Gisborne last on economic scorecard but locals still optimistic for future
The region was measured as having the highest economic growth in the country
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
21 hours ago
- Newsroom
A bottle of whisky brings controversial payments platform in from the cold
It was the online payment platform that the banks disdained. Westpac's Australian parent bank refused to accept it. ASB was scathing of its security. But now, those two New Zealand banks have embraced it, and other big banks are likely to follow with partnership deals by the end of the year. The story of how POLi has come in from the cold centres around a trial with Taupō-based online retailer Whisky and More – and a $179 bottle of Japanese whisky.
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
Lawyer calls for investigation into MBIE officials over banking class action
ASB and ANZ have rejected an offer to settle a class action law suit for breaches of historic credit disclosure laws. Photo: A top lawyer working with the plaintiffs in a large-scale banking class action is calling for a formal investigation into "serious civil service process failures" by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials. Rachael Reed, KC, has written to Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche and Attorney-General Judith Collins. She said she was concerned about how the Reserve Bank's risk assessment, which suggested a $12.9 billion risk to the banking system if changes were not made retrospectively to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, was being represented to Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment (CCCFA) Bill, which is before select committee, includes a retrospective fix that would mean instead of lenders being required to pay back all interest and fees charged when there was a disclosure breach between 2015 and 2019, a court would be allowed to decide what compensation was "just and equitable". "The RBNZ modelling as it has been presented is not just based on unrealistic scenarios; it appears to be a mathematical impossibility," Reed said. "It also appears to have been accepted as fact that there is $12.9 billion potential exposure to the NZ banking sector. Yet, ANZ and ASB have publicly rejected settlement offers of $300 million as excessive. These two banks represent half the market, meaning the remaining sector is supposedly carrying $12.3 billion in exposure. It defies logic and credibility." Some members of the committee seemed to have accepted the figure without scrutiny, she said. Reed said an investigation should determine whether Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment officials complied with established standards of policy advice, consultation and transparency in the use of the Reserve Bank scenario, and MBIE's subsequent recommendation to the minister and Cabinet. It should also examine whether the analysis provided an adequate basis for asserting a risk to the New Zealand financial markets that justified retrospective legislation affecting tens of thousands of consumers by expressly targeting the class action against ANZ and ASB, she said. She told Collins: "I appreciate you are well aware, retrospective legislation is an extraordinary use of extraordinary power that inherently undermines the rule of law. It should only be used where the foundation is transparently justified and unassailable. "The evidence demonstrates that MBIE officials have failed to provide such a foundation, instead relying on an incomplete and demonstrably flawed analysis. "This matter goes to the heart of our constitutional system - the integrity of the judicial process, the separation of powers, and the rule of law principles that underpin our democracy. The depth of these process failures, combined with their impact on democratic decision-making and the legal rights of tens of thousands of New Zealanders, requires your urgent attention to ensure New Zealand's constitutional standards are maintained." Andrew Hume, general manager of commerce, consumer and business policy at MBIE, said the ministry was satisfied with the quality of advice provided on the retrospective changes. "Although MBIE was not actively considering retrospective change when it undertook public consultation in 2024, some submitters raised concerns about the potential impact of historical disclosure breaches on lenders and the credit market. "MBIE felt it appropriate to investigate these concerns. Our analysis is outlined in full in our Regulatory Impact Statement. I acknowledge that MBIE's consultation on this matter was constrained by commercial sensitivities for lenders, and the active litigation underway. "Final decisions were made by Ministers and Cabinet. The bill is currently before Select Committee for consideration." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
25-07-2025
- Scoop
What You Need To Know About A 150,000-Customer Banking Class Action
ASB and ANZ have rejected an offer to settle a class action suit against them, for about $300 million. Instead, the legal drama continues - and now the country's lawmakers are involved, too. So what is the class action suit actually about, and what's happening now? What does the class action claim? The class action is for breaches of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). Between 2015 and 2019, the law said that a lender that was in breach of its disclosure requirements had to repay borrowers all the interest and fees they were charged during the time when they were not compliant with the rules. The class action claims that between 30 May, 2015 and 28 May, 2016, a coding error in one of ANZ's systems failed to take into account interest that had been accrued and not yet charged. As a result, loan variation letters contained incorrect information. ANZ said it meant customers were undercharged. The class action also claims that between 6 June, 2015 and 18 June, 2019, ASB did not ensure customers received variation disclosure when they requested changes to repayment amounts, dates or frequency, over the phone or in branch. They also say ASB did not provide customers with compliant variation disclosure when requesting other kinds of changes. It has been estimated that, if banks were to lose in court, more than 150,000 customers could be reimbursed a combined total of hundreds of millions of dollars. Customers have been added to the class action on an "opt out basis". All ASB and ANZ customers the court determines to be affected will be represented unless they choose not to be. The action has been in progress for about four years and University of Auckland senior law lecturer Nikki Chamberlain said it was the biggest consumer class action she was aware of in New Zealand history. Haven't the banks already made amends? The banks have already compensated affected customers after reporting the breaches to the Commerce Commission. ANZ first paid customers about $6 million. The Commerce Commission investigated and the bank admitted a breach of its responsible lending obligations and agreed to pay customers another $29.4m. ASB agreed to pay just over $8m. What is the law change? The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment (CCCFA) Bill, which is before select committee, includes a retrospective fix that would mean instead of a blanket penalty applying for disclosure breaches between 2015 and 2019, a court would be allowed to decide what compensation was "just and equitable". In 2019, the law was amended to apply to breaches from that point, but this change would apply to breaches before that time, too, if they had not been dealt with by a court already. What's the criticism? "Changing the law creates a dangerous precedent for everyone and exposes the plaintiffs to more cost and delay, as well as introducing uncertainty to their established claim," said Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the banking class action. Chamberlain said many consumer protection laws were punitive rather than compensatory. "The reason we have punitive remedial provisions in these consumer-based legislations is to incentivise big players like the banks to invest in their compliance systems. Otherwise what would be the motivation for the bank to invest in their systems? Their money is better spent in growing their lending portfolio… so there's this idea that we want to incentivise banks to self-regulate to some extent. "We want them to be having good practises and disclosing what they need to be disclosing in their lending documents to customers and we need to have punishment that's severe enough they take notice." She said the change could make it uneconomical to pursue the case, and could put litigation funders off from taking action in future in other scenarios. "If you change the remedial provision retrospectively, you are going to increase the cost of evidence that is required and the legal fees required because you're going to have to go through every single breach for every single customer, and go through the factors and that's going to blow the cost out which might make the litigation uneconomical and unviable. "Litigation funders have been funding it. Litigation funders are a good thing. Yes, they do take a percentage on a no win, no fee basis. But what litigation funders do with class actions is they make claims which would ordinarily be uneconomic to pursue economically viable." She said the defendants could use the fact there was a power disparity between them and plaintiffs to their advantage, but litigation funders helped to offset that. "One of my bigger concerns is about the rule of law, retrospective legislation in general is something that is not well looked upon. "In fact, it should not be enacted unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Why is that? Because we need certainty in the law. If people can't rely on the rights and remedies provided by the law at the time of breach, then there's uncertainty in the law and it will absolutely impinge on the integrity of the legal system. And eventually, democracy itself, because it goes to us being able to rely on what our rights are… why would a funder enter the market if there's a concern that big powerful organisations who are defendants in active litigation can lobby the government and they just change the law midway through the proceeding, in their favour?" It would be possible to put a long stop limitation provision in the law to prohibit any future litigation under the old rules, she said, if the concern was about the future liability of other lenders. What do banks say? But Roger Beaumont, chief executive of the New Zealand Banking Association, said the change was needed. "Between 2015 and 2019 any lender who even made a small mistake in the information provided to borrowers, like getting their phone number wrong, could be subject to a draconian provision in the law that, on one interpretation, would make them repay all the interest and fees paid until the error was corrected. That consequence would be totally out of proportion with the technical legal breach, especially if there was no harm to the consumer who was happily enjoying their new home or car thanks to a bank loan. "Modelling from the Reserve Bank shows a potential risk to the financial system of $12.9 billion. The Reserve Bank considered more extreme variations that 'were much more severe' but didn't publish them as they were too 'speculative'. A financial system risk much worse than $13 billion should be concerning to everyone." He said the change would also benefit smaller lenders who could not absorb the cost of legal action. Banking expert Claire Matthews, from Massey University, said if the claim were successful, there was a risk that litigation funders might see it as a way to make money. "They could be exploring other opportunities to see if there is something else that somebody had done." She said the law as it stood "significantly advantaged customers" and "almost encourages them to find a mistake. If you can find that somebody's made a mistake, and let's face it, people do make mistakes from time to time, you could have a very small mistake which is what was the case here and suddenly you don't have to pay any interest for the whole time of the loan? That to me just seems a bit unusual". The Commerce Commission had the ability to apply punitive damages if it had considered it appropriate, she said. Retrospective legislation was not uncommon. "It's kind of two different arguments. Maybe it's bad, but it's happened often enough that suggests that in certain circumstances, it's not unreasonable to do in this case." What settlement offers have been made? Claimants in the class action last week offered to settle for more than $300 million. But both banks rejected it. The offer included a cap on liability that was the lesser of either 68 percent of what customers paid in borrowing costs during the breach period, or a small percentage of bank profits. For ANZ the percentage was 3.5 percent of profits from FY16 through FY19. While ASB's offer was 5 percent of profits during the same period. ANZ described the offer as a stunt. Matthews said if the law change went ahead it would have a big impact on the case. "I'm not sure that it would completely kill the case but it would have a substantial impact. I think there would be potential for the case to still progress but the associated penalties and the impact of a decision in favour of the applicants would have less benefits for them and therefore the litigation funders might decide it was no longer worth their while to purse it because the costs would be too great."
