By Arena Williams*
This Government loves to talk tough on big corporates. But behind closed doors, it’s moving to let two of the country’s most profitable banks off the hook for thousands of dollars that Kiwis have a right to claim for.
Right now, ANZ and ASB are potentially facing big penalties for breaking disclosure laws that protect mortgage holders. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders may be owed thousands of dollars. But instead of helping those people get what they’re owed, National is trying to rewrite the rules so the banks don’t have to pay.
As Kiwis continue to feel the squeeze of high cost of living, this Government’s is choosing to deny people who may be owed money the success of their claim in court.
The implications are huge: more than 150,000 people are part of a class action against ANZ and ASB. If you had a mortgage with those banks between 2015 and 2021, you could be one of them.
This is a government that says there’s no room in the Budget to ease pressure on households and no way to reverse cuts to core services. There’s no political will to raise the minimum wage just to keep up with inflation. But when the banks come calling, suddenly there’s time and energy to change the law in their favour.
If you’re a construction worker, renter, grocery shopper, or anyone else who’s been told the Government has done all it can for you in these tough times, ask yourself why there’s always enough energy to save the banks money, but not for you. You don’t get to rewrite your mortgage. You don’t get to skip payments. But if you’re a bank? The rules will be rewritten.
Banks are posting billion-dollar profits. They can afford to pay back what they owe, if a court orders them to. Instead, they’ve asked the Government to rewrite the law and National’s quite happy to pick up their case. Rather than let the courts decide what’s fair, they’re stepping in to block legal claims and protect corporate profits.
You probably haven’t heard from your bank about this. That’s because they’re hoping this law change goes through first so they don’t have to deal with you at all. National is trying to push these changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act through under urgency so the penalties banks owe for disclosure breaches are softened quickly.
True to character, Christopher Luxon fails to see how every dollar helps families pay for their rents, rates, or groceries. This is what being out of touch looks like. It’s a government that finds time to help billion-dollar banks dodge accountability, but no time to help the people they have potentially overcharged.
Next time you hear a National Minister talking tough on supermarkets or energy companies, remember this: the real decisions don’t happen in front of the cameras. They happen in Cabinet, quietly.
They’ve made their choice to let the banks off the hook and let New Zealanders pay the price. It’s on us to make our choice and vote them out.
*Arena Williams is the Labour Party MP for Manurewa and the Party's Spokesperson for Commerce and Consumer Affairs.
5 Comments
Political broadcast, is it not. In fact the last sentence makes that abundantly clear. One reason this site is so palatable is in its efforts to present a fairly well balanced, neutral if you like, series of columns and in that regard can’t actually recall ever an opinion piece from any member of parliament, let alone espousing such as this. Personally I find this as surprising as disappointing, after all I have accessed this site for good information to inform my voting, not being told how to vote.
Foxglove,
I think I agree. I don't want this to become a political forum for politicians, though the information in the article is newsworthy and should be in the public domain.
It is very noticeable that the number of comments has dropped substantially. I fully supported the change, but now I'm less sure.
Not particularly surprising or unexpected when you look at the governments general approach to low income Kiwi's.
Have no issue with the author, or her right of opinion for that matter, but for me at least it was an unexpected departure from the norm for it to be published on here. What happens now then? In the interests of balance are the opposing political parties to be given a column for rebuttal. At which point, in my opinion, the site descends into the vicinity of a quasi political debating chamber. Keeping a fair measure of distance from that sort of activity, up until now, has to my mind been quite a strong and welcome feature of the site.
Agree with keeping the site apolitical
The information is newsworthy, it's the presentation I take issue with
Maybe Interest can impose some guidelines to external contributors, like sticking to the facts and out of politics. Seemed to be a welcome unwritten rule until now
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.