Reserve Bank criticised by Willis over handling of Adrian Orr exit
The rebuke comes after the bank yesterday released documents revealing Orr quit in March due to a funding dispute with the bank's board and the Government.
It was a fact previously not disclosed publicly, with the media and financial observers having received few answers from the central bank's leadership.
"I've expressed that I think they could have shared the information they shared yesterday earlier," Willis told reporters at Fieldays today.
"I have spoken to their chairperson, Neil Quigley, and expressed my view that they did not manage that Official Information Act request well, and that I expect them to do better. He has acknowledged that they could have and should have done better."
ADVERTISEMENT
The morning's headlines in 90 seconds including passengers stuck on ferry overnight, new flights to Sydney coming, and the weirdest things we leave in Ubers. (Source: 1News)
Multiple journalists and financial observers have had Official Information Act request deadlines about the former governor's departure extended over the past few months.
The Finance Minister emphasised expectations around transparency from agencies.
"It's my expectation that all government agencies comply with their statutory obligations, and wherever possible, are open and transparent with New Zealanders," she said.
"Of course, they need to balance that against their legal obligations when it comes to employment discussions and agreements.
"But on this one, I think they could have pulled their socks up."
In response to the minister's criticism, Quigley acknowledged shortcomings in handling information requests and added he was limited in what he could've said about Orr's resignation when it was first announced in March.
ADVERTISEMENT
In what it described as a response to numerous Official Information Act (OIA) requests over the resignation, the Reserve Bank revealed yesterday that Orr resigned after disagreeing with the board and Willis over operational funding.
Nicola Willis speaks to media at Parliament on May 6. (Source: 1News)
Documents show Orr believed the bank needed $1.031 billion over a five-year period, but the board was willing to accept "considerably less."
According to the Reserve Bank, this caused "distress" to Orr and led to his personal decision that he "had achieved all he could as governor" and could not continue with less funding than he thought viable for the bank to fulfil its obligations.
The bank eventually secured $750 million in operating expenses and $25.6 million in capital expenditure.
Bank chairperson 'regrets' information release delays
Quigley said he "regrets" not releasing information on Orr's departure sooner.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The Reserve Bank was late in producing a response to some of the OIAs we received on Adrian Orr's resignation. I regret that this delay occurred," he said in a statement.
"The circumstances and the volume of information associated with the OIAs on Adrian Orr's resignation were complex, and we needed to be sure that our consideration of relevant information was comprehensive.
Reserve Bank Board Chair Neil Quigley. (Source: 1News)
"As well as our obligations under the OIA, we needed to take into careful consideration the former Governor's exit agreement and privacy law.
"For this reason, we extended consultation on the information and our response, including review by senior external counsel."
He added that he was "limited" in disclosing why the former governor resigned in March.
Reason behind resignation finally revealed officially
ADVERTISEMENT
Orr had served in the role of governor for seven years at the time of his resignation. He left his job three years before his second five-year term was due to end.
Willis and bank officials were tight-lipped for months over the departure of one of the Government's most senior public sector bosses.
When the former governor's departure was announced on March 5, little reason was provided beyond that it was his "personal decision".
Speaking to reporters on the day, the Reserve Bank's board chairperson Neil Quigley was asked directly why Orr had resigned and whether funding issues were behind it.
Quigley was also asked whether there were any "policy, conduct or performance issues which are at the centre of this resignation".
He responded: "We have issues that we've been working through, but there are no issues of that type that are behind this resignation."
But speaking today, the bank's chairperson said he was "limited" over what he could say at the time of the media conference.
"On March 5, I was limited in what I could say about the former governor's resignation both by the terms of his exit agreement and the fact that we were still working through finalisation of the detail of the next five-year funding agreement.
"We were conscious of the need to explain to staff of the Reserve Bank the potential implications for staffing levels of a lower level of funding and needed time to consider the details of that."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Consumer NZ Is Stoked To Learn Surcharges Will Be Banned
From May 2026, New Zealanders will be able to tap their card or phone without being charged those pesky, excessive and sometimes hidden surcharges. An amendment to the Retail Payment System Act will put an end to excessive, hidden and unavoidable surcharges, which cost New Zealanders an estimated $65 million a year. Jessica Walker, acting head of research and advocacy at Consumer NZ, is thrilled to see surcharges scrapped because it will put millions back into the pockets of New Zealanders, and make accepting payments much simpler for merchants, too. 'We've received close to 300 complaints about excessive surcharges (over 2%) in the last few years. In some cases, card payment surcharges were as high as 25%. We've even had complaints about surcharges being applied to EFTPOS transactions. 'We've been calling for surcharge regulation since 2017 and, recently, urged the Commerce Commission to consider an outright ban. Although surcharge guidelines were in place, they clearly weren't working. "The whole surcharge situation here in New Zealand is currently a mess. Surcharges for debit and credit cards are banned in the United Kingdom and European Union, and the Reserve Bank of Australia recently proposed a surcharge ban – so this brings us nicely in line with other countries," says Walker. 'The ban is a no-brainer. These new rules will bring an end to a very messy situation!' What consumers need to know The ban will only apply to debit, EFTPOS, Visa and Mastercard payments, so if you're paying with another card, such as an AMEX or foreign-issued card, you may still have to pay a surcharge. The ban also won't apply to prepaid gift cards. Online payments are excluded. This is disappointing because your flight or accommodation booking or any other online purchases could still attract a surcharge. Australia is considering making online payments part of its surcharge ban. We'll be calling for similar rules here. The cost of your coffee shouldn't increase by that much, if at all. If merchants choose to increase their prices to cover their payment costs, any increase should be very minimal because interchange is being lowered which will reduce the cost to businesses of accepting payments.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government to ban card payment surcharges, businesses to pick up the tab
The cost of providing contactless payments will fall on merchants. Photo / Andrey Mikhaylov Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Already a subscriber? Sign in here Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen. Government to ban card payment surcharges, businesses to pick up the tab The cost of providing contactless payments will fall on merchants. Photo / Andrey Mikhaylov The Government is planning to ban merchants from adding surcharges to most in-store card payments. The change will save shoppers, but cost merchants, who will need to absorb the cost of offering contactless payments or pass it onto customers by hiking prices. The change is expected to be made by May next year. It will apply to payments made in-store using Eftpos, Visa and Mastercard but won't apply to purchases made online or with foreign-issued cards, prepaid gift or travel cards, and cards issued by networks like American Express or UnionPay. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said: 'Surcharges are a hassle and an unwelcome surprise when shoppers get to the till.
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Plan to ban credit card and PayWave surcharges
The government plans to ban surcharges on card payments in-store, saving shoppers from being stung with surprise fees when paying with contactless technology. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson announced the change on Monday afternoon, declaring: "That pesky note or sticker on the payment machine will become a thing of the past." "Shoppers will no longer be penalised for their choice of payment method, whether that's tapping, swiping or using their phone's digital wallet." Legislation is expected to be introduced to Parliament by the end of the year, with the ban to kick into effect no later than May 2026. The proposed law would cover most in-store payments made using Visa and Mastercard debit and credit cards, as well as EFTPOS, but not online purchases or other international card schemes. The move follows growing public frustration at the cost and transparency of such surcharges. Retailers are increasingly using them to recover merchant service fees charged by banks and payment providers, but the fees are often added without clear explanation. The Commerce Commission estimates New Zealanders are paying up to $150 million in surcharges each year - including $45 to $65 million in what it considers excessive charges. In March, Consumer NZ called for an outright ban, citing hundreds of complaints about fees being too high, confusing or oblique. Both Mastercard and Visa have also supported proposals for a ban. Retail NZ has previously argued businesses did not like charging extra but should have the right to recover payment costs. It called for more clarity from banks about the fees charged for different services. The ban builds on the Commerce Commission's recent decision to reduce the interchange fees imposed on businesses for accepting Visa and Mastercard payments. Interchange fees make up approximately 60% of merchant service fees. "A ban on surcharges means no more surprises for people who currently feel like they're being charged to use their own hard-earned money," Simpson said. "It means they can make a purchase knowing exactly what they'll pay, and how they'll pay it." The changes would bring New Zealand into line with the United Kingdom and the European Union, where such surcharges are already prohibited. Australia still allows surcharges but requires them to reflect the actual cost to retailers. The Reserve Bank of Australia has also recently proposed an outright ban on surcharges for EFTPOS and debit and credit card payments.
