The BFD | We Need a Cull of Commissioners

OPINION

Fred Too

Some readers may recall that many moons ago Geoffrey Palmer called for a quango hunt given their proliferation and often dubious reasons for existing – “quango” meaning quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation. These are organisations funded by taxpayers, but not controlled directly by central government. The Human Rights Commission is a prime example.

They are usually called “Crown Entities” nowadays and they are more numerous than ever. A few years ago I tried to count them up and there are certainly dozens.

Ideally, we would kill off as many of these Crown Entities as possible. But often they do have functions that probably need to be performed by someone, like the Commerce Commission being a competition watchdog. Furthermore, they usually have specific legislation that mandates their existence, like the Commerce Act, so killing them wouldn’t be easy. But we could change them.

My main beef with Crown Entities is that they have commissioners or board members, often highly paid, who tend to hinder rather than help with the running of these organisations.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Rob Campbell in a recent opinion piece for the NZ Herald supporting my views about such roles. Rob said:

Aotearoa seems to me to be over-governed in many important respects. And worse than that, ineffectively governed.

That might seem odd coming from someone who has been in a wide range of governance roles over a long period. But the more experience I have the more I doubt the universal efficacy of the role.

Whether it is a start-up, a community organisation, a government agency or whatever it may be, there is an immediate inclination, even compulsion, to appoint a board. It’s what we do here. Sometimes it might be appropriate but the immediate assumption that it is an essential aspect of running anything effectively and efficiently is simply wrong.

The people performing these governance roles – I’ll refer to them generically as commissioners – are appointed for a fixed term and are nigh on impossible to remove, no matter how incompetent. They have no skin in the game so have no real incentive to get things done promptly or efficiently. I know from personal experience that ‘board’ meetings are often ‘pissing contests’ between commissioners that have little to do with the substance of what they are meant to be making decisions about.

Commissioners also tend to not know nearly as much about the subject matter being discussed as the actual staff of the organisation, so much time can be wasted trying to educate them. Rob makes similar points:

Typically enterprises spend excessive time in collecting information and reporting to boards to great cost, often limited effect and with clear distraction from hands on management of the real issues. Rather than agents of accountability, boards often drift into becoming agents of protection and obfuscation. Protecting their own interests and those of the management they are close to. And that is just in the commercial world.

The governance obsession has spread throughout government and community organisations. Some of it is frankly ludicrous.

Most such boards are simply excuses for more meetings, more reports, with no real clarity on purpose or accountability. At best their powers are often simply advisory. They become mechanisms for delay and prevarication amongst management who spend time gaming them as much as being accountable to them.

To improve things we should just let the managers of these organisations make the decisions and get rid of the commissioners. Similarly, Rob says:

When I look objectively at business or community organisations now I find very seldom indeed that the addition of a board is really in the best interests of the activity. Usually more decisive and accountable management is the key, along with flexible and genuinely expert advice as required. Leaders, not governors.

So rather than a QUANGO hunt, we need a cull of commissioners.

Maybe Peter Dunne achieved this on a very limited scale. In probably his only notable ‘achievement’ from his many years in parliament, he got the Families Commission established. But after a while it became apparent that a goodly portion of the funding he managed to obtain was going to pay for the seven commissioners who spent most of their time fighting among themselves. So the number of commissioners was reduced to one and funding redirected. Later, the function of the Commission was narrowed further and the name changed.

We should be discouraging commissioner-type governance roles. Rob seems to agree:

Recently I had the opportunity to meet with young people from a range of sectors. As is all too common, they were interested in how they might progress in a “governance career”. I hope I managed to put them off. I always try.