The class action layer leading the action against the ASB and ANZ banks has slammed proposed legislation he says will rewrite consumer law to protect the banks, rather than their clients.
Scott Russell leads the class action lawsuit and considers the retrospective legislation designed to protect the Australian-owned banks is a slap in the face for kiwi bank users.
The media release from Russell is carried below –
Government Sides with Big Banks Over Kiwis in Dangerous Rewrite of Consumer Law
The first reading of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill reveals the Government’s concerning willingness to rewrite the law – not to protect consumers, but to protect two of Australia’s biggest, most profitable banks.
“This Bill is not law reform. This is a blatant attempt to let ANZ and ASB off the hook – after they broke the law, after they admitted to it, and while they are facing a live court case brought by more than 150,000 ordinary New Zealanders,” said Scott Russell, lawyer leading the class action against the two banks.
The proposed changes are retrospective. They will reach back in time to extinguish existing legal rights and override the courts – simply to ensure two powerful banks don’t have to return hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawfully charged interest and fees.
“Let’s be clear: this is a calculated move that undermines the rule of law, favours corporate power over public interest, and tells every consumer in this country that if you’re up against a big enough opponent, the Government will change the rules to suit them,” said Russell.
The banks’ breaches were not trivial. They failed to meet important disclosure obligations – laws specifically designed to ensure transparency and fairness for kiwi borrowers. These aren’t optional standards. They are core protections, and when they’re broken, the law rightly provides a remedy.
Now, that remedy is being stripped away – not because it was wrong, but because ANZ and ASB simply don’t want to pay them.
“These are two of the most profitable banks in New Zealand. They made billions while failing to meet legal obligations, and now they want a bespoke legislative fix to avoid being held accountable,” Russell said.
“If the Government believes the law is problematic going forward, then legislate for the future. But do not retroactively rewrite the law to protect the banks from the consequences of their actions – especially when the case has been before the courts for over four years.”
The implications are profound. Retrospective law changes erode public confidence in the justice system. They tell consumers their rights are conditional. They tell businesses that lobbying can replace accountability. And they confirm that in New Zealand, power and profit can override principle.
