It is now June, which means it is only 15 months or so until Graeme Wheeler’s ill-starred term as Governor of the Reserve Bank ends.  Conversations begin to turn to the question of what happens next.

I’ve probably left many people unconvinced, but I still reckon there is a plausible case that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is the most powerful individual in New Zealand.  He exercises a lot of discretion with few checks and balances (perhaps especially in areas other than monetary policy) and there are no established appeal or review rights.  Many Cabinet ministers have lots of power, but they can be dismissed whenever the Prime Minister chooses.  The Prime Minister can be toppled by his or her own caucus with no notice or appeal (see Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott –  or Jim Bolger and Geoffrey Palmer for that matter).  Judges make crucial, life-changing, decisions, but all lower court decisions are subject to appeal, and all higher courts sit as a panel of judges.  Of course, the Governor has power in only a specific range of areas, but as those areas include monetary policy and financial regulation, the effects of the Governor’s choices can be felt very widely.

A month or so ago, I wrote a couple of posts (here and here) about the curious democratic-deficit in the way in which the position of Governor is filled.  It is a choice Parliament made, but it is a very unusual one, whether considered against the models used for central banks/financial regulators abroad, or for other senior positions in the New Zealand government.  Even though the Governor wields so much power, the choice of who serves as Governor is not made by an (elected) Minister of Finance, but by the faceless, largely unaccountable, group of people who constitute the Board of the Reserve Bank.  The Minister technically makes the appointment, but he can only appoint someone recommended by the Board.  That makes the Board members the key players in the process.  Perhaps equally weirdly, the Minister gets to determine the Governor’s terms and conditions (he only has to consult the Board).  In a more reasonable assignment of roles and responsibilities, one might have thought the Minister should be able to appoint an appropriate person as Governor (as happens in most countries, including Australia), perhaps consulting the Board, and perhaps leave the Board to set the terms and conditions, perhaps in consultation with the Minister.

There are no confirmation hearings for either people appointed to the Board, or for a Governor-designate, even though between them these people will have considerable influence on the economy and financial system for years to come.  One might reasonably ask what expertise, let alone public mandate, Rod Carr, Keith Taylor, and the rest of them, have to make those sorts of selections, or why they are better placed to do so than an elected Minister.  Recall that appointing a Governor is not just akin to appointing a CEO of a government department –  who typically has little or no effective policy discretion – or the CEO of a private company.  It is about appointing a key policy (one might almost say “political”, albeit not in a partisan sense) player whose discretionary choices –  and they involve real and substantial discretion – are probably at least as significant as those of most Cabinet ministers, with the associated need to be at least as open and accountable as Cabinet ministers.   It seems like the sort of role that senior elected ministers, not faceless former finance sector executives and academic administrators, should be filling.

But unsatisfactory as the law is, it seems almost certain that it will be the law governing the next appointment of a Governor.

Someone who has paid closer attention to some of the details of those provisions than I have pointed out to me recently clause 46(1)(c) of the Reserve Bank Act.    Under the provision, no one can serve as Governor, or Deputy Governor, once they are aged 70 or over.

This provision is quite old.  The legislation was passed in 1989, and life expectancy has increased by perhaps five years since then.  In addition, New Zealand legislation passed since then has prohibited compulsory retirement ages, unless they are specifically provided for in statute (as this one is).  There is a similar statutory age limit for judges.

In a year when the race of the job of President of the United States seems set to be fought between one candidate who will turn 70 this month, and another who will turn 70 next year (who is in turn still being challenged by a sitting senator who is 74) it is a surprisingly low age limit.  Life expectancy has increased, but in fact it is almost 60 years since Walter Nash became our Prime Minister at age 75, and then left office at 78.

I’m not opposed on principle to having an age limit for the Governor.  If anything, as our law is currently written, the case might be stronger than  that for judges.  In respect of judges, the contrast is striking between our situation and that of the US Supreme Court, where judges often seem to hang on until death (as much as anything to manage succession risk), and where three of the current sitting judges are aged 77 and over.

It is, rightly, difficult to remove a sitting higher court judge even if that person’s physical and mental capabilities are evidently in serious decline.  In our system, it takes a vote of Parliament, in an address to the Governor-General.  Age limits help to protect against the indignity and awkwardness of such difficult and very public removals.   Then again, between the assignment of cases, appeal provisions, and the fact that appellate courts sit with a bench of judges, the damage a declining individual judge can do can be mitigated.

It is technically easier to remove a Governor of the Reserve Bank whose capacities were failing.  It requires only an Order-in-Council.  But in practice it would be no easier, and potentially much harder to manage in the interim.  A Governor in office has full powers to set monetary policy as he judges appropriate, and to make and vary a wide range of financial regulatory policy measures.  There is no one who can temporarily assign some of those powers to other officials, and there are no appeal rights.   And the Reserve Bank operates in the full glare of scrutiny by domestic and international markets.

But an age limit of 70 simply doesn’t seem to strike quite the right balance.  Ideally, the entire governance structure of the Reserve Bank will be revised, and if the Governor had just one vote (among say 5 or 7) on each of a Monetary Policy Committee and Financial Regulatory Committee then no age limit might be needed at all (there is none in Australia, or the United States –  Greenspan was 79 when he left office).  For now, serious consideration should be given to raising the age limit to at least 75.

As it happens, the age limit is unlikely to have been a binding consideration since the Act was passed. Don Brash left office at 61, and Alan Bollard was a similar age when he finished as Governor.  But Graeme Wheeler will, apparently, be 66 late next year.  That means he could not serve another five year term, even if he wanted one, or if the Board wanted to reappoint him.  He could, however, serve –  say –  a four year term, which might parallel the typical arrangements for government department chief executives (who typically get an initial five year appointment, and then often get a three year extension).

I hear on the grapevine that the Governor has already indicated to staff that he will not be seeking a second term.  If so, the issue is moot as it affects him.

But with more people staying longer in the workforce it might still be relevant to some of the people the Board could consider to fill the office of Governor.

For example, although it has now been 35 years since the position was filled by someone with a Reserve Bank background –  an extraordinary statistic that the Board might want to reflect on – former senior officials would no doubt be among those who might be thought of as candidates for Governor.  The Act not only requires that no one can be Governor or Deputy Governor once they turn 70, but it also requires that first terms as Governor must be for five years.

There are, for example, two current and four former Deputy Governors who are still professionally active.

Peter Nicholl was Deputy Governor in the 1990s, before going on to serve as Governor of the central bank of Bosnia.  He is still apparently professionally active on the international central banking consulting circuit. But he is 72, and so barred from serving as Governor here.

Murray Sherwin succeeded Nicholl as Deputy Governor.  He is now chair of the Productivity Commission, and in many ways could be a very good Governor if he was interested.  But it appears that he is turning 65, probably next year, and so the age-70 limit could be a constraint.

Grant Spencer is a current Deputy Governor, and will have served in that role for a decade by the time Wheeler’s term expires.  Spencer has considerable experience inside the Bank, as well as decade in relatively senior roles at ANZ, but also appears to turn 65 shortly (the first academic publication I could find dated back to 1974).

Three other current or former Deputy Governors don’t face the same issue.  Rod Carr, Adrian Orr, and Geoff Bascand are all in their 50s, and each has chief executive experience.

Where else might the Board look?  There are other senior ex Reserve Bankers, such as David Archer, former Assistant Governor and Chief Economist now in a senior role at the BIS, or Arthur Grimes.  Or if they were interested in plucking someone from an international agency, my first boss Andrew Tweedie is now the Director of Finance (not just a bean-counting job) at the International Monetary Fund.

There isn’t a strong tradition of academics moving directly into policy roles in New Zealand, and nor are there many academics working in policy-oriented research on monetary policy or financial regulation.  Then again, there are two academic administrators on the Board, either of whom might themselves be interested.

The Reserve Bank now has a major and active role as regulator and supervisor of financial institutions, and so some banking background might be a consideration the Board looks for.   There are few senior New Zealand bankers, and especially not ones with the capability to be, and to credibly front as, the single decision-maker on monetary policy.  Some of us used to worry that Mark Weldon’s friendship with the Prime Minister might have seen him succeed Alan Bollard, but perhaps the OCR leak debacle further reduces that risk.

What of public servants?  Iain Rennie, the outgoing State Services Commissioner, has a strong background in macro, and was for a time the Deputy Secretary of that part of Treasury.

Finding the right person should be quite challenging.  It is a big job, and also an unusual one.  The Bank itself isn’t a large organization, but it has quite a range of functions, where the Governor personally has a great deal of discretionary policy power.  And the Bank operates in an area where there is a huge amount of uncertainty.  Filling the role well needs management capability, it needs intellectual capacity, it needs good judgement, and it needs the self-confidence on the one hand, and the humility on the other, to recognize the uncertainties, to be willing and able to engage openly with alternative perspectives, and to acknowledge that –  being human –  from time to time the Governor will make mistakes.  Precisely because the power is so concentrated in one individual, inevitably the questioning and challenging will often focus on that individual.  The ability to embrace sustained scrutiny and work effectively in that spotlight isn’t a talent everyone has –  and nor is it needed for most roles.

From time to time, people talk about the possibility of appointing a non New Zealander as Governor.  I don’t think it is a viable or sensible option.  Think of how much political mileage there still is in New Zealand from bashing Australian banks.  How would people take to having an Australian setting our interest rates, and regulating those Australian (and other banks)?  I don’t think it is politically tenable, and neither –  given the extent of the discretion the Governor wields –  would it be desirable.  I wrote about this issue a while ago and concluded:

I think it would still be a mistake to go global.  Some aspects of the role could be done by any able person –  revitalising, for example, the Bank’s research and analysis across the range of its policy functions.  That is partly just about good second and third tier appointments, and partly about being a voracious customer for the insights that analysis throws up .  But the role also needs someone who understand the New Zealand economy, the New Zealand system of governance, and someone who understands the New Zealand financial system.  And it needs someone who is comfortable, and credible, in telling the Bank’s story – and sometimes it will be a controversial or difficult story –  to New Zealand audiences.  Plenty of people criticized Don Brash over the years, but few doubted that his heart was in this country, and that its best interests were his priority.  In a small country, with a foreign-dominated financial sector, a very powerful central bank, and ongoing controversy about the role of monetary policy and New Zealand’s economic performance, it is hard to imagine any foreign appointee successfully filling the bill.

Of course, it might be a little easier if the governance of the Bank was reformed.  For example, in a system in which the Governor was chief executive, but had no more voting rights on monetary policy or financial regulation policy matters than others members of the respective committees, the stakes are a little lower.  But even then, I think such governance reform more appropriately opens the way to the appointment, from time to time, of a foreign expert as a member of one or other of the voting committees.  Since the Bank of England’s nine-person Monetary Policy Committee was established by legislation almost 20 years ago it has not been uncommon to have a foreigner sitting on that committee. In a New Zealand context, supplementing local expertise with outside perspectives in that way could have some appeal – if New Zealand government board fees were sufficient to attract quality candidates –  but we are still likely to be best, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, to look for a Governor from home –  as we do when we choose ministers, judges, (and these days Governors-General), military chiefs and so on.

The appointment of the next Governor is further complicated by the timing.  The Governor’s term expires almost three years to the day since the last election.  In times past it wouldn’t have been a great problem –  there was a broad bipartisan consensus around the Reserve Bank.  Similarly, when the appointment of Phil Lowe was announced just a few days prior to the Australian election being called it wasn’t a problem: Labor and the Coalition don’t seem to have any material differences on the RBA.   But here all the Opposition parties are campaigning on a different approach to monetary policy.  We don’t know quite how different –  in 2014, Labour’s policy was marketed as quite different, but on closer examination it appeared pretty similar to the status quo –  and part of that would depend on the respective vote shares in a coalition that made up an alternative government.   If the government were to change, it would seem pretty unsatisfactory that an incoming government could find themselves lumbered with a Governor taking office on virtually the same day they did, for a term of five years, appointed by a Board appointed entirely by the outgoing government.  It shouldn’t matter that much, but such is the extent of the policy discretion the Governor has under current legislation, that it does.  Frankly, it should probably bother someone taking the job –  appointed, but not knowing what framework he or she will operate under.

People push back against this argument, noting that changes of government can happen in the middle of a Governor’s term.  And that is, of course, true.  But it is particularly stark when the new term would begin at virtually the same time a new government would be taking office, and when there are –  it appears –  more differences between major parties on the Reserve Bank Act than would have been the case in earlier decades.  There are no easy or comfortable ways to resolve this issue.  An early appointment keeps any announcement clear of the election campaign, but that isn’t really the issue.  Any new Governor has to be appointed for an initial term of five years.  The Acting Governor provisions of the Act can be used only to complete a Governor’s unfinished term.   I noted a while ago that one option might be to offer Graeme Wheeler a brief extension, allowing the longer-term appointment to be resolved once the make-up of the next government was clear.  Perhaps if there were a self-evidently outstanding single candidate for Governor, commanding respect on all sides of politics, it might also be less of an issue.

Under our current legislation these issues are inescapable from time to time.  A five year term will expire in an election year every 15 years, on normal cycles.  One could give the Governor a six year term, which would reduce the chance of the coincidence, but even then a snap election could bring the two dates into synch again.  Much better would be to move to a system that put much less weight on any one individual.  No other advanced country central bank/regulatory agency gives so much discretionary power to a single unelected individual.  We shouldn’t.

I’ve been working on a review of an interesting new book by an American academic, Peter Conti-Brown, with a background in law and financial history, on reforming the governance of the US Federal Reserve System.  The Power and Independence of the Federal Reserve is a funny mix of a book.  At a time, in the years following the 2008/09 financial crisis, when all sorts of people from different parts of the political spectrum have concerns about the Fed –  be it concerns about the influence of bankers, unease about the quasi-fiscal choices the “technocratic” central bank has been making, pushes to “audit the Fed” and so on –  the author sets out to aim for a pretty broad audience.  It isn’t just an academic tract –  he clearly hopes to be read by think-tankers, Congressional staffers and intelligent voters who perhaps have a vague sense that “something is wrong”.   It is difficult to imagine an equivalent book in New Zealand selling more than 100 copies.  There are some advantages to size.

There is the odd amusing story to spice up the text.  Picture the early Board members of the Fed worrying about where they would rank in the official US order of protocol.  Unimpressed at the State Department’s ruling that they would “sit in line with the other independent commissions in chronological order of their legislative creation” they escalated the matter all the way to Woodrow Wilson.  The President, clearly unimpressed with the pretensions of the Board members, told his Treasury Secretary “well, they might come right after the fire department”.   The State Department ruling stood –  in order of precedence, Fed Board members ranked behind the board of the Smithsonian.

One of Conti-Brown’s key themes is that if laws matter, and of course they do, individuals and the intellectual climate of the times matters more.  He devotes quite a lot of space to illustrating how, with largely unchanged legislation, the conception of the Fed, and the relationship between it and politicians (especially Presidents), has changed markedly over the decades.  (A somewhat similar story might be told about the Reserve Bank of Australia, over its rather shorter history.)  Marriner Eccles –  chair of the Fed under Franklin Roosevelt –  saw the role of the Fed as being to work hand in glove with the Administration.  The modern conception of an operationally independent central bank is very different –  perhaps especially in the US where the Administration has no role in setting policy targets (unlike, say, the UK or New Zealand).

Of course, the notion that individuals matter shouldn’t really be a stunning insight.  But much of the modern notion of an operationally independent central bank rests of the implicit view that there are technocratic answers to the problems we delegate to central bankers.  If so, then it really shouldn’t matter much which technocrat holds the key job(s) at the central bank.  That view was near-explicit in the way the New Zealand framework was set up: set the goal clearly enough, and make the Governor dismissable if he fails, and pretty much anyone will do.

Life –  macroeconomics, and financial regulation –  isn’t like that. Central bankers and financial regulators make choices, especially (but not only) in crises and, whatever the relevant legislation says, the values, ideologies and experiences of those who hold decision-making powers will matter, at times quite a lot.

And so much of Conti-Brown’s book is, in effect, around appointment and dismissal procedures for key positions in the Fed.  He is particularly exercised about the positions of the heads of the regional Feds, and indeed of the regional Federal Reserve Banks themselves (“we get a sense [from past Congressional testimony] that nobody knew exactly how to define these strange quasi-private quasi-public structures”).

The US Constitution itself has an appointments clause.  “Officers of the United States” can only be appointed by the President with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.    There is an exception for “inferior officers”, for whom Congress may specify that the President alone or the head of an agency (him or herself a principal officer, appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent) may make the appointment.  Members of the Fed’s Board of Governors are “principal officers” and are subject to Senate confirmation.    The President can also dismiss principal officers, but the courts have also ruled that, for independent agencies such as the Fed, the President cannot dismiss a principal officer at will (eg just for policy differences).

Regional Fed presidents, who exercise what looks like considerable authority as rotating members of the FOMC, are not appointed by the President, do not face Senate scrutiny, and are also not appointed (or dismissable, even for cause) by people who are themselves principal officers.  In Conti-Brown’s words “the Reserve Banks and FOMC, as currently governed, are unconstitutional,  The separation between the US president and the Reserve Bank presidents is simply too great”.

Conti-Brown argues that the role of the regional Presidents, and their relationship with the rest of the system, should be markedly changed.  He proposes putting the Board of Governors clearly in charge, giving them exclusive responsibility for the appointment and dismissal of regional Presidents, and effectively reducing the regional Feds to no more than branch offices.  In his model, the regional Fed Presidents would all be removed from the FOMC, except as (in effect) senior staff observers, so that all monetary policy decisions will have been made only by people selected by the President, and subject to the Senate advice and consent process.

I’m less persuaded by that as a solution.  For a start, from a distance, it looks politically unsaleable.  Even if the locations of the regional Feds reflects the politics and economics of 1913, rather than 2016, those institutions are “facts on the ground” and there would presumably be a great deal of resistance to removing that regional vote, and explicitly undermining the clout and status of the regional institutions.  An alternative model, which he discusses, seems more plausible.  Instead of subordinating regional Fed Presidents to the Board of Governors, why not instead make each regional Fed appointment a presidential appointment, with the full advice and consent process?   It looks like a model that achieves much the same end –  presidential appointment (and dismissability) and Senate scrutiny, without risking undermining the intellectual diversity that strong regional Feds have at times brought to the system. (I was struck a few years ago by the ability of a senior (regional) Fed researcher to publish a scholarly book that was quite critical of the Fed’s handling of monetary policy, including in quite recent years.)

Conti-Brown also proposes changes at the Board of Governors.  He rightly highlights that the legislation vests power in the Board of Governors itself, not in the Chair, and yet –  to a greater or lesser extent –  all modern chairs have been allowed to assume a disproportionate amount of power and influence.  Conti-Brown cites one former senior staffer as saying he would never have wanted to be appointed to the Board, as he would have far power/influence there.  Part of the issue arises because of the repeated reappointments of chairs.  Conti-Brown proposes term limits for the chair (two five year terms, so that there is a serious scrutiny of appointees at least every 10 years), and changes to the Board appointment terms as well.  Personally, I suspect the recent proposal by former senior Fed economist, and now Dartmouth professor, Andrew Levin, for a single non-renewable seven year term for all senior Fed officials (board, chair, regional Presidents) would be a better way to go.

Conti-Brown also argues that key staff at the Board of Governors also have a big influence on policy, and that consideration should be given to making them presidential appointments, so that their values, ideologies, experiences etc can be tested and scrutinized.  He is particularly concerned about the role of Fed’s General Counsel, whose advice has mattered a lot in handling financial crisis and regulatory issues.  Making such positions presidential appointments seems like a step too far.  Of course, advisers should be expected to have some influence.  But the formal powers in the system rest with the Board of Governors (and the FOMC), the people who chose whether or not (and to what extent) to accept the advice offered by even the most senior staff.  Ensure strong public scrutiny of those people for sure.  But not the next tier down.

As so often with American books on public policy issues, it is light on international comparisons.  Appointment and dismissal procedures for central bankers (and financial regulatory bodies) differ widely.  Then again, I’m not aware of any other advanced countries with a system even remotely like that of the United States.  The structure looks out of step with what we expect in public policy agencies today, and parts of it appear to be unconstitutional.

I found the US issues and analysis fascinating.  But that is partly because thinking about the systems used in other countries, especially key ones, can help one think about the model for New Zealand.  We don’t have a written constitution, and we don’t have a federal system.    But we do, I think, expect that delegated powers will be exercised by people appointed by people we elected.  That is typically the case with the numerous Crown agents and entities.  Board members and Board chairs are appointed by the relevant Minister, and key decision-making powers typically rest with the Boards themselves.

That isn’t the case with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which exercises a great deal more discretionary policy flexibility (in monetary policy, and in financial regulatory matters) than any other statutory agency I’m aware of in New Zealand.    There are some plausible reasons for putting some of the Reserve Bank’s functions at a considerable arms-length from day-to-day ministerial intervention (one could think of the administration of prudential policy as it applies to individual institutions), but even if one accepted all those arguments, there still don’t look to be good grounds for our governance model.

In the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia, the Governor (or chair) of the central bank is appointed by the government of the day.  In the US case, the Fed chair is subject to Senate advice and consent, but only a presidential nominee can be appointed.  The Senate cannot substitute its own candidate.  In both Australia and the UK, the respective central government has untrammeled ability to appoints its own candidate.  In the euro-system, there is lots of horse-trading and haggling among heads of government and finance ministers, but Draghi was appointed by politicians, from a field identified by politicians and their advisers.

Contrast that with the New Zealand system.  The Minister of Finance appoints the Governor, but he can only appoint a candidate nominated by the Bank’s Board.  The Minister can reject a nomination (as the US Senate can) but at no point in the process can he or she impose their own candidate.  Now, of course, the Board itself is appointed by the Minister, gradually.    Board members are appointed for five year terms, and although there are provisions for the removal of Board members, removal can only be done for cause (oddly, one possible cause is obstructing the Governor, but there is nothing comparable about the Minister). A new government might easily take more than a whole three year term to be able to achieve a majority of its own appointees on the Board.  And the Minister of Finance does not even get to determine which of the Board members serves as chair, typically a quite influential role in any Board.

This was a model that was set up when the conception of the role of the Reserve Bank was (a) quite narrow, and (b) highly technocratic.  If the Minister could specify a PTA clearly enough, who was on the Board or who was Governor wouldn’t matter much at all.  But as everyone now recognizes, PTAs can’t sensibly be written that clearly, and there is nothing comparable for the other functions that the Governor exercises considerable discretion over.  The values, ideologies and experiences of whoever is appointed as Governor are likely to matter considerably –  much more so in New Zealand, since a single individual exercises those powers, with few near-term checks and balances.

So, operating wholly behind closed doors, the members of the Bank’s Board get to determine the person who wields more power, and more discretionary power, than almost any person in New Zealand, at least in matters economic.     The individuals on the Board are probably mostly good and quite capable people (I know several of the current Board moderately well).   But whose values and interests, and what “ideologies” or implicit models, are they serving  or reflecting (consciously or otherwise)?  What accountability is there for the choices they make, which can have material implications for short-term economic performance and for the soundness and efficiency of the financial system?  It seems like a model with all too little democratic legitimacy.

If we are going to stick with the single decision-maker model for the time being (it will, surely, in time be amended) at least we should move back to a more conventional system in which the Minister of Finance (or Governor-General acting on advice) makes the appointment.  He can take advice from whomever he wants –  Treasury, the Bank’s Board, lobby groups, his colleagues –  but his nominee should have to go through proper select committee hearings before taking up the role.  We don’t have a model of parliamentary ratification of appointees in New Zealand, but the British model in which appointees to the Bank of England policy committees face considerable scrutiny in select committee hearings seems to add some value to the process, even though the committee cannot formally stop an appointment going ahead.   It might be harder to do well in New Zealand, since there is less of a hinterland of MPs not eagerly jockeying for the next promotion to the ministry, but it has to be better than what we have now.  At very least, Opposition MPs on the relevant committee could question, scrutinize and challenge the person the government has appointed to the role of Governor.  The current Governor might, for example, have been scrutinized on how he thought about the housing market and the role of policy.

If we going to keep the role of the Reserve Bank Board as being primarily about holding the Governor to account, direct ministerial appointment of the Governor also seems preferable.  Under the current model, the Board is responsible for the person appointed as Governor.  That gives them an interest in judging that person to have done the job well (if the Governor is judged to have failed in that regard, it is at least in part a reflection on the people who chose the Governor).   Monitoring someone clearly appointed by the Minister could be another matter (although structures still create risks that the monitoring Board gets too close to the Governor).

Over the longer-term, I think we need to move to a system in which committees appointed the Minister of Finance (and subject to parliamentary scrutiny before taking up the role) make monetary policy decisions and whatever financial regulatory decisions should appropriately be delegated to the Reserve Bank.

In the meantime, there is the becoming-pressing issue of the expiry of Graeme Wheeler’s term next year.  As I have noted previously, it expires right in the middle of the likely election campaign (almost three years exactly since the last election).  All main Opposition parties are campaigning for a different approach to monetary policy (time will tell what that specifically means).  How can it be appropriate for a Board appointed exclusively by the current government to be recommending an appointee as Governor (who will exercise huge discretionary powers over our economic fortunes and financial system), to a Minister  whose government might be out of office by the time the new appointment takes effect.  A new government might have a quite different emphasis and should, in my view, more easily be able to give effect to that.

I’m not sure what the right answer is, given the current legislation. I’ve previously, somewhat reluctantly, suggested that Graeme Wheeler, if willing, should be offered a one year extension to his term, allowing the longer-term appointment to be made under the new government (National or Labour led).  However, his performance over the OCR leak issue (including , in effect, minimizing the serious misconduct of a major corporate)  makes me wonder whether even for a short period that would be a prudent option.  Appointing an acting Governor –  probably one of the existing deputies –  for perhaps six months, might a better option.  There is statutory provision for it –  it was what happened when Don Brash resigned.

The US model does look as though it needs reforming.  But, perhaps even more pressingly, so does New Zealand’s. It is simply out of step with

• the range of functions and discretionary activities the Bank now undertakes
• overseas practice in central banking and financial supervisions
• governance of other independent Crown entities in New Zealand.

It puts too much power in the hands of one person, and that a person whose appointment is largely determined by unelected people, operating with little or no effective scrutiny.

(For those interested in the ongoing lock-up issues, my thanks to an offshore reader for drawing my attention to newly-released Audit Report by the Federal Reserve’s Office of Inspector General on the Fed’s lock-up procedures and processes.  The Fed procedures appear to have left open significant risks of leaks and breaches of embargoes –  and there was one actual breach last year.  In effect, again the system relied largely on trust.  The report contains a variety of recommendations to tighten security. A Reuters article on the OIG is here.)

Since reading yesterday morning (eg here ) about the OIA release by the Minister of Finance of a near-final draft of a new (November 2015) “letter of expectation” to Rod Carr, chair of the Reserve Bank’s Board, I’ve been trying to work out what to make of it. (The letter itself is near the back of the document released here.)   On the whole, I think it is probably a step forward, at least in the specific current circumstances.  But it has some dangers too, and risks undermining some of the good features of the statutory governance model for the Reserve Bank.

I’ve written previously about the Minister of Finance’s letter of expectation to the Governor , and in due course will be interested in this year’s letter.  Last year’s was surprisingly light on (ie there was no reference at all to) any concerns about the persistent deviation of inflation from the target.  The Minister and the Governor have a clear and direct legal relationship across a variety of strands: the Minister appoints (and can dismiss) the Governor, the Minister and the Governor sign a PTA that governs  the Bank’s conduct of monetary policy, and the Minister has a wide range of powers in a variety of matters (mostly regulatory, but including also fx intervention) dealt with in the various pieces of legislation the Reserve Bank is responsible for.

The relationship between the Minister and Board members is designed to be much weaker than that.   Board members are appointed by the Minister, and can be dismissed by the Minister (for cause),  but (unusually) the Minister does not even get to decide which of the Board members will be the Chair.  That is decided by Board members themselves.    The Board has quite a limited ongoing legal relationship with the Minister of Finance.  They are responsible for making a recommendation to the Minister as to who to appoint as Governor, and they are required to provide advice to the Minister on the Bank’s annual dividend.   But that is about it.  The Board must prepare a (published) Annual Report, which must be physically delivered to the Minister, but is not specifically described in the Act as a report to the Minister.

It is when things go seriously wrong that the Board is supposed to start talking to the Minister.   Section 53(3) of the Act provides that

If the Board is satisfied—

(a) that the Bank is not adequately carrying out its functions; or

(b) that the Governor has not adequately discharged the responsibilities of that office; or

(c) that the performance of the Governor in ensuring that the Bank achieves the policy targets fixed under section 9 or section 12(7)(b) has been inadequate; or

(d) that a policy statement made pursuant to section 15 is inconsistent in a material respect with the Bank’s primary function or any policy target fixed under section 9 or section 12(7)(b); or

(e) that the resources of the Bank have not been properly or effectively managed; or

(f) that the Governor, except as provided in his or her conditions of employment has, while holding office as Governor,—

• (i) held any other office of profit; or

• (ii) engaged in any other occupation for reward; or

• (iii) had an interest in a registered bank or a licensed NBDT as defined in the Non-bank Deposit Takers Act 2013 or a licensed insurer; or

• (iv) had an interest in a bank carrying on business outside New Zealand; or

(g) that the Governor is unable to carry out the responsibilities of office, or has been guilty of serious neglect of duty, or has been guilty of misconduct,—

the Board shall advise the Minister in writing and may recommend to the Minister that the Governor be removed from office.

That is (rightly) quite a high threshold to cross before the Board must make such reports to the Minister.  The Act never envisaged a close or regular reporting relationship between the Board and the Minister.

I have sometimes written of the Board as being essentially the Minister’s monitoring agent (and I see the new letter uses the same language).  But if it was a pardonable shorthand, on further reflection I don’t think it is a fully accurate description either.  What the Act seems to envisage is a model in which the Board is charged with reporting publicly on how well, or otherwise, the Governor has been doing his job, but is supposed to stay at quite an arms-length from the Minister: paid to keep an eye on the Governor certainly, but expected to stay quite clear of the Minister unless things are so bad that the possibility of dismissal is coming into focus.

And I think that is the way it should be, at least if we want to maintain an operationally autonomous central bank.   Why?  Because the whole logic of making the central bank operationally independent, especially on monetary policy, is based on the (not totally uncontentious) view that we will typically get worse outcomes if elected politicians are too close to the decision-making process.  Instead, we set up an open and transparent medium-term PTA, in which the Minister takes the lead in setting the target, and the Governor is responsible for implementing policy consistent with that agreement .  PTAs are deliberately written for terms of five years, and the Governor is left to get on with the job (with all the reporting requirements, public and market scrutiny etc).

And so I am a little uneasy about this new letter of expectation, even if it supposedly flowed from a conversation initiated by the Board (I take that with a pinch of salt, as the Board may well have been responding to the Minister’s public expression of unease with the Bank last year).

The letter seems to have three broad areas of substance.  The first is a list of Minister’s specific interests for the Board in its monitoring role.

• Monitoring the performance of monetary policy with respect to the Policy Targets Agreement (PTA).  I expect the Board to provide me with a clear sense of its judgements and the basis for them in assessing performance in meeting the PTA, recognising that the policy targets have evolved to be flexible and forward looking.

• Assessing the performance of the Bank in promoting the maintenance of a sound and efficient financial system.  I expect the Board to articulate how it judges performance with respect to this statutory objective. I am particularly interested in how the objectives of soundness and efficiency are promoted and balanced.

• Monitoring the Bank’s regulatory policy processes. The Bank has important regulatory responsibilities.  I expect the Board to take a close interest in the robustness of regulatory policy development and to articulate how it judges performance with respect to this function.   In particular, the Board should:

  • – Keep under review how the Bank’s regulatory policy is developed in light of the Government’s response to the Productivity Commission’s report on regulatory institutions and practices, and how these changes improve regulatory practice.
  • – Test the Bank’s thinking on regulatory policy developments and be satisfied that the Bank has reasonably addressed any alternative perspectives from other relevant parties (eg, the Government, the Treasury, the Council of Financial Regulators, Australian stakeholders, the financial sector and the wider public through consultation).

• Monitoring the Bank’s relationships.  The Bank has a number of important stakeholder relationships – with me, with the Treasury, with regulated entities and with other agencies.  I would expect the Board to keep under review how these relationships are operating in practice.

• • Monitoring of operational functions.  The Bank has a range of operational functions, including those related to payment systems and currency.  I expect the Board to monitor the Bank’s operational performance and risk, particularly with regard to the use of the Crown’s resources and wider economic efficiency.  •

• Organisational strategy and financial management.  The Bank is a complex organisation with a large balance sheet. I expect the Board to take a strong interest in the Bank’s strategy and financial management.  The Board should closely monitor the Bank’s performance against the Statement of Intent (SOI)

It is an interesting list, and in some cases quite pointed.  For example, the explicit recognition of the possible tensions between regulatory measures to promote system soundness, and the statutory provisions around the efficiency of the financial system.  Or “the Board should test the Bank’s thinking on regulatory policy developments and be satisfied that the Bank has reasonably addressed any alternative perspectives…. [including from] the wider public through consultation”.  That would certainly be welcome.

The letter of expectation also deals with the Annual Report

The annual Board report, as required under the Act, is the formal document that sets out the Board’s assessment of performance.  I expect this to provide enough detail to enable me and the wider public to understand how the Board has undertaken its review role.

I have written previously about the severe shortcomings in past Board annual reports.  Last year’s said almost nothing of any substance, and tended to reflect the prevailing practice in which the Board has seen itself as “having the Governor’s back”, and being part of the Bank’s efforts to spread its messages.

If this provision in the letter of expectation is a shot across the bows, suggesting that better and fuller Annual Reports should be produced, it is most welcome.  The Minister outlined a variety of specific areas he is interested in (above), and we should hope that there would be substantive material on each in the next Annual Report –  not just about the processes the Board used, but about its substantive assessments and residual uncertainties. I remain somewhat skeptical, but time will tell.

Towards the end of the letter, the Minister includes these paragraphs

The duties of the Board include keeping under review the performance of the Governor.  I would expect to discuss your assessment of the Governor’s performance from time to time.  I would not expect you to limit your communications on the performance of the Governor or the Bank to the narrow criteria set out in section 53(3), as I hope those circumstances would apply rarely if ever.

Greater visibility of the Board’s activities throughout the year would also be welcome and I would be interested in any suggestions you have to facilitate that.  In addition, I will ask my office to establish six-monthly meetings with me.  In advance of those meetings, I invite you to share any other documents regarding the Bank’s performance which would support the discussion.

Here I am just not sure.  It is no secret that I don’t think the current Governor has done a particularly good job, so in one sense the more questions asked about his performance the better.  But the institutions are not designed around any particular individual, and probably nor should the practical implementation arrangements be.  Non-transparent regular discussions between the Board and the Minister about the Governor’s performance create risks of inappropriate pressures being placed on the Governor (not just on monetary policy, perhaps more especially in regulatory matters).  Since the Minister has deliberately been given the power to dismiss the Governor only in fairly extreme circumstances, it isn’t clear what is gained by the Minister and the Board holding such conversations, unless those potential-dismissal thresholds are coming into view (and, as the Minister notes, he hopes that is “rarely if ever”).  Indeed, is there even a legitimate ministerial interest, given the choices Parliament has made about the structure of the Bank and the role of the Governor?  I think there are material flaws in the allocation of responsibilities under the Reserve Bank Act.  One of those is that the Governor has too much control of financial regulatory policy (as distinct from the application of that policy).  The Minister might share some of those concerns, but the right way to deal with the issue is to amend the Act, not use the Board as back-channel leverage.

When I first read that final paragraph in the letter, I wondered if “greater visibility” meant public visibility.  If it did, that would be quite inappropriate –  a good published Annual Report is the appropriate model and at other times the Board should have a low profile, not detracting from that of the Governor.  In fact, I think the Minister is only talking about the Board being ‘visible’ to him.  But, as discussed above, I remain uneasy about the idea of regular formal meetings with the Minister –  as distinct perhaps from the odd informal discussion over lunch –  especially if it involves additional “documents” being provided to the Minister.  It runs the risk of the Minister and Board second-guessing individual decisions by the Governor, and that simply isn’t the statutory model.

But there is another risk.  I’ve noted previously that the Reserve Bank Board has tended to act as if its role is to provide cover for the Governor.  In principle, they should be able to have free and frank exchanges with the Governor in private –  including on the issues the Minister touched on in his letter.  But if the Board is getting into a regular/routine reporting relationship with the Minister, I fear that the “have the Governor’s back” tendency will just be reinforced.  The Minister might appoint Board members, but they meet at the Bank, the Governor is a Board member, the Board has no resources of its own (only what the Bank provides), and a senior Bank manager is Secretary of the Board.  So far, they have only chosen former staff (Arthur Grimes and now Rod Carr) as chair.  They have become quasi-insiders.   None of this is intended as criticism of any of the individuals concerned; the incentives simply work together to make it a model that is never likely to generate regular hard-nosed rigorous scrutiny of the Governor’s performance.  It is a model that few, if any, other countries have adopted.

And so I’m left ambivalent about the letter of expectation to the Board.  On the one hand, it seems likely that this initiative has flowed, at least in part, from the tensions around the current Governor’s performance –  and so in that short-term sense, I’m pleased to see more questions being asked, and challenges posed.  And anything that produces better quality Board Annual Reports would be welcome.

But the model of governance Parliament established for the Reserve Bank 27 years ago does not envisage routine close ties between the Board and the Minister.   Indeed, I’m aware of no advanced country with an operationally independent central bank where there are such close ties.  If we want a central bank with operational independence, the Minister of Finance should be at a considerable arms-length.  In one sense, the Board is the Minister’s monitoring agent, but only with qualifications –  the role the Act envisages for the Board, as it related to the Minister, is for quite extreme circumstances.  The Board are not, say, the Minister’s employees who just happen to be representing him on some committee or other.

Of course, my overarching view is that the Bank’s governance model is flawed, and if there as ever a sound argument for it, it is no longer well-suited to range of functions the Bank undertakes, and is out of step both with international practice and with how New Zealand governs other public sector agencies. The model should be changed, and it remains something of a mystery why the Minister is so resistant to change.  My alternative, which uses the able people on the Board more actively in a decisionmaking role, was outlined here.

Regular readers will know that one of the constants of this blog has been making the case for reforming, and modernising, the governance of the Reserve Bank.  The current model is out of step with international practice, and with the way other government agencies are run in New Zealand.   I’ve held this view for a long time, although the concerns are becoming more pressing as the Reserve Bank assumes, and is given, ever more discretionary power.     The current Governor is probably in the wrong job  (a huge role, making the holder probably the most powerful unelected person in New Zealand).  But the case for reform would be strong even if we had the best conceivable person as Governor.  Typically, we will have someone who is about average.

There has been a growing recognition of the case for change.  In 2012 The Treasury recommended to the Minister of Finance, before the current Governor was appointed, that further work be undertaken with a view towards moving to a committee-based decision-making framework.  At the time they found that most market economists were sympathetic to change.  At a political level, the Green Party has openly and repeatedly argued for change, while the Labour Party has come and gone on the issue.  But it isn’t an obviously ideological issue –  just a matter of finding a good governance model for an increasingly powerful New Zealand policy agency.

Graeme Wheeler himself recognised some of the weaknesses of the current system, and established the Governing Committee as the forum in which major decisions would be made.  He retains the legal power, and all the other members of the committee owe their positions, and remuneration, to the Governor, but in principle it represented a small step forward.  Whether it represents any real gain is impossible for outsiders to tell.  The Bank has flatly refused to release minutes of the meetings of the Committee, on any topic whatever, and –  in truth –  governance arrangements are really only tested in times of stress, and where there might be strong differences of view. Quasi-insiders –  the Bank’s Board –  could provide us with an assessment of how the new model is working, but their Annual Reports suggest that they are more interested in being champions of the Governor and the Bank rather than in providing substantive reports analysing and scrutinising the performance of the Governor and Bank.

The Bank has also refused to release any papers from its own work on reforming the governance model.  That refusal confirmed that a substantial amount of work had been done, at least some of which had been discussed with the Minister of Finance.

Fortunately, the Treasury generally takes a more accommodative approach to Official Information Act requests.  There are plenty of things about The Treasury that I am critical of, but they seem over the years to have displayed considerably more respect for the spirit of the Official Information Act and its role in New Zealand’s system of governance.  When the Reserve Bank refused my request for governance papers, I lodged a very similar request with The Treasury.

Yesterday, they released several papers, which are available here.

Treasury governance papers OIA response

There are a couple of nice and substantive background papers.  Some are focused just on monetary policy governance, but Treasury also recognises that the Reserve Bank has a much wider range of functions, and hence that any review of the legislative governance model really needs to look at the entire institution and all its roles and responsibilities.

Treasury still appears to favour change.   In particular, in a June paper to the Minister of Finance, commenting on the Reserve Bank’s draft Statement of Intent (page 48 in the release document) they note:

A key change from the previous year’s SOI is that a workstream on “best practice institutional frameworks…has been dropped.  In the Treasury’s view, this workstream would be worth continuing.  Nevertheless, we understand that the decision to drop this workstream is consistent with your feedback that the current decision making structure best supports accountability.

Recommendation

Note that the RBNZ is discontinuing its workstream on “best practice institutional frameworks”.  The Treasury would prefer this workstream to continue.

They have withheld a variety of other documents.  I’m not sure quite what the first ground (below) means in this context –  perhaps information from foreign agencies? –  but what is interesting is that the statement declining to release the other documents reveals that Treasury is continuing its own work on the issue.

At one level, it is nice to finally have public confirmation of the fact that the Minister of Finance has again rejected reforming the governance of the Reserve Bank.  Treasury reports that this is because the Minister thinks a single decision-maker best supports accountability.  But hardly any other country agrees with Mr English, and none do so among those who have reformed their arrangements for the central bank and financial supervision activities in the last couple of decades.    And we don’t apply that model to any other area in public life in which government agencies are making policy decisions.   There is a strong case for change, and no doubt in time change will happen.   It is a shame that the Minister is clinging to an outdated model, which is not serving New Zealand that well.  But well done to the Treasury for continuing the background work in thinking through the issues and options,