Public Service Commission guidelines,” 

The best that might be said for that claim is that it may represent wishful thinking that somehow their leopard once reappointed might change his spots. So many people who have interacted with Orr was Governor, or observed him interacting with others, could testify that he has modelled none of that sort of behaviour (and there are specific accounts on record from people for Victoria University’s Martien Lubberink and the NZ Initiative’s Roger Partridge, as well as the story that Quigley himself one day felt obliged to pull Orr out of a Bank Board meeting over concerns about Orr’s conduct in the meeting). Watch any Orr appearance at FEC and much of time his response to challenge and questioning has been pretty testy. There must have been a recent Damascene conversion for Quigley’s assertion to the Minister to be anything other than wishful thinking at best. More likely it is just outright spin.

There was another interesting quote in the Herald article itself, from Chris Eichbaum a Labour-affiliated member of the outgoing board (both the outgoing board and the new Robertson board recommended the reappointment). Eichbaum is quoted as claiming that

An outgoing board member, Chris Eichbaum, confirmed to the Herald the old board went through a “robust and exhaustive”, “backward and forward-looking” process before coming to its decision to endorse Orr.

However, the Bank released summary minutes of the relevant meeting of the non-executive old-Board directors on 12 May last year (which, incidentally, was attended by Rodger Finlay, at the time chair of the majority owner of Kiwibank, the subject of Reserve Bank prudential supervision). The entire meeting lasted only an hour, with five items on the agenda, including the Annual Review for the then Deputy Governor.

“Perfunctory” looks like a more accurate description than “robust and exhaustive” – which isn’t surprising since the old Board had no formal responsibility any more and most of the members were by then probably more interested in their own next opportunities beyond 30 June (I recall one telling us at about that time of the next role he was going to take on once he left the Bank Board). You get the impression that the new Board – on average even less fit for office – must have been even more perfunctory in its deliberations because the Bank neither released nor withheld minutes recording their deliberations on the matter (at their very first meeting on their first day in office, 1 July). Note that not even the Bank’s own self-review of monetary policy was yet available to either Board.

The Reserve Bank OIA response was not, however, the only relevant one. When Orr was reappointed I lodged requests with the Bank, The Treasury, and with the Minister of Finance. They all obviously coordinated their responses since all three were late and all three finally arrived on the same day.

What was interesting in these releases is what wasn’t there (not what was done but withheld, but what appears never to have been done). Thus one of the better aspects of the amended Reserve Bank legislation was supposed to be a heightened and more formalised role for The Treasury in monitoring the Bank on behalf of the Minister of Finance. But there is no advice at all from The Treasury to the Minister of Finance on the substantive pros and cons of reappointing the Governor even though (a) Treasury had just taken on a new heightened role and responsibility, and (b) the question of reappointment was arising amid the biggest monetary policy failure for decades. They drafted the Cabinet paper for the Minister of Finance to reflect the Minister’s own views, but that seems to have been all. There is no sign Treasury was even made aware, let alone asked for advice, when the two Opposition parties raised concerns about the proposed reappointment, even though this was the first time such consultation provisions had existed for a Governor appointment.

As often seems to be the case, the Minister of Finance’s response was fullest, although there were these documents withheld

Intriguing, since there is no sign in any of the other documents of any legal doubts about the ability to reappoint (and all these documents pre-date the letter from Quigley cotaining the Board’s recommendation to reappoint Orr).

The statutory provisions the Minister had inserted require the Minister of Finance to consult other parties in Parliament before recommended to the Governor-General the (re)appointment of a Governor. It was an interesting addition to the legislation (and arguably there is a stronger case for such a provision for the Governor than for Board members, where the record indicates that the Minister had already treated the consultation provision as no more than a cosmetic hoop to jump through on the way to doing whatever he wanted) and certainly suggested an intent that anyone appointed as Governor should at least command the grudging acceptance of other political parties (perhaps especially the major ones) given the huge discretionary power the Governor, Bank and Governor-dominated MPC wield.

Here is the body of the letter sent to the other parties on 19 September

Interestingly, the letter makes no substantive case for the proposed reappointment, addresses nothing (good or ill) about his record etc. I guess parties might be presumed to know Orr, but it still seems a little curious to make not even a one sentence case. But that is the Minister’s choice.

Three of the four non-Labour parties in Parliament responded (the Maori Party did not). This was the response from Genter/Shaw for the Greens

Being an unserious party, they supported reappointment because of things the Bank and Governor have no statutory responsibility for.

Both National and ACT expressed opposition to the reappointment. The letter from Nicola Willis has been released previously and so I won’t clutter the post by reproducing it all here. Their opposition was on the (deeply flawed) ground that they believed no five year appointment should be made for a term starting in election year (even though the starting date for the second term was in March 2023 and the election then seemed likely to be in October or November). However, Willis ended her letter this way.

Willis has since described the reappointment as “appalling”, but seems to continue to rely on the argument about a five-year term even though (as I’ve pointed out previously) their 2017 comparison is flawed and the legislation has always been designed deliberately not to make it easy for new governments, of whatever stripe, to come in and appoint their own person.

We had known that ACT was opposed to the reappointment but had not seen the body of Seymour’s letter back to Robertson. It is a couple of pages long and raises substantive concerns about both style and policy substance (but rightly not questioning the ability of the government to make a five year appointment). It has a distinctive Seymour style to it (and so even as an Orr sceptic some lines jar with me) but it is an undeniably serious document, in response to the first ever statutorily-required political party consultation over the appointment of a Governor.

But it was all just ignored. This is what little the Minister of Finance told Cabinet

so not even a hint as to the nature of the concerns the Opposition parties had expressed, or any reflection on what expectations (around multi-party acceptance, if not endorsement) the government’s own legislation might have given rise to.

After the Cabinet paper had been lodged, Robertson did write back to Nicola Willis in a fairly substantive letter (the full text of this and other documents is in here)

Robertson OIA on Orr reappointment 2022

The Minister rightly pushes back on the argument about pre-election appointments, highlighting the substantial differences to the 2017 case (and actually makes the interesting point, that I had not noticed, that the law provides for only a single reappointment, so any one year term for Orr would have to have been his final term).

Perhaps of more substantive interest are the comments from the Minister on the Governor’s monetary policy stewardship

A lot more spin than substance, that fails (completely but no doubt deliberately) to distinguish things central banks are responsible for and those they aren’t really, chooses not to distinguish shocks that New Zealand did not face (eg global gas prices), and in the end is simply complacent about the serious core inflation outbreaks here and everywhere else. There is no sense of any accountability.

The Minister’s letter ends this way

Not only has the entire legislative structure long been built around a model in which the Minister of Finance has always been free to reject a nominee (but cannot impose his or her own favourite) but it was Robertson’s own government that added the political party consultation provisions. Rejecting an Orr nomination – especially after both Opposition parties had expressed serious concerns – would not to have been to politicise the process, but would simply have been the Minister of Finance doing his job. As it is, the risk now is that the consultation provisions will come to be regarded just as an empty shell.

Those paragraphs above from the Minister’s letter to Willis are nonetheless of some interest because they are the only material, across three separate OIA responses, even mentioning the conduct of monetary policy on the Governor’s watch. In the Board minutes (see above) there was no sign of any consideration or analytical input (not that none of the Board members really had the capability to provide such an assessment themselves. In the Quigley letter to Robertson there is this

which is not only input-focused (rather than outcomes), focused on March 2020 (rather than the aftermath), but shows no sign of any critical reflection or evaluation. And in the Minister’s paper to Cabinet monetary policy and inflation – let alone $9bn of avoidable losses to the taxpayer – get no mention at all, just burble about Orr as a change manager (leading decline and fall perhaps?)

It was a poor appointment (my long list of reasons was in this post) even if one that was always to have been expected, since Robertson had never displayed any serious interest in accountability or performance, or much in the substance of the Bank’s role at all (and failure to reappoint might have risked raising questions about the government itself). But it is still a little surprising how short on substance, around the key failings of the Governor in recent years (style and substance), the documented parts of the process leading to reappointment seem to have been.

There are, of course, some levers open to a new National/ACT government were they to win the election, but it would be a little surprising if they do much at all. More likely, the decline and fall of a now bloated and unfocused institution will continue through Orr’s second (and apparently final) term.

Reluctantly and belatedly recognising conflicts of interest

Michael Reddell Adrian Orr, Reserve Bank Board, Rodger Finlay

For just over six months now I’ve been on the trail of questionable appointments to the new Reserve Bank Board. Most of the Board members aren’t really fit for office in anything other than ornamental roles – this in the midst of the worst monetary policy failure in decades and the Board being responsible for key appointments and for holding the MPC to account. But my main focus has been on the appointment last October of Rodger Finlay, while he was chair of the majority owner of Kiwibank, with a lesser focus on Byron Pepper, appointed in June this year while also serving as a a director of an insurance company operating in New Zealand (the largest shareholder in which was another insurance company subject to prudential regulation by the Reserve Bank.

The Reserve Bank has spent months trying to avoid/delay answering questions about these appointments. For any first time readers, the appointments themselves are made formally by the Minister of Finance, but materials previously released make it clear that the Reserve Bank (and The Treasury) were actively involved in the selection and evaluation of candidates for Board positions (as is quite customary).

A few weeks ago, the Bank gave me Hobson’s choice. Either face the likelihood of them declining the entire OIA request I had had with them (with the chance that one day, a year or two hence, the Ombudsman might make them give me more) or accept something of a black-box offer.

I took the offer. Yesterday I received their response.

RB pseudo OIA response re Finlay and Pepper Dec 2022

As I will lay out, there is some interesting material included, but as I had half-expected it is a pretty cagey and dishonest effort, since it includes nothing at all about how conflicts of interests had or had not been handled in the selection, interview, and evaluation process prior to the appointments being made.

Taking Pepper first, the documented provided is a four page letter dated 27 July 2022 (a month after Pepper’s appointment had been announced) to Pepper from Neil Quigley, the chair of the Board. In that letter, which addresses advice from both internal and external legal counsel, Quigley acknowledge that Pepper himself had been entirely upfront

I acknowledge that you have pro-active and transparent in declaring the above interests in each of your pre-appointment discussions with RBNZ board members and senior executives of The Treasury, and that you subsequently confirmed these in your pre-appointment interests disclosure to RBNZ staff.

But…

The RBNZ is …. under constant scrutiny from both its regulated institutions, market participants and interested members of the public as a whole. The RBNZ is also subject to the Official Information Act, and more generally as a public institution has an obligation to respond in good faith, and within the limits of privacy and commercial sensitivity, provide good faith responses to
questions and enquiries received. As a result, the RBNZ needs to set the highest standards, and take appropriately conservative approaches to the management of interests and the avoidance of both actual and perceived conflicts of interest, as both Mr McBride and Mr Wallis point out in their advice to me. This also means that the RBNZ needs to avoid complexity and opaqueness in managing in the interests of Board members, because these are challenging to explain to journalists and to the
public.

and “the legal position will not stop interested members of the public from asking us how we manage the situation”.

Quigley (no doubt here also by this time reflecting the stance of the Governor) writes

Pepper then chose to give up the insurance company directorship (he could presumably instead have resigned the Reserve Bank directorship).

A few quick points:

  • one might have some sympathy with Pepper himself. He appears to have hidden nothing, and the Reserve Bank Board role was the first government appointment he appears to have received.   A really strong ethical perspective should probably have had him recognising from the start that it was going to be a dreadful look to be both an insurance regulator (director thereof) and director of an insurance company operating in New Zealand (even one not directly regulated by the Bank), but (a) he’d been open, and (b) had got through the recruitments consultants the government was using, discussions with senior RB and Treasury figures, and Cabinet.
  • did Neil Quigley (and Orr and the rest) not appreciate previously that appointees to the new, much more powerful, Reserve Bank Board were going to receive scrutiny, and that actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest would inevitably be a major focus for a Board responsible for prudential regulatory policy across banking, non-bank deposit-taking, payments systems, and insurance?  If not, why not?
  • even at the late date of the letter, Quigley seems to regard the problem as being as much the OIA rather than the importance of appointments to powerful regulatory agency bodies being above reproach or ethical question.  In fact, it is blindingly clear that Quigley, Orr and the rest of them approached Board appointments only with the narrowest legal constraints in mind.  If, as the law was written, the Pepper (or Finlay) appointments were not illegal (and they weren’t) there could be no problem. Astonishingly, in both cases The Treasury –  much more experienced in making and advising on government board appointments generally – seems to have gone along (as did the Minister of Finance and his colleagues).  It is a poor reflection on all involved.

And that is all I want to say about Pepper. In the end, the right thing seems to have been done, but only after public and media scrutiny and criticism.  Recall that a few years ago Orr got on his high horse about “culture and conduct” in the financial sector: we really should have been able to expect a much higher pro-active standard around key appointments than was evident here, and as so often concerns brought to light on the things we the public get to see leave one wondering about the standards the Bank and Board chair apply in areas we don’t easily get to see. 

What of the Finlay issues?

What has been released (link above) is a three-page summary, apparently prepared by the Bank’s in-house lawyer summarising various selected bits of correspondence relevant to the handling of Finlay’s conflicts of interest but only from the time his appointment to the Reserve Bank Board, from 1 July 2022, was announced in October 2021 (plus some editorial spin intended to try to shape the interpretation drawn by readers).  Between those two dates Finlay was paid to serve on the “transition board” handling the establishment of the new governance regime, but previous OIAs have disclosed that he also routinely attended meetings of the then-official Reserve Bank Board during this period.  My OIA request had explicitly covered a period starting on 1 April 2021, shortly before the public advertisements had appeared for positions on the new Reserve Bank Board, and it is telling that the Bank has chosen to release nothing from the selection and evaluation period.

Were this Reserve Bank document to be the only material we had, it might appear that everyone had acted honourably and appropriately in a slightly difficult time (what with secret discussions around the future ownership of Kiwibank going on in the background that very few people –  Treasury, Bank or even Ministers –  could reasonably be made aware of).

Thus

  • on 18 October 2021 we are told that Rodger Finlay “had outlined all interests that might potentially be relevant. In particular, he declared interest [in] (as a director of) NZ Post and Ngai Tahu holdings.” (this latter, which I have not focused on relates to the substantial – but not controlling – stake Ngai Tahu was taking in an insurance company that is subject to Reserve Bank prudential supervision)
  • on 20 October, the Governor asked about commitments Finlay had made about “management of conflicts of interest”, with Quigley weighing in that the Bank needed to “remain conservative on this front and maintain a very low risk appetite, particularly regarding Kiwibank”
  • on 17 November, a couple of senior Bank staff met Finlay who “outlined how particular interests could be eliminated before 1 July 2022 [presumably a first reference to the prospect of changed Kiwibank ownership] and how any COIs that could not be eliminated could be managed post 1 July 2022”
  • on 23 November, the Governor noted that “Kiwibank’s ownership structure would be resolved by July 2022….The Governor sought more information on how any conflicts through Ngai Tahu Holdings could be managed”.  Quigley responded “noting that it is important to avoid or resolve perceived COIs as it is to avoid or resolve actual COIs”, noting that he would discuss the Nagi Tahu situation further with Finlay, but “expected NZ Post will resolve itself by July 2022”.
  • on 17 March 2022, Finlay emailed the chair and Governor indicating he had been advised that NZ Post’s divestment from Kiwibank would be complete before 1 July 2022, and that he was no longer chair of the Ngai Tahu Holdings Audit Committee.

In the editorial at the end of the document this appears

finlay dec 22

(That final paragraph is not very satisfactory, since my OIA request had been explicitly about conflicts of interest generally, and not just the Kiwibank case, although it is slightly encouraging that the Bank has at least been cognisant of the conflict, even if it is not dealt with at all adequately by the restriction mentioned, since it seems Finlay is free to participate in discussions and votes on policy matters that affect a regulated company he has a significant interest in, as director of a significant shareholder.)

All that might sound fairly exculpatory for the Bank (perhaps especially Quigley, who seems to have been more concerned than management) and for Finlay – all honourable people acting in an honourable and above-board way, and all that.

Except that (a) not only does none of this cover the period before Finlay was appointed, but (b) what little the Bank released is far from all we now know about what went on.  I’ve written various posts on various material Treasury and the Minister of Finance have released.  Of particular interest is the “incident report” prepared over the signature of Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew. You will recall that the Secretary to the Treasury had had to apologise in writing to the Minister of Finance in late June for the failure of Treasury staff to ensure that Finlay’s conflicts re Kiwibank were disclosed in key papers to the Minister and to Cabinet.   The “incident report“, which I wrote about here, had been requested by the Secretary, to identify what went wrong and what lessons there were for the future.  Since it wasn’t written for publication, and The Treasury had by this time already owned up to an error, and since it covers the full period, it should be treated as a much more reliable and complete account than what the Bank has now selectively released.

Of direct relevance

Conflicts of interest were closely considered throughout this process. G & A Manager Gael Webster sought statement of conflict protocols from the Chair of the RB board, set up the process for the appointment of Transition board members and the new board, and contracted Kerridge & Partners to run the recruitment process, initially for the Transition board.

Kerridge met with the Treasury and RB Governor where conflicts were discussed, and Kerridge was provided with the Bank’s conflict protocols.

We also already knew, and the incident report confirms, that Finlay himself disclosed no possible conflicts to the consultants or the interview panel (not Kiwibank, not Ngai Tahu).

The report goes on

The due diligence interview with Mr Finlay proceeded with a panel comprising Sir Brian Roche as chair, Neil Quigley and Tania Simpson from the current RB board, Caralee McLeish, Wayne Byres (chair of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority), and Murray Costello. The panel knew that Mr Finlay was chair of NZ Post which owned a majority share in Kiwi Group Holdings Ltd, which in turn owned Kiwibank, which is subject to regulation by the RB.

Sir Brian recalls conflicts being discussed but it was considered Mr Finlay was not conflicted. The RB’s Conflict of Interest policy stated that Mr Finlay would have a conflict that should be declared if he was a director of Kiwi Group Holdings Ltd, or a director of its subsidiary banking company Kiwibank Ltd. Neither of those situations existed and Mr Finlay is completely removed from the governance and operations of Kiwibank.

This reflects poorly on every single one of these people. There is no sign any of them were yet aware of the Ngai Tahu issue (which, see above, the Bank itself now appears to regard as a real conflict) but as regards Kiwibank they seem to have been driven by a narrow and legalistic interpretation – that can only have come from the Reserve bank side – that whatever was not illegal was therefore entirely proper and unproblematic).

Now, quite possibly – we don’t know – discussions around the future ownership of Kiwibank were already underway by mid last year (when the interview and evaluation were going on), but we know that The Treasury staff dealing with this appointment were not aware of that project until March/April this year, it seems unlikely the matter would have been disclosed to a foreign regulator (Byres, Kiwibank having no Australian presence), there is no sign Roche was aware (or surely he would have mentioned it as a consideration when asked in June/July 2022 by people who themselves were now aware), and even if Quigley was aware there is no obvious reason Simpson should have been advised (the old RB Board being purely advisory on policy matters). It seems quite safe to conclude that judgements – in which the Reserve Bank shared – about Finlay’s acceptability for the Reserve Bank Board role were made in the expectation that he would continue to be NZ Post chair and that NZ Post would continue to own the majority of Kiwibank. And it is just inconceivable how they – and especially the RB people, who should have been most concerned with, and conscious of, appearance risk – thought it was okay.

(In the material the Bank released there is an attempt to minimise Finlay’s role at Post and Post’s role re Kiwibank, but none of it changes the fundamental fact that Reserve Bank policy decisions would potentially severely affect the operations and fortunes of an entity NZ Post, chaired by Finlay, majority owned.)

The “we all knew what we were doing and there was never going to be a problem because the Kiwibank ownership would be resolved before 1 July 2022” line just does not wash. A much more compelling story is that all involved were running with narrow legalistic interpretations – it was lawful, therefore just fine – and had lost any sense of the big picture around integrity and appearances of integrity. For some reasons – not really clear, although I’ve heard suggestions they are similar personalities – Orr wanted Finlay and nothing was going to stand in the way.

The story the Bank now spins about how “we were all doing the right thing but just couldn’t write it down, even in Cabinet papers” doesn’t stack up for a moment:

  • it is entirely inconsistent with the fact of the Secretary to the Treasury’s written apology
  • it is inconsistent with the account of that interview panel (and of Finlay’s non-disclosure of any conflicts)
  • it is inconsistent with the twin facts that (a) the Minister of Finance had to consult with Opposition parties on the appointment and b) that the appointment was disclosed on the RB website by the end of 2021 (even if no one much noticed then).  Had the true story really been “oh, we’ll have changed the ownership of Kiwibank by 30/6/22 so that NZ Post won’t own it by then” the commerical-in-confidence story would have prevented them giving an honest answer to any Opposition party that had been on the ball and asked about apparent conflicts, or the people like me and the journalists who wrote about the issue if we had picked it up earlier. 
  • there is no sign in any of the papers released of the Bank raising any concerns late in the piece as it became clear that the Kiwibank ownership situation would not be sorted out by 30 June 2022 (no sign eg of them urging the Minister to get Finlay to take leave of absence from the RB Board until it was sorted out).  All the signs are that they just did not care very much, if at all. It wasn’t unlawful, and if it wasn’t ideal it was still okay.  If there is evidence that this is not the correct interpretation they could readily have released it.

No, the decision to appoint Finlay back in October 2021 was clearly taken on the narrow basis that the law did not prevent Finlay being appointed even if he chaired the majority owner of Kiwibank.  And that reflects very poorly on everyone involved –  Orr, Quigley, Byres, Treasury and the Minister of Finance (and his colleagues).    It would not have happened in any moderately well-governed country, but it happened here, made worse by the refusal of the Reserve Bank (Governor and chair) to take any responsibility for an egregious misjudgment, the sort of defensiveness that feeds the slow corruption of the state.

Suppose that Finlay was really appeared like a potential star catch as a potential Reserve Bank Board member (not clear why he might but just suppose).  Suppose too that you (Governor, Minister, Board chair, Secretary to the Treasury) knew that negotiations were getting underway to get Kiwibank out from under NZ Post, and you thought those would be likely to be sorted out by mid 2022.  It would have been easy enough, and entirely proper, to have made an in-principle decision to appoint Finlay but to delay any consultation with the Opposition and any announcement until the conflict –  real and substantial –  was removed.  Perhaps that might have meant Finlay taking up his appointment at the Reserve Bank on 1 September rather than 1 July, and his services –  just another professional company director (as Treasury notes in that report “there were other candidates the Minister could have considered for the Reserve Bank”) – wouldn’t have been available to the Governor during the transition period.  It would have been a perfectly right and proper thing to have done.  But Orr –  and apparently Quigley, MacLeish, and Robertson –  just didn’t care.  In Orr’s case, still doesn’t it seems.  As so often with him, responsibility, contrition, and doing the honourable thing (doing, and being seen to do) count for little or nothing.  There are no standards, just the bare minimum of (inadequate) legal restrictions, and whatever he can get away with.

UPDATE 23/12:  The Bank has chosen very consciously to play silly games and to deliberately not provide any material re Finlay for the period prior to mid-October 2021, the period in which the selection, evaluation, assessment and recommendations to the Minister of potential candidates was taking place.  It is clearly the period they don’t want light shed on, and as would have been very clear from my earlier writings it was a period of considerable interest to me (and was explicitly covered in my original requests).  Accordingly, I have lodged a new request with the Bank for all material relevant to the selection, evaluation etc of Finlay and Pepper, for the periods up to mid-October 2021 in Finlay’s case and up to 30 June 2022 in Pepper’s case.  

For those interested in reading further, Jenee Tibshraeny had an article in the Herald this morning prompted by the OIA material in this post. including a brief and unconvincing comment from Finlay (the first we’ve heard from him I think).