The debate over the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) has reached a critical moment—one now drawing high-level voices into the fray. Former NZX Limited Chair Andrew Harmos has thrown his weight behind calls for a full investigation into how MBIE arrived at the now-infamous $12.9 billion figure—an estimate that has dramatically shaped both media headlines and the Government’s legislative agenda.
“Parliament Should Not Usurp the Courts”
Appearing personally before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee, Harmos urged MPs to scrutinise MBIE’s big, headline-grabbing numbers “on an open and transparent basis before deciding to support a [law] change”—especially one with the potential to “materially harm the legitimate interests of tens of thousands of individuals.”
At the heart of the matter: Whether parliament should retroactively “fix” the law in favour of banks currently facing class action lawsuits for historic disclosure breaches, or let the existing litigation play out in the courts.
Harmos is clear: “Let the courts apply the existing law to the existing case and give ASB, ANZ and their customers their day in court… That’s what accords with New Zealand law, convention, common sense, and fairness to tens of thousands of New Zealanders.”
The $12.9 Billion Risk
The $12.9 billion figure cited by MBIE and relied on by Parliamentary decision-makers stems from Reserve Bank modelling—but both the underlying assumptions and methodology remain untested in the public domain. As pointed out in local commentary, this “big scary number” almost certainly overstates real exposure.
The only current class actions are against ASB and ANZ, and settlements offered to date reportedly sit at a fraction (roughly 5%) of the headline number. Critics argue the number is being touted as a rhetorical device to justify retrospective legislation rather than a reflection of real-world risk.
Recent business and legal media in New Zealand have highlighted serious concern at the lack of transparency and the precedent set by this move.
Local legal experts and the Law Society have warned Parliament only rarely passes retrospective laws, and should do so only in “exceptional circumstances” after careful public scrutiny—a standard many argue is not being met here.
Retrospective Law: A Precedent-Breaker
The core issue is not just a debate over numbers, but a constitutional principle: Should Parliament change the law part-way through existing court cases, tilting the playing field for one side? This question has generated both legal and public concern about fairness, the separation of powers, and access to justice—issues LawFuel has previously covered. Harmos himself asked, “How have we got ourselves in this position?”
As the Bill progresses, stakeholders from banks and regulators to claimants and legal watchdogs continue to weigh in. Andrew Harmos’s intervention has added significant credibility to those urging a reset, greater transparency, and a fair process that upholds core principles of New Zealand law.
