Please Explain! The Proponents Of The Retrospective Law Change Need To Front Up
That's the call from Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the Banking Class Action against ANZ and ASB, who has formally written to Cameron Brewer, MP as Chair of Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee urging him to call key decision-makers and proponents of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill to publicly explain the rationale for this extraordinary intervention. The Committee has the power to compel individuals to appear and a more clear-cut case for using that power would be hard to imagine.
'The Government is rewriting the law half-way through an active legal case to benefit two powerful Australian-owned banks – and no one seems to be taking responsibility for making the decision,' said Russell. 'Hon Scott Simpson, Commerce Minister says the banks didn't ask for it. The banks haven't commented. MBIE won't release the documents. And the public is being asked to accept it all on blind trust. Enough. It's time for answers.'
Russell's submission urges the Select Committee to summon the following to 'Please Explain':
The Chair and Chief Executives of ANZ and ASB to explain their role in the process;
Senior MBIE officials to justify the sudden shift to retrospective legislation following private meetings with the banks;
The Reserve Bank to provide any evidence backing claims that the law change is needed to protect financial stability.
'If their rationale is sound, let's hear it. Because right now, no one has offered a credible explanation for why a law change ruled out during the public consultation stage was suddenly resurrected behind closed doors – and timed perfectly to potentially limit the liability of two banks in a live court case.'
The Government has refused to release unredacted versions of the Regulatory Impact Statement and delayed key OIA responses until after the public submission period closes on 23 June. The Ombudsman is now investigating.
'The Select Committee process cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp a law change that overrides consumer rights and undermines public trust – especially when those responsible won't even show up to explain it,' Russell said. 'If this is in the public interest, let the public hear why.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
24 minutes ago
- 1News
How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?
New Zealand has been hit with a higher tariff rate than Australia on exports to the US – but economists say the situation could have been worse. It was revealed today that New Zealand exports would have a 15% tariff applied, up from 10% announced earlier. Australia remains at 10%. Brad Olsen, chief executive at Infometrics, said that was a clear challenge for New Zealand. "There is now a wedge between us and Australia." ADVERTISEMENT There were other parts of the world that previously had a higher tariff rate that were now on the same level as New Zealand, such as Europe. "Wine, for example, under the original tariffs, we might have had a slight advantage. Now we don't." But he said it was not necessarily true that the country would have been better off had it negotiated a deal. He said New Zealand did not have a lot to "give up" in those negotiations, and it could have ended up being costly. "I'm a little bit surprised by comments, including from the opposition's trade spokesperson, that the Government failed to achieve a lower tariff rate. "The comments seem to make the implication that New Zealand could have found a way to come up with a trade agreement that might have given us a lower tariff rate. "That might be true, but we have no idea what we would have had to give up to achieve that… some of what had to be given up by other countries to get a 15% tariffs rate is consequential – Japan and other countries had to give up to half a trillion dollars of further investment into the US." ADVERTISEMENT US President signs an executive order for new tariffs on a wide swath of US trading partners to go into effect in seven days. (Source: 1News) He said the impact on New Zealand's trading partners might not be as bad as had been expected, which should prove positive for the economy. "It will be slightly more challenging to export to the US from a New Zealand point of view, but our trading partner activity might not be hit as bad as was feared in April. That's probably a net benefit for us." Mike Jones, chief economist at BNZ, said the increase was not unexpected given indications of the past few weeks. "It's obviously unhelpful for NZ exports into the US, particularly how we line up with those coming from Australia and the UK, given the lower 10% baseline tariff rate for those countries. "Beef and wine exports could be affected. It's interesting in this context that we've seen the NZD/AUD exchange rate fall a little today in the wake of the announcements." 'Quite myopic' ADVERTISEMENT Cranes and shipping containers are seen at a port in Busan, South Korea, Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) Kelly Eckhold, chief economist at Westpac, said he thought New Zealand was in roughly the same position as in April. "On one hand, the tariff is higher, so there is a bigger direct cost, but it's a bit lower for a lot of our trading partners, so it's better for the economy than would otherwise be the case." He said how the lingering elements of uncertainty played out over the coming weeks would be important. "The legal basis of these tariffs, whether they're going to be able to continue or need to be replaced with a different type of tariff, is an issue. And the sectoral tariffs have not yet really been negotiated. "While I don't think these things affect the sort of goods New Zealand trades with the US, there may be some impact on our trading partners." He said it seemed strange that the US was calculating tariffs based on which countries exported more than they imported. ADVERTISEMENT "The concept that US authorities have had of countries ripping them off by selling more stuff to America than they're been buying is quite myopic. "We're only talking about goods trade here, we buy a lot of services from the US. "In large part, the trade imbalance is a cyclical rather than a structural story. "In the last few years, the economy has been relatively weak compared to the US. We're not sucking in as many imports, and the exchange rate has been lower than would normally be the case, which has encouraged export revenues. "I would have thought trade policy metrics like tariffs would be determined on the basis of structural, not cyclical factors. "All those things could easily be the other way around in a few years' time."
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
The Weekend: Oh no, it's starting to feel like 2021…
Madeleine Chapman reflects on the week that was. Usually I try my best not to think about being in lockdown for four months in 2021. It feels like a fever dream now but for a period there a whole million Aucklanders were collectively losing their minds and it felt like no one else, including the government, noticed or cared. And underneath the desperate chaos there was a genuine anger. It was anger at being condescended to, asked to 'do more' without any assurance that help was on the way. But that 2021 lockdown began four whole years ago (in August, even) and most of us are happy to leave it there. So I was surprised to find myself feeling nostalgic while reading Anna Rawhiti-Connell's satirical diatribe as the government's anger translator. A short, aggressive call to New Zealanders to toughen up and get to work. Evidently others felt something too as it's the most-read article of the week but why did it hit such a nerve? I think it's because there's a nihilistic humour in thinking you can simply talk people into doing anything, especially when it's virtually impossible for that thing to be achieved. I guess that's just politics 101 but Anna yelling at all of us to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps while also pointing out that most people can't afford boots really did echo the 2021 calls to just-stay-home-for-maybe-a-long-time-we're-not-sure-just-keep-doing-it-thanks. A tsunami emergency alert and a pandemic lockdown are very different circumstances but New Zealanders feeling deeply frustrated at being told to 'just deal with it' – whether it's Covid restrictions, an unaffordable cost of living or a hostile job market – is always the same. Being called dropkicks by the deputy prime minister is kind of funny when people are feeling secure in their jobs and homes. It's a lot less funny when many feel like they're the ones being constantly kicked. At any rate, it has never served a government well to try to shift blame or responsibility for the country's ills onto the people. Labour has still not recovered its support in Auckland after 2021. How many 'just suck it up and sort it out' calls will be one too many for New Zealanders? The stories Spinoff readers spent the most time with this week 'Fake news. No one's flush enough to waste a whole block of butter on lubing up a goat ' 'A couple of years ago, we had a Tūī in our neighbourhood singing Super Mario music. It was both hilarious and horrifying…'
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Shuffles continue at top of hospital project
A fast-rising bureaucrat brought in to helm the government's reset of the new Dunedin hospital project has been dumped from the inpatient build, the Otago Daily Times understands. Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora (HNZ) head of infrastructure delivery Blake Lepper had fronted the $1.88 billion Dunedin hospital project for HNZ, including standing alongside ministers at press briefings and being described as ''senior responsible officer''. Mr Lepper arrived at HNZ last March from a management role at the Infrastructure Commission, but after repeated questions to HNZ from the Otago Daily Times about whether Mr Lepper was still senior responsible officer for the inpatient build, the agency admitted he is not. Tony Lloyd, who was removed as the build's programme director in November, has been confirmed as project director for the build. HNZ said Mr Lepper, who has a law and physics degree from the University of Otago, retained responsibilities for completion of Dunedin's outpatient building, and workforce and data and digital work streams, as well as other infrastructure projects. The period of Mr Lepper's leadership of the inpatient build was fraught. After piles were driven, no contract was awarded to build the inpatients building and ministers claimed a project blowout, and sought a reset. Meanwhile, sources moaned about HNZ leadership prevarication causing delays. The option of refurbishing the existing ward block, rather than constructing a new inpatient building, had been previously considered and ditched, but was reconsidered under Mr Lepper and dismissed again. Mr Lepper's departure from the inpatient building comes hot on the heels of other senior personnel changes and announcements relating to how the project is staffed, delivered and governed. Last month, corporate boss Evan Davies — group chief executive of gas and property company Todd and member of a new HNZ health infrastructure committee — was appointed as crown manager of the inpatient building project by Health Minister Simeon Brown. When announcing the appointment, Mr Brown said HNZ had ''struggled to maintain momentum on the project and identify a path forward''. Mr Brown, who had spoken in January alongside Mr Lepper at a press conference announcing the inpatient build would go ahead, has repeatedly stressed that Mr Davies now has authority to make appointments to run the project. In the press conference, Mr Brown said the focus was ''cracking on'' with the build. Mr Lepper's messaging in the conference was less clear. He said HNZ was committed to leading the project, but was also ''looking across government to get the support we need to make sure we can move''. He was ''really grateful'' for support that was being provided by Crown Infrastructure Delivery (CID), a crown agency tasked with helping government departments manage infrastructure builds. Subsequent to Mr Davies becoming crown manager, HNZ sent Australian construction giant CPB a ''letter of intent'' to hire the firm to deliver the inpatient building. CID, which has no hospital-building experience, will not be project managing CPB's work. A question mark also hovers over the future and role of the project's governance committee, the Project Steering Group (PSG), which is meant to oversee the build. Rebecca Wark, the former head of health construction for New South Wales, was the most recent independent chairwoman of the PSG, but HNZ said her contract ended last month and it was ''currently reviewing the structure of the group''.
