
ASB joins ANZ in declining legal settlement proposal, as Winston Peters comes in to bat for them
Having worked on the class action for four years, they argued it was unfair for the Government to change the rules of the game now - after it had been lobbied by the banks.
The retrospective law change could reduce the damages the customers, their lawyers and funders stand to receive from the legal action.
ANZ responded straight after the lawyers made their settlement offer public on Wednesday, calling it a 'stunt intended to influence members of Parliament'.
'The litigation funders are worried that MPs have seen through their attempts to exploit a poorly drafted provision in the CCCFA and are desperate to shut down the strong public interest arguments in favour of the amendment,' ANZ said.
It said its disclosure error had seen it undercharge customers an average of $2 a month over 12 months.
'There is no consumer harm. ANZ wrote off the amount it was owed and therefore put customers in a better position than had the issue never happened,' ANZ said.
'The proposed settlement appears to be primarily driven by the financial interests of the litigation funders and the proposed resolution does not reflect the nature or scale of the underlying issue.'
The litigation funders, LPF Group, will take a cut of between 13% and 25% of the settlement.
Peters says litigation funders stand to make 'windfall gains'
On Wednesday the Herald reported that New Zealand First deputy leader Shane Jones expressed concern over the retrospective element of the proposed law change, saying his party would take advice before deciding whether to support the bill being passed into law in its current state.
However on Thursday, the party's leader Winston Peters defended Commerce and Consumer Minister Scott Simpson during question time in Parliament, saying the 2015 legislation was 'badly drafted' and litigation funders stood to make 'windfall gains' if the law wasn't changed.
Act leader David Seymour told the Herald his party supported the bill because it is a part of the Coalition Government.
However, he had written to Simpson asking how to respond to constituents concerned about the bill applying to the past.
'Who knows, maybe Scott will change his mind in response to this,' Seymour said.
Labour MP Arena Williams took aim at Simpson during question time on Thursday for getting a key detail of the proposed law change wrong during an interview on Newstalk ZB, and incorrectly saying the Government hadn't been lobbied by the banks on the matter.
She echoed an allegation made by the litigation funders that Simpson wasn't across the detail when he took the proposed law change to Cabinet, as he had only just been appointed Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister following Andrew Bayly's resignation.
ASB and ANZ CEOs to be questioned by politicians
Coming back to ASB, it questioned the math behind the proposed settlement, saying it provided 'no certainty to ASB or other banks which may become subject to similar class actions, or to the sector as a whole'.
The customers' lawyers said $600m was equivalent to 3.5% of ANZ's profits between 2016 and 2019, and 5% of ASB's profits over this time.
They proposed the banks pay the lesser of $600m and 68% of the borrowing costs customers paid through the duration of the banks' breaches.
Under the existing law, the banks could be required to reimburse customers 100% of the borrowing costs they paid for the duration of the breaches.
If the law is changed, judges will be empowered to use their discretion to issue fair penalties. The starting point won't be the reimbursement of all borrowing costs.
Parliament's finance and expenditure committee is considering written and oral submissions from the public on the proposed law change.
ANZ's chief executive and general counsel, and ASB's chief executive and board chair are among those who will present to the committee on Monday.
The committee will also hear from various consumer groups and legal experts, among others.
Jenée Tibshraeny is the Herald's Wellington business editor, based in the parliamentary press gallery. She specialises in government and Reserve Bank policymaking, economics and banking.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Government to ban card payment surcharges, businesses to pick up the tab
The cost of providing contactless payments will fall on merchants. Photo / Andrey Mikhaylov Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Already a subscriber? Sign in here Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen. Government to ban card payment surcharges, businesses to pick up the tab The cost of providing contactless payments will fall on merchants. Photo / Andrey Mikhaylov The Government is planning to ban merchants from adding surcharges to most in-store card payments. The change will save shoppers, but cost merchants, who will need to absorb the cost of offering contactless payments or pass it onto customers by hiking prices. The change is expected to be made by May next year. It will apply to payments made in-store using Eftpos, Visa and Mastercard but won't apply to purchases made online or with foreign-issued cards, prepaid gift or travel cards, and cards issued by networks like American Express or UnionPay. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said: 'Surcharges are a hassle and an unwelcome surprise when shoppers get to the till.


Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Plan to ban credit card and PayWave surcharges
The government plans to ban surcharges on card payments in-store, saving shoppers from being stung with surprise fees when paying with contactless technology. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson announced the change on Monday afternoon, declaring: "That pesky note or sticker on the payment machine will become a thing of the past." "Shoppers will no longer be penalised for their choice of payment method, whether that's tapping, swiping or using their phone's digital wallet." Legislation is expected to be introduced to Parliament by the end of the year, with the ban to kick into effect no later than May 2026. The proposed law would cover most in-store payments made using Visa and Mastercard debit and credit cards, as well as EFTPOS, but not online purchases or other international card schemes. The move follows growing public frustration at the cost and transparency of such surcharges. Retailers are increasingly using them to recover merchant service fees charged by banks and payment providers, but the fees are often added without clear explanation. The Commerce Commission estimates New Zealanders are paying up to $150 million in surcharges each year - including $45 to $65 million in what it considers excessive charges. In March, Consumer NZ called for an outright ban, citing hundreds of complaints about fees being too high, confusing or oblique. Both Mastercard and Visa have also supported proposals for a ban. Retail NZ has previously argued businesses did not like charging extra but should have the right to recover payment costs. It called for more clarity from banks about the fees charged for different services. The ban builds on the Commerce Commission's recent decision to reduce the interchange fees imposed on businesses for accepting Visa and Mastercard payments. Interchange fees make up approximately 60% of merchant service fees. "A ban on surcharges means no more surprises for people who currently feel like they're being charged to use their own hard-earned money," Simpson said. "It means they can make a purchase knowing exactly what they'll pay, and how they'll pay it." The changes would bring New Zealand into line with the United Kingdom and the European Union, where such surcharges are already prohibited. Australia still allows surcharges but requires them to reflect the actual cost to retailers. The Reserve Bank of Australia has also recently proposed an outright ban on surcharges for EFTPOS and debit and credit card payments.


Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt to ban surcharges on in-store payments
The government plans to ban surcharges on card payments in-store, saving shoppers from being stung with surprise fees when paying with contactless technology. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson announced the change on Monday afternoon, declaring: "That pesky note or sticker on the payment machine will become a thing of the past." "Shoppers will no longer be penalised for their choice of payment method, whether that's tapping, swiping or using their phone's digital wallet." Legislation is expected to be introduced to Parliament by the end of the year, with the ban to kick into effect no later than May 2026. The proposed law would cover most in-store payments made using Visa and Mastercard debit and credit cards, as well as EFTPOS, but not online purchases or other international card schemes. The move follows growing public frustration at the cost and transparency of such surcharges. Retailers are increasingly using them to recover merchant service fees charged by banks and payment providers, but the fees are often added without clear explanation. The Commerce Commission estimates New Zealanders are paying up to $150 million in surcharges each year - including $45 to $65 million in what it considers excessive charges. In March, Consumer NZ called for an outright ban, citing hundreds of complaints about fees being too high, confusing or oblique. Both Mastercard and Visa have also supported proposals for a ban. Retail NZ has previously argued businesses did not like charging extra but should have the right to recover payment costs. It called for more clarity from banks about the fees charged for different services. The ban builds on the Commerce Commission's recent decision to reduce the interchange fees imposed on businesses for accepting Visa and Mastercard payments. Interchange fees make up approximately 60% of merchant service fees. "A ban on surcharges means no more surprises for people who currently feel like they're being charged to use their own hard-earned money," Simpson said. "It means they can make a purchase knowing exactly what they'll pay, and how they'll pay it." The changes would bring New Zealand into line with the United Kingdom and the European Union, where such surcharges are already prohibited. Australia still allows surcharges but requires them to reflect the actual cost to retailers. The Reserve Bank of Australia has also recently proposed an outright ban on surcharges for EFTPOS and debit and credit card payments.