Battle lines drawn over anti-woke banking bill

Saturday, 19 July 2025

Protesters picket ANZ in a bid to get the bank not to fund Bathurst Resources’ expansion of a coal mine on the Denniston Plateau in Otago.

ANALYSIS: The war of words over NZ First’s “woke” banking bill defies easy characterisation.

The banks hate it, telling MPs it would add cost and constrain free enterprise, while some businesses like farmers, miners and higher-interest lenders say it would reduce costs for them and encourage free enterprise.

And ordinary members of the public are divided, some seeing it as an attempt to provide life support for climate-damaging legacy industries, and others seeing it as woke social engineering ignoring the need to put petrol in cars and food on plates.

Birth of the banking bill

In February, driven by frustration from some in the farming and mining communities so dear to the resources minister, NZ First’s Shane Jones, the party tabled a Member’s Bill.

The bill, which was quickly plucked from the random ballot of member’s bills, was designed to prevent banks from debanking the likes of petrol stations, coal miners and farmers for environmental, social and governance reasons (ESG) on pain of a $500,000 fine.

Mining operators are operating legitimately and don't deserve threats and bullying, the resources minister said as he announced the Government's new minerals plan in Waihī.

Last week, submissions on the bill were published, showing the fault lines between supporters and detractors.

Where did it come from?

Federated Farmers led a successful campaign to get a Parliamentary banking inquiry started. That surfaced up rural unhappiness, and a belief held by many farmers that banks were being high-handed with them and foisting an unfair decarbonisation programme on them, while ignoring the carbon footprints of their urban customers, and setting tougher decarbonisation targets here than their parent banks were setting for Australian farmers.

That then saw petrol retailers and coal miners protest they too were victims of a woke banking agenda, prompting Jones to say it was not the business of banks to impose a “moral order on New Zealand”.

Banks hate it

The targets of the bill are the banks, and they really want to see it fail.

Banks say NZ First’s anti-woke banking bill would interfere with their ability to determine their own commercial strategies, if it ever became law.

BNZ says the NZ First anti-woke banking bill has the potential to undermine the integrity of the country’s financial system.

It said the bill would unreasonably fetter the ability of banks to determine their own commercial strategies, and that the $500,000 maximum fine and risk of imprisonment for directors was disproportionate. Directors had a legal duty to act in the best interests of shareholders, and the bill could create a conflicting duty, it said.

Kiwibank said the bill was not necessary, and would create an additional compliance burden.

ASB called it “novel legislation not seen in other comparable economies”.

It warned it would add cost, likely to require new systems, data and operational processes, which it said could slow up lending decisions.

Westpac, the Government’s banker, took exception to the bill’s wording.

“The bill mischaracterises the role of environmental, social and governance assessments as ‘moralising’, whereas these are part of prudent risk management and commercial decision-making processes,” it said.

Cash Converters told MPs: “We have experienced first-hand the harm that these ‘debanking’ practices cause to New Zealand businesses when they erroneously capture legitimate businesses providing valuable financial services to New Zealanders as we do.”

Unloved businesses love it

Cash Converters said it had “found itself caught up” in big bank policies, not bank “payday” or “predatory” lenders. It said it was not a high-cost lender (the legal definition of which is a lender charging 50% or higher interest), and was a heavily regulated “responsible” lender. Cash Converters makes short-term loans with 49.95% interest.

“Despite Cash Converters operating in a highly regulated environment, not being a high-cost lender, and our business having robust controls in place to ensure responsible lending, Cash Converters has found itself caught up in these policies and unable to secure banking services from traditional banks,” the business told MPs.

This was pushing up the cost of lending for its borrowers that banks saw as posing a “reputational” risk for the banks to lend to.

Federated Farmers’ Oliver Ibbetson, Richard McIntyre and Paul Melville speaking to MPs on the Finance and Expenditure select committee during Parliament’s Banking Inquiry.

“Most, if not all, sub and near-prime lenders are unable to obtain even basic, everyday transaction banking facilities,” Cash Converters said. “Without access to banking infrastructure, Cash Converters’ ability to operate as efficiently as possible is compromised, raising costs for us, which given the low margins with which we operate, ultimately end up being passed on to our customers.”

John Reid from Waiapu Oil and Gas told MPs to lift the penalties in the bill to $2 million for individuals, and $5m for companies.

Federated Farmers said banks were exercising their market power to exclude lawful businesses based on internal values or offshore frameworks (read the United Nation’s Net Zero Banking Alliance).

“The bill restores proper balance between commercial discretion and democratic oversight. It ensures that lawful, responsible businesses cannot be denied service arbitrarily or on ideological grounds,” the farmer lobby group said in its submissions on the bill.

The public is split

Private citizen Ellery Daines told MPs: “This bill is an explicit attempt to force financial institutions to exclude scientific evidence from their decision-making. That it specifically mentions the climate as a factor that cannot be considered amounts to climate change denial, and thereby denial of science in general. This is clearly a foolish goal to pursue and the bill should therefore be abandoned.”

By contrast, Fotini Papadopoulos said: “My reason to use my own money, or to ask for a loan, should not, at any time, be subject to politics, religious or cultural beliefs or whatever differing opinions are being demanded around the world from one day to the next.”

Dolf van Asbeck said: “This Bill may seem like a targeted fix, but it has wider structural implications. It risks increasing political control over private financial decisions and undermining the principles of free enterprise.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was debanked by Coutts in 2023 for his political views. Coutts is a subsidiary of NatWest, which settled a civil claim with Farage earlier this year, and apologised to him.

“It sets a precedent for government intrusion into private commercial decisions. That opens the door to future extensions of control over who must be served, under what terms, and for what purpose.”

He saw the potential for abuse by future governments.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, was assaulted in Auckland’s Albert Park in 2023.

“If passed, this law won’t just apply to coal. A future government could use it to force banks to fund politically aligned ‘green’ projects, protect controversial tech companies or media outlets,” van Asbeck said.

The Free Speech Union called for a ban on debanking people for their personal, or political opinions.

“We have also received complaints from individuals whose response on a customer survey form triggered warnings or threats of debanking from Kiwibank,” it said.

Kiwibank told the complainant that he had been emailed by the bank, and warned his response was abusive, and “if this behaviour continues, Kiwibank may reconsider its banking relationship” with him. The message had praised Kiwibank’s “great staff” but described the bank as “woke”, and criticised the behaviour of “your ambassador”, as well as making offensive comments about them.

That, the Free Speech Union said, was a reference to Shaneel Lal, who was not an ambassador for Kiwibank, but was named the Young New Zealander of the Year in 2023 at a ceremony sponsored by Kiwibank that took place after the mobbing and assault of British “pro-women” speaker Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull in a park in 2023.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon meets European Union President Ursula von der Leyen at the EU Commission's headquarters in Brussels, in June.

Kiwibank told The Post it was committed to fair and inclusive banking for all and fully supported the right of all New Zealanders to hold and express their own opinions in a respectful manner.

Ben Tutheridge told MPs: “Refusing to finance or insure projects contributing to climate change such as new oil, gas, or coal development … does not constitute discriminatory conduct. Instead, it should be recognised as a responsible and necessary decision in the face of escalating climate risks.”

Trashing our international reputation

There are even claims that the bill, if passed would damage New Zealand’s reputation, and capital flows.

The Centre for Sustainable Finance told MPs: “There is nothing more likely to dissuade foreign capital from participating in New Zealand markets than the New Zealand Government requiring that capital to invest in a way consistent with the Government’s ideology.”

ASB said: “This legislation would also put New Zealand ”out of step“ with key comparative jurisdictions, including Australia, the EU and the United Kingdom, none of which have equivalent legislation.”

What’s the chance of it becoming law?

National MPs supported the bill so it got to the select committee, but the party’s support at the bill’s first reading in Parliament in May was lukewarm, and the party has been accused of being sensitive to bank lobbying.

ACT’s support for the bill was conflicted.

ACT’s Andrew Hoggard, former president of Federated Farmers, said in most circumstances the party would not be minded to interfere with private companies’ choices of who to deal with, but said: “Who are banks and financial institutions to be our nation's moral arbiters?”

Labour’s Arena Williams described it as just another ideological culture war. The Greens’ Ricardo Menéndez March called it “a nonsense of a bill”. Both parties voted against it.