Rock The Vote NZ Submission on the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill

Submitted on the 4^th of July 2025

Summary

Rock The Vote NZ fully supports this bill. We regard banking and other core financial services as essential infrastructure for participation in modern life. The Bill safeguards fair, non-discriminatory access to those services while still allowing institutions to price and manage genuine commercial risk where a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It closes a gap in New Zealand’s conduct regime by imposing a clear, enforceable duty on financial institutions to provide services unless refusal is required by law or justified by a valid and verifiable commercial reason. In short, ideological battles should never obstruct everyday life.

Key Points

The Right to a bank account

Rock The Vote NZ believes strongly in the right to have a bank account. In today’s modern world, banking and the right of every individual (and in this case, New Zealand citizens) to have access to a bank account is not only a necessity but also a basic human right. We believe that banks should remain a bipartisan industry committed to safeguarding our wealth and protecting our assets. The risk that banks may debank individuals for reasons unrelated to any breach of New Zealand law is unacceptable, and this concern is a recurring theme throughout this submission.

To deny individuals access to banking and a bank account is ultimately a cruel and authoritarian action — especially when the individual has not broken any New Zealand laws and no clear reason has been disclosed to them (often under the vague label of being “high risk”). For those who have not experienced it, the seriousness of the issue may not be immediately apparent. However, at Rock The Vote NZ, we believe empathy is essential to good lawmaking, and understanding what it is like to be debanked can strengthen the resolve behind this bill.

People on both sides of the political spectrum should have the right to a bank account. It is shameful and deeply concerning to see individuals call for the debanking of certain figures based on their political views, whether “far-left” or “alt-right.” Denying someone access to a bank account due to their political beliefs or ideology is entirely unacceptable. The battlefield of ideology should remain separate from matters of necessity. Everyone, regardless of their political beliefs, should have access to a bank account.

We acknowledge that some institutions may attempt to cite climate-related financial risks, reputational considerations, or alignment with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks as justification for refusing services to particular industries or clients. While we understand the growing emphasis on sustainable finance that the left is pushing, such discretion must not override the fundamental right to access core banking services. The Bill appropriately strikes a balance by allowing institutions to manage genuine and actual commercial risk that is verifiable, while prohibiting blanket discrimination against lawful businesses and individuals. This ensures that ideological considerations do not interfere with essential infrastructure access, while still permitting risk-based decision-making grounded in evidence.

Banks should provide financial services free from ideological influence; they must remain politically neutral. Their primary duty is to their shareholders. Shareholders of banks engaging in ideologically driven actions that risk financial loss should hold those institutions accountable for becoming politicised and alienating individuals who do not share their views.

Industry classification

446JA(1)(b)(iv) states, “the industry within which the consumer operates.” We will not repeat what has already been said regarding industries seen as adverse to the climate change narrative or associated with "extreme" political views as this has been comprehensively covered in the media. Naturally, we are pleased with the direct language used to prevent such absurd discrimination. However, we believe it is important to highlight two industries not previously covered in existing media:

·         Cryptocurrency – We would like to see cryptocurrency firms and companies such as EasyCrypto, who is New Zealand's main cryptocurrency exchange platform, be able to have access to reasonable banking services in New Zealand, as of now they are holding on to Kiwibank but have been rejected from many other banks. There have been many individuals debanked because of their association in the cryptocurrency industry for being high risk. We would like banks to be much more reasonable and not debank individuals by virtue that they operate with cryptocurrency, as it has created a chilling effect in the sense that many people are afraid to trade cryptocurrency such as buying cryptocurrency from their bank account and buying from a peer-to-peer because the bank might ban them or debank them. So we would like to see banks be more open to cryptocurrency firms and not debank them just because of the industry they operate in through this clause.  Many existing Cryptocurrency firms use extensive KYC/AML measures to ensure these laws are followed, with Binance recently going as far as using facial recognition verification for high-risk transactions and requiring to specify the owner of the destination wallet if it doesn’t belong to them.

·         Political Parties – We have seen other parties allegedly be rejected for banking services for the basis that the industry that they operate in as politically exposed persons can carry a certain risk with it.

The general point is that the commercial risk of the consumer of business should be based on what they have done, not the industry they operate in and we believe this bill will achieve that.  Debanking based on industry classification creates a chilling effect for legitimate consumers which this key clause will alleviate.

Suggested Improvements

After careful deliberation, Rock The Vote NZ proposes additional refinements to fortify the Bill and enhance its long-term effectiveness.

1.      446JA(1) Insert “on reasonable request” after “must provide financial services” for clarity

2.      446JA(2)(a) The definition of “Valid and verifiable commercial reason “ needs to be clear and ensure no room for loopholes, as we’ve stated before one of the things that financial institutions often do is they will give a vague reason “high-risk” and then debank the person without sufficient explanation, this must be closely examined and then defined to give the industry and consumers clarity.

3.      A common archetype you see on social media is once you are debanked from one place, you are debanked from all due to information sharing across banks, this should be mitigated somehow.

4.      To ensure that the reasons given for refusing financial services are “valid and verifiable”. Require an annual anonymised statistical report by each bank returned to the Financial Markets Authority or whatever service governs this to enable evidence-based monitoring without any privacy violations, this could be a new clause possibly.

5.      If an individual is identified as having a “valid and verifiable reason to debank them” they could have an alternative service where there are restrictions placed but are still able to access core service such as being paid for work, receiving a benefit and other essential services.  If they truly did something wrong they can be reinstated after a period of time as passed where they become low risk.  Perhaps this is outside the scope of the bill but it we believe it necessary to ensure the right to hold a bank account is upheld.

Another concern is activist banks that see the $500,000 fine as a “cost” to, in their minds, “save their country from climate change”.  There should be harsher penalties for multiple breaches of this bill over time.  Unlikely to actually happen but just in case.

Conclusion

The Key Takeaway we want the select committee to know is that The battlefield of ideology and politics should not obstruct our daily lives. We are supposed to live in a free, democratic country where we can freely express our minds & viewpoints without fear of being debanked, it really is that simple and it’s a shame that banks cannot be trusted to do this and we require this Bill to hold them to account and ensure they operate the way they should.  Our right to free speech, freedom of belief, conscience & expression is protected under our NZ Bill of Rights - and for a bank to debank someone for their ideological views (unless they are breaking laws) is in total violation of our Bill of Rights.  Thus, Rock The Vote NZ is in full support of this bill and hope the select committee and the members of Parliament can see fit to pass this Bill.