tip off

No ‘shemozzle’, but Gonski post raises governance questions

In a piece on the Future Fund on Wednesday I was prematurely positive about Peter Costello not entering into the public arena with complaints about the board selection process.

He let fly on the ABC’s 7.30 last night. He called the process that has led to the appointment of David Gonski as chair of the Future Fund board of guardians “a shemozzle” and that it was not good corporate practice.

Whether or not it was good practice is a matter for judgment.

Should a person who advises shareholders on board composition be ruled ineligible for appointment to that board? The public record is silent. There is no guidance in the Australian Stock Exchange corporate governance guidelines, or the OECD guidelines on corporate governance on whether or not this is good practice. Sometimes it happens.

Should a chair of a board be chosen from among internal candidates? That is much more common, but not essential. It can lead to inward looking and complacent boards.

Executive search processes can aid such complacency. Boards will conduct a national or international search for a candidate for chair or CEO, and following the search, to amazing fanfare, they announce that the best candidate was sitting under their noses all along. That kind of vanity searching is as bad as vanity publishing. Better corporate practice is that a search is done when a board is serious about getting in someone new.

What is undeniably poor governance practice though is when board members speak out in public against their board chair.

It will be hard for the Future Fund board to work in a cohesive fashion in the face of such public division.

There have been two strands of comment about the Future Fund appointment process: that it should be more open and transparent, and that it should be more like the corporate sector. These two are inconsistent.

Appointments to large corporate boards are anything but transparent. They are done behind closed doors, with no publicity until the favoured candidate emerges.

At the extremes, some companies still cling to the English tradition of board selection by what private school and university a candidate attended, how they behaved in the rugby locker room, and the gentleman’s club they belong to. That is clearly poor governance, and something professional bodies such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors have been aiming to overcome.

There are good practices in selection of a good range of skilled directors who can represent the interest of the shareholders. The problem in the public sector is that the shareholder or owner interest is represented by the government of the day. We can’t complain — that’s how democracy works. But it does mean the government will be criticised by the opposition for any decisions, and there will be a dispute about how well the interests of citizens are represented.

In the public sector, therefore, there is a case for greater transparency and an arms-length selection process. Professor Meredith Edwards argued for this in yesterday’s edition of The Australian Financial Review.

Her solution would include an impartial panel, with departures from the panel recommendations to be tabled in a parliament. It is not a complete answer (who selects the selectors?) but better than what we have now.

The outburst from Costello is hard to understand. It is not going to change the outcome of the selection process, but will add to tension in the board. A divided board is a less effective board. It is a good thing the Future Fund has effective and competent management, or we would be really worried.

Maybe he was egged on by his former colleagues who are still in politics. Perhaps he was just caught up in the moment.

All one can surmise from the public record is that Costello felt some sort of entitlement. He said last night “… the Future Fund was something that I conceived, I legislated it and I put every dollar of capital into it — every dollar”.

That is an overstatement. The advisers in his office, the officials in Treasury, his colleagues in Cabinet, and the Coalition members who voted for it also had a hand in creating the fund. The capital came not from Costello’s pocket but from taxpayers. He should take credit for his surpluses and is entitled to do so. Remember though that a surplus comes about only because the tax revenue we pay to government exceeds its spending.

It is also a rather tricky argument to suggest that because a politician thinks up a fund — or any other government body for that matter — they become the right person to look after it.

That would create a perverse incentive for ministers to set up high-profile independent bodies as often as possible, in the expectation of being appointed to their boards.

Some jurisdictions, such as the USA, go so far as to prohibit cabinet members from ever being appointed to the bodies with which they had dealings while they were in the executive. There, the problem of conflict of interest and a desire to control excesses by the executive government are the prevailing governance principles.

It all shows how difficult this whole business of public sector boards is, compared with the private sector.

20
  • 1
    Bruce Taylor
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Why anyone wishing to appoint the best possible candidate to this position would even consider a “gutless wonder” is anybody’s guess. Peter Costello has serious problems with an over-blown sense of entitlement and an unrealistic assessment of his own abilities. To hear him on the ABC’s 7.30 talking about the Future Fund as his own personal property almost made me puke. Those responsible for the appointment of Mr Gonski have made a considered and wise decision not to appoint Costello. Costello is , as Paul Keating so eloquently remarked, “…all tip and no iceberg”.

  • 2
    rossco
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    I assume Costello will now resign from the board as a matter of principle.

  • 3
    David Allen
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Rossco

    He should except he has no principles and anyway who would give him a job now?

  • 4
    seriously?
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    I can’t believe (actually I can) that this “issue” has got the airplay it has - so Costello misses out out on getting a cushy job and we all have to hear him whinge about it. Hopefully his behavior in the past few days will deter others from ever appointing him to another role. And, as others have suggested, he should resign on principle. Anyway, the “future fund” - what a misleading title - is of little relevance to the so-called business community (who are apparently also upset about the appointment) as it is just a fund to pay the pensions for public servants.

  • 5
    davidk
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    And little Johnnie tells us Costello was our best ever treasurer. Is there no end to their self delusion?

  • 6
    Cleaver
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Costello is too desperate. That alone is a good reason to drop him. The bigger question is how desperate was Gonski? He would have known very well that this would kick up a stink and he must have had an inkling of what was going down when he was asked to “review” but not recommend.
    Gonski hasn’t actually had much luck with board seats. He got Coke from his mate Dean Wills, a cushy in-house sort of gig. He got ASX because no-one really wanted it. He failed to get ANZ, which he sorely wanted. And he turned up on Therese Rein’s company board - how weird is that?? Kinda like the Eddie McGuire of the corporate world, but not really a big player. Makes you wonder about the FF, which appears already to have a heavy load of wood ducks.

  • 7
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Stephen Conroy and Doug Cameron let the cat out of the bag, no need for an investigation.

    They dropped Penny Wong and dishonest Gillard in it as well

  • 8
    Steve777
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Peter Costello is destabilising and damaging the reputation of the Board of the Future Fund with the help of his old mates in politics. The Government of the day appoints board members and the Chairman, not the current board members. Mr Costello doesn’t like the choice - fair enough. So he has a choice - shut up and work with his fellow board members to manage the fund, or if he wants to play politics, resign and go for it.

  • 9
    BH
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Peter Costello was an embarrassment to all of us on 7.30 Report last night. He should now resign from the Board of the Future Fund and give Gonski the chance to unite the rest of the Board.
    Costello’s lack of entitlement for the position is evidenced by the dearth of job offers from the corporate section since his cowardice in not staying to fight for his beloved Liberal Party as LOTO.
    Good economic manager? Not in the eyes of many in the financial world.

  • 10
    sparky
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Whining about another top job he wasn’t gifted.

  • 11
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Kinda like the Eddie McGuire of the corporate world, but not really a big player.”

    Geez that’s a big call Cleaver. If Gonski isn’t a big player, who exactly does
    meet the criteria to be gifted the title by you?

    As for Costello, he surely must resign.

    He is an embarassment.

  • 12
    Mark from Melbourne
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    I actually used to have some respect for Costello many moons ago. Thought he had the right stuff as they say. But over time I realised that my judgement was clouded by my loathing of how Howard made the Liberal Party and Australia look and how desperate I was for someone to come along and save us. Over time he kept squibbing the big decisions and whining about it, blaming everyone except himself.

    Last night just reinforced why he wasn’t and shouldn’t have been chosen - what a great big dummy spit.

    That Howard and co have come out and backed him screams loudest.

  • 13
    davidk
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Just to put the boot in, I’m reminded of Keating’s nick-name for Pete, ‘thalamine’ ie. a slow acting dope.

  • 14
    SBH
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    We can’t complain — that’s how democracy works.”

    Unless you posted at 3.00 pm then you can whinge about anything.

    Pete, like Beezer so rightly pointed out all those years ago, you’re fundamentally, a sook.

  • 15
    Liz45
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    Never thought I’d see the day when I’d ever agree with anything Nick Minchin had to say, but I think his comment, that appointing a retired politician would politicise the Fund - not a good idea.

    Fact is, this is not a Coalition Govt, and retired Coalition politicians haven’t done too badly out of the Labor Govt. Would a Coalition appoint a retired Labor person? I don’t think so!

    Costello is just as repugnant to me as ever - his arrogance and ego would fill my house - not a pretty sight! It may have helped his position if he or any of his whinging mates said, that it was OUR money that went into the Future Fund. It didn’t just materialise out of his ‘good’ job as Treasurer! They start believing their own bs don’t they?

    The Labor Govt had the right to appoint who THEY saw fit. Everyone else is bellyaching! They should get over themselves and move on! And this goes for Howard too. I’m not the tiniest bit interested in anything he or his colleagues have to say - about anything at all!

  • 16
    AR
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    If, as the OO claims, bigbiz is upset at Costello not being appointed, then is it not passing strange that so talented, & in demand, an expollie has not been snapped up by the aforesaid big bellied end of town?
    He pimped his sorry arse up & down Corporate Ave from the day the Rodent lost office (and probably long before) and not one of those sheltered hospices for distressed, relevance deprived ex lackies offered him the price of a cup of coffee.
    And why would they? He’d served them well and good riddance.

  • 17
    SBH
    Posted Friday, 16 March 2012 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    And don’t forget Liz that while that money was going into the future fund, it wasn’t going into superannuation funds to pay for retirements and reduce the bill for pensions. The libs have taken money out of workers pockets and now dodgy Pete thinks that it was his money to play with

  • 18
    puddleduck
    Posted Saturday, 17 March 2012 at 2:06 am | Permalink

    Surely Gonski has at least a perceived conflict of interest, in having
    conducted a review relating to a position, then accepting it himself.

    But conflicts of interest are so last century, aren’t they? No one apparently worries about them anymore. In this environment, no longer the endangered species, conflicts of interest flourish. Why, you often see them, feeding on the plentiful grasses of the public sector. Someone should conduct sightseeing tours.

  • 19
    Cleaver
    Posted Saturday, 17 March 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Just making the point Dog’s Breakfast. Gonski is not generally picked for board seats and certainly not chair roles in the big instances. He gets these things - not first tier gigs - through his favours and network. He is replacing a bloke who on the evidence of his current cv is unwanted in corporate board rooms. So there is consistency.
    I suppose it’s unlikely with public sector roles but one would hope that the FF might get a genuine chair of substance.

  • 20
    Posted Saturday, 17 March 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    I disagree with Bartos’ concluding statement that the membership of public sector boards is more difficult to manage than the membership of private sector boards. As Stephen Mayne would be quick to remind us, private sector boards are riddled with conflicts of interest, collectively they have caused their own and executives’ pay to spiral out of all reason and they often don’t act in the shareholders’ interest due to what is known as the principal-agent problem. Some of these problems are also shared by public sector boards, but others are solved or avoided by government regulation or policy decision.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...