Terry McCrann: Ken had to go and Phil had to step up

NAB chairman Ken Henry had to go but not for committing the abominable sin of lese-majeste of a mere ‘counsel assisting’, far less of the royal commissioner his very self, writes Terry McCrann.

NAB chairman Ken Henry had to go but not for committing the abominable sin of lese-majeste of a mere ‘counsel assisting’, far less of the royal commissioner his very self.

And he needed to be followed — rather than preceded — out the door by CEO Andrew Thorburn. That is to say, new chairman first who then gets to oversee the process of finding and then selecting the next CEO.

In effect both have gone at the same time, although Henry will continue — more accurately, linger — as the lamest of lame ducks.

NAB CHIEF SAD, SORRY AFTER OUSTING

SHAREHOLDERS DECLARE NO CONFIDENCE IN KEN HENRY

NAB HAS LONG WAY TO GO TO REGAIN TRUST

This is not good governance and really could only be justified by a scandal of such monumental proportions, some huge losses incurred by NAB, or seriously inappropriate behaviour by both Henry and Thorburn.

None of which has been remotely the case. The issues with Thorburn’s former chief-of-staff don’t reach that marker, although they were going to make his life that much more ‘difficult’.

The proximate cause of their joint sacking is their appearances at the commission and the media frenzy it sparked, culminating in the decision by Commissioner Kenneth Hayne to castigate them by name and them by name alone.

Departing NAB chair Ken Henry and departing chief executive Andrew Thorburn. Picture: David Geraghty

Henry in particular was found guilty of not grovelling enough, of not sufficiently prostrating himself before the commission, 1930s-Soviet-show-trial style.

Instead, he actually engaged in some independent, substantive thinking. Yes, it came out prickly and combative. And in any event, why not? As a witness he’s both entitled and indeed obliged to say what he really thinks.

But that aside, anyone who knows Henry would know that he was being discursive not dismissive. But it was not a brownie points earner.

So why did he have to go and go first? For the — unchanged — reason that I wrote precisely that in December, after the NAB’s AGM and the 88 per cent vote against the RemReport.

This was even more specifically Henry’s RemReport than it always is with a company chairman. The vote was a stunning vote of no confidence in his chairmanship.

He should have resigned before Christmas and a New Year new chairman could have begun the process of resolving Thorburn’s future.

The course chosen by the board has only been possible because of the presence of long-time respected Westpac and ANZ banker Phil Chronican.

He starts as acting CEO and could become the permanent — if, given his age (62) a somewhat interim — successor.

Arguably he is exactly right for that role and such an ‘interim’ CEO is also the best course.

That’s to say he’s exactly the calm, experienced hand to move seamlessly into Thorburn’s job and to lead a badly shaken executive management through the next two or three years.

Also, not exactly incidentally, he is the best to continue the massive restructuring and transformation program undertaken by Thorburn and with the NAB one year in. After all, he not only signed off on it but, given his banking background, was the most important board signature.

Then add on the operational and structural post-Hayne issues.

Philip Chronican will step in as acting chief executive. Picture: Holly Adams

HAYNE, THE MEDIA AND FAKE NEWS 

EVEN people who should have known better leapt to retail the fake news that Commissioner Kenneth Hayne had snubbed Treasurer Josh Frydenberg at the handover of his report last Friday.

While our Down Under fake news pile-on wasn’t remotely as outrageous and utterly biased and disgraceful as that in the US on the Covington kids, it followed exactly the same script — just completely ignore what is actually happening before your own eyes and spout ignorant nonsense.

Those that should have known better — true, by definition that excludes somewhere between 90 and 98 per cent of the media — should have seen at least a flashing amber light in the source of the fake news: The Guardian.

Last Friday its website screamed: “Awkward: Commissioner Hayne declines to shake Josh Frydenberg’s hand” — accompanied by a 30 second video showing the precise falsity of that claim.

Hayne didn’t decline to shake Frydenberg’s hand. At no stage did Frydenberg either ask for it or proffer his hand to have it spurned.

What Hayne did was to decline an anonymous photographer’s request, clearly heard on the video, that they shake hands.

This is the oldest and most pervasive fake news that the media engages in around the world. And that anybody who has had even the slightest contact with media knows goes on every day. The most common and the fakest is ‘walkies’ — having someone walking towards a camera, around a desk, etc. The ‘shake hands’ was just another version.

I’ve long since refused to do ‘walkies’ if I’m interviewed and I’m only a journalist. Now, anytime I see a prominent or supposed authority figure (not excluding prime ministers) do it, I cringe at their willingness to engage in pathetic fakery. Hayne declined to play the game. He’s an adult. Good on him.

There’s a more substantive point that most journalists — I’d have to up the ignorance range to at least 98-99 per cent — wouldn’t have the faintest idea about. Hayne was a royal commissioner; he was commissioned by the Crown, in this case the Governor-General. He had already formally handed his report to the GG. When he did, he shook hands. That’s both protocol and process.

He was doing the courtesy of — subsequently — informally handing a copy to the government.

It’s substantively no different to handing copies to journalists. Would they all expect to have their hands shaken? Probably.

MORE TERRY McCRANN

[e-mail]