An unprincipled retrospective law change

The Herald reports:

ANZ has declined a proposed settlement by lawyers leading a massive class action against the bank for giving customers the wrong information about their loans.

The lawyers asked ANZ to agree to pay a penalty of up to $300 million, on top of the $35m it has already paid more than 100,000 customers to compensate them for an error made nearly a decade ago.

ANZ responded in a letter, saying the sum sought was so high that the bank could not reasonably be expected to agree to it.

It called the offer a “stunt” – a “misguided” and “cynical attempt to influence the law reform process currently before Parliament”.

It’s the retrospective law change that is misguided and cynical.

The banks have claimed that the cost of the class action law suit could cost many billions of dollars. If they really believe that, they should jump at a chance to settle for just $300 million.

The proposed change is controversial because it applies to the past. 

The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill attempts to ensure the law pre-2019 aligns with the law post-2019.

Another contentious element of the bill, introduced by Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson, is that it specifically says it will apply to the ANZ/ASB case.

It is more outrageous than controversial. The lawsuit is over five years olds. To have Parliament change the law specifically to affect the outcome of a case before the courts is a terrible precedent.

NZ First deputy leader Shane Jones said his party would take advice before deciding whether to support the bill being passed into law in its current state.

“I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusion, but it’s a very, very bad constitutional practice to summarily change people’s rights unless there is a compelling case,” Jones said.

Shane Jones is right.