Opinion: Why didn't Treasury and RBNZ fight back?

Opinion: Why didn't Treasury and RBNZ fight back?

David Farrar at Kiwiblog makes some excellent points about why supposedly impartial and robust public servants at the Treasury and the Reserve Bank appeared to let the deeply flawed Bank Deposit Guarantee scheme emerge into the sunlight with so many problems and without consulting the opposition.

Did Bollard and Whitehead advocate for bipartisan consultation, and if so why did they not insist on it? Would consulting with the two people who might be Prime Minister and Finance Minister in less than a month have detracted from economic stability and constitutional integrity or enhanced it? Think of what a disaster it would have been if the Government announced the scheme and the Opposition then did not back it? The result would have been worse than never announcing the scheme in the first place. I say this with great hesitation and respect for the Governor and Secretary. But their actions have undermined confidence in a neutral public service. To not insist on consultation with the Opposition for a $150 billion guarantee, just four weeks before an election, was misguided at best, and reckless at worst.

David is right on the money here.  

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.