Poll shows strong opposition to retrospective bank law change that could affect loan disclosure case

A proposed law change that could limit ANZ and ASB’s liability in a multimillion-dollar class action is facing public backlash, with 79% of people opposing the move, according to a new Curia poll released ahead of a select committee hearing.
The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Amendment) Act, introduced by Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson (pictured) in April, would allow courts to reduce the compensation ANZ and ASB might be ordered to pay under a class action involving 170,000 borrowers.
The Finance and Expenditure Select Committee will hear submissions on the bill on Wednesday, The Post reported.
“This is about fairness,” says lead class action lawyer
Lawyer Scott Russell, who is leading the class action, said the bill sends the wrong message about accountability for major banks.
“This is about fairness. We believe the banks broke the rules and need to front the consequences,” Russell said.
“Changing the law at this stage only serves to protect the Aussie banks and sends a dangerous message that big corporates can get a ‘get out of jail free’ card when things get tough.”
The class action relates to loan disclosure breaches between 2015 and 2019.
Under current law, introduced in 2015 by the former National government, lenders in breach of disclosure rules must refund all borrowing costs, including fees and interest.
The goal was to protect vulnerable borrowers by ensuring they had clear, accurate information about their loans.
Simpson defends retrospective powers in the bill
Simpson acknowledged that it was “unusual” to pass retrospective legislation during an active court case but said the current disclosure rules were flawed.
He described the current law as a “really bad law” with a punitive effect, and said the bill aimed to allow courts to reach outcomes that are “just and equitable in the circumstances, irrespective of when the failure occurred.”
The bill specifically names the ANZ and ASB class action and would give courts discretion to consider the degree of harm caused when deciding compensation, rather than automatically requiring full refunds.
Simpson claimed the legislation wouldn’t affect the final outcome of the current class action, only give the court more flexibility in how it awards damages.
Funders and public question fairness and precedent
Litigation funder LPF Group, which is backing the class action, warned that the bill undermines confidence in legal process and poses a serious risk to future class actions.
“The government has stated that this bill is ‘necessary’ to protect the solvency of small, domestic lenders and to ‘simplify compliance’,” LPF said. “However, the only parties currently affected by the litigation, ANZ and ASB, are subsidiaries of two of Australia’s largest and most profitable banks.
“These institutions have confirmed that the class action poses no risk to their solvency as evidenced by their not having made any public notification to their shareholders or the ASX.”
Russell also questioned whether there was any justification for the bill.
“Only 22% of people surveyed by Curia believed the court case posed any risk to the financial stability of the two banks,” he said.
Legal experts cite conflict with legislation principles
The proposed change appears to contradict Clause 12 of the 2019 Legislation Act, which states: “Legislation does not have retrospective effect.” However, Parliament has the power to override this principle if it explicitly states the law is to be applied retrospectively — as this bill does.
Critics argue the amendment would erode public trust in the legal system and create uncertainty for litigation funders and plaintiffs involved in future legal action against powerful corporate interests, The Post reported.