October 8, 2025 • 5 mins
ASB recently agreed to pay $135.6 million to settle a class action for allegedly breaching the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act.
ANZ has refused to settle, and it's prompted concerns over recent proposed banking reforms are at risk.
Banking Reform Coalition convener Kent Duston explained further.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ask Scott Simpson's Banking reforms in trouble is the question
that a lot of people are asking right now because
yesterday ASB settled a class action claim against the bank
for one hundred and thirty five million dollars. The class
action still stands against A and Z. They are going
to fight it and they are the only bank therefore
that is in need of this retrospective bailout. Through the
changes in the Triple CFA, there is now a suggestion
it's not going to happen because New Zealand first might
(00:21):
be a handbreak. Kent Dunstan Dustin rather is the Banking
Reform Coalition convenor and with us High.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Kent evening hither, how are you?
Speaker 1 (00:30):
I'm very well, thank you. D Does it look to
you like ASB may have settled here because they can
see the law change is not coming.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Well, I mean you'd have to look at it from
the point of view of the bank and say, you know,
they're not in the business of handing out one hundred
and thirty five million dollars for the fun of it.
If there was a law change coming that was going
to get them off the hot the ensure that wait
for that. So I think, you know, to the untutored observer,
we'd have to say that the odds that they're going
(00:56):
to get the legislation that they wanted through Minister Simce
look pretty remote. And you know, when they weigh up
the odds, they've decided that paying up now is better
than fighting it out in court in March.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
And so what is your vibe. Are you hearing that
New Zealand First is the problem they're going to kill
this law change?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Well, I think it was pretty apparent from when the
bill went to Select Committee that New Zealand First were
pretty skeptical, right, But because and if you look at
the bill, it really doesn't do that much other than
provide this retrospective law change. And no matter how we
slice and dicee that it's pretty toxic to making to
be making retrospective law changes that you know, benefit these
(01:38):
large banks. After all, a m Z hasn't yet settled.
It would be the only bank that is going to
get the benefit from this law change. We're talking about
the largest bank in the country that had a profit
of more than two billion dollars you know, last year.
If anyone needs a handout, it sure isn't a m
Z now.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
So I'm taking it from the way that you've just
answered that question that you're not a huge fan of this.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well, you know, I don't think that you know, a
retrospective law change is never good, right, I mean, it
undermines the rule of law. And we are talking about
a case that was before the courts. And after all,
you know, the legislation would only affect cases between twenty
fifteen and twenty nineteen because the law changed after twenty nineteen,
(02:22):
and that means that these things aren't going to come
around again. So it looked pretty clear that really it
was for the benefit of ASP and am Z and
there's a lot of hand waving about it, but fundamentally
it was a bad law and we shouldn't underestimate the
degree to which this is a huge political loss to
the Bankers Association. I mean, they have a compliant minister
(02:43):
in the former Minister Simpson. They seem to have more
lobbyists running around Willington Flees on a dog and yet
all armed with excess cards. Yet it seems that they
can't get this bill across the line. Because if they
could get the bill across the line, well why did
ASB need to write a check for one hundred and
thirty five million.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
Yeah, well they're coming up against equally experienced lobbyists, aren't they.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well, I'm not sure there's actually that many lobbyists on
the side of consumers running around Parliament. So you know,
I really think this is a victory for common sense
and I think that there is a bit of a
shout out to New Zealand first on this one, because
without one of the Coalition partners standing against it, surely
this would have just proceeded through Select Committee and into
(03:26):
law and the banks would be off the hooks.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
So is there not an argument to be made, though,
Kent that this is a chancing of the arm by
the lawyer who's doing this, because if the law has
been changed, right, because it was obviously not a great
great piece of legislation, he's seen an opportunity.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Well yeah, look, this is always the balancing, isn't it.
And look, I do think Scott Russell, you know, the
lawyer who's been leading this, irrespective of the merits of
this particular case, has really done the country a bit
of a service because we do not have any enabling
lead for these class actions in New Zealand, and so,
as he points out, you know, he's spent the last
(04:06):
four years fighting about how this process is going to work.
So they've been talking about the process rather than the
merits of the case itself. And this is the first time,
really this has succeeded. So what he's done is open
the door for groups of consumers to finally be able
to hold large corporates, particularly large multinationals, to account in
(04:28):
the courts. And it's hard to see that as a
bad thing.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Do you think, though, let's talk about the merits of
the case really quickly and the available time that I have.
Do you think though, it is fair that the banks
are being lumped with a payout as big as this
for what they have.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Done, well, you know their banks, So yes, I do,
in the sense that they have all of the money
in the world. You know, they made a mistake. And
let's face it, who doesn't think that AMZ can't afford
a new computer to get this kind of stuff right.
They have all the money in the world, They can
hire as many staff as they need, they can buy
all of the IT systems that have ever been created.
(05:03):
And if they still manage to get it wrong, surely
they should be on the hook for that.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Kent, it's good to talk to you. Thanks very much,
appreciate your time, mate, Kent Dustin Banking Reform coalition convener
No mercy from Kent.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live to
news Talks.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Ask Scott Simpson's Banking reforms in trouble is the question
that a lot of people are asking right now because
yesterday ASB settled a class action claim against the bank
for one hundred and thirty five million dollars. The class
action still stands against A and Z. They are going
to fight it and they are the only bank therefore
that is in need of this retrospective bailout. Through the
changes in the Triple CFA, there is now a suggestion
it's not going to happen because New Zealand first might
(00:21):
be a handbreak. Kent Dunstan Dustin rather is the Banking
Reform Coalition convenor and with us High.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Kent evening hither, how are you?
Speaker 1 (00:30):
I'm very well, thank you. D Does it look to
you like ASB may have settled here because they can
see the law change is not coming.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Well, I mean you'd have to look at it from
the point of view of the bank and say, you know,
they're not in the business of handing out one hundred
and thirty five million dollars for the fun of it.
If there was a law change coming that was going
to get them off the hot the ensure that wait
for that. So I think, you know, to the untutored observer,
we'd have to say that the odds that they're going
(00:56):
to get the legislation that they wanted through Minister Simce
look pretty remote. And you know, when they weigh up
the odds, they've decided that paying up now is better
than fighting it out in court in March.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
And so what is your vibe. Are you hearing that
New Zealand First is the problem they're going to kill
this law change?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Well, I think it was pretty apparent from when the
bill went to Select Committee that New Zealand First were
pretty skeptical, right, But because and if you look at
the bill, it really doesn't do that much other than
provide this retrospective law change. And no matter how we
slice and dicee that it's pretty toxic to making to
be making retrospective law changes that you know, benefit these
(01:38):
large banks. After all, a m Z hasn't yet settled.
It would be the only bank that is going to
get the benefit from this law change. We're talking about
the largest bank in the country that had a profit
of more than two billion dollars you know, last year.
If anyone needs a handout, it sure isn't a m
Z now.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
So I'm taking it from the way that you've just
answered that question that you're not a huge fan of this.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well, you know, I don't think that you know, a
retrospective law change is never good, right, I mean, it
undermines the rule of law. And we are talking about
a case that was before the courts. And after all,
you know, the legislation would only affect cases between twenty
fifteen and twenty nineteen because the law changed after twenty nineteen,
(02:22):
and that means that these things aren't going to come
around again. So it looked pretty clear that really it
was for the benefit of ASP and am Z and
there's a lot of hand waving about it, but fundamentally
it was a bad law and we shouldn't underestimate the
degree to which this is a huge political loss to
the Bankers Association. I mean, they have a compliant minister
(02:43):
in the former Minister Simpson. They seem to have more
lobbyists running around Willington Flees on a dog and yet
all armed with excess cards. Yet it seems that they
can't get this bill across the line. Because if they
could get the bill across the line, well why did
ASB need to write a check for one hundred and
thirty five million.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
Yeah, well they're coming up against equally experienced lobbyists, aren't they.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well, I'm not sure there's actually that many lobbyists on
the side of consumers running around Parliament. So you know,
I really think this is a victory for common sense
and I think that there is a bit of a
shout out to New Zealand first on this one, because
without one of the Coalition partners standing against it, surely
this would have just proceeded through Select Committee and into
(03:26):
law and the banks would be off the hooks.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
So is there not an argument to be made, though,
Kent that this is a chancing of the arm by
the lawyer who's doing this, because if the law has
been changed, right, because it was obviously not a great
great piece of legislation, he's seen an opportunity.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Well yeah, look, this is always the balancing, isn't it.
And look, I do think Scott Russell, you know, the
lawyer who's been leading this, irrespective of the merits of
this particular case, has really done the country a bit
of a service because we do not have any enabling
lead for these class actions in New Zealand, and so,
as he points out, you know, he's spent the last
(04:06):
four years fighting about how this process is going to work.
So they've been talking about the process rather than the
merits of the case itself. And this is the first time,
really this has succeeded. So what he's done is open
the door for groups of consumers to finally be able
to hold large corporates, particularly large multinationals, to account in
(04:28):
the courts. And it's hard to see that as a
bad thing.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Do you think, though, let's talk about the merits of
the case really quickly and the available time that I have.
Do you think though, it is fair that the banks
are being lumped with a payout as big as this
for what they have.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Done, well, you know their banks, So yes, I do,
in the sense that they have all of the money
in the world. You know, they made a mistake. And
let's face it, who doesn't think that AMZ can't afford
a new computer to get this kind of stuff right.
They have all the money in the world, They can
hire as many staff as they need, they can buy
all of the IT systems that have ever been created.
(05:03):
And if they still manage to get it wrong, surely
they should be on the hook for that.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Kent, it's good to talk to you. Thanks very much,
appreciate your time, mate, Kent Dustin Banking Reform coalition convener
No mercy from Kent.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen live to
news Talks.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.