Formal Opposition to

Summary of Position

I submit this formal opposition to the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill (125–1). Though framed as consumer protection, the bill criminalises ethical discretion, suppresses climate‑aligned finance, and politicises service provision in New Zealand’s banking and insurance sectors.

This is not fairness — it is forced conformity. A legislative lever to open the door for harmful industries at the expense of responsible lending.

1. Criminalises Ethical Risk Management

• Imposes a mandatory duty to serve all consumers unless a “valid and verifiable commercial reason” is proven,
• Introduces criminal penalties of up to 3 months’ imprisonment or $500,000 fines,
• Targets institutions that decline clients on climate, reputational, or social‑impact grounds.

Prudence becomes punishable. Ethical finance choices are redefined as offences.

2. Suppresses ESG and Climate Considerations

The bill expressly prohibits differential treatment based on environmental, social, governance (ESG) criteria, climate‑reporting standards, or the consumer’s industry.

• Forces banks to serve fossil‑fuel, arms, and extractive sectors,
• Contradicts global sustainable‑finance frameworks (TCFD, IFRS S2),
• Undermines Aotearoa’s climate‑risk commitments and international credibility.

Neutrality on paper — climate regression in practice.

3. Creates Legal Ambiguity and Chilling Effects

The undefined phrase “valid and verifiable commercial reason” invites litigation and bureaucratic overreach:

• Institutions must defend every declined application in court‑ready detail,
• Fear of prosecution deters adoption of progressive ESG policies,
• Compliance costs rise while legal certainty falls.

This is not transparency — it is intimidation by ambiguity.

4. Undermines Treaty and Community‑Led Finance Principles

By banning non‑commercial screening factors, the bill restricts kaupapa Māori and Treaty‑aligned investment policies:

• Weakens safeguards against industries that harm Māori land and rights,
• Compels service to exploitative entities despite cultural or ethical objections,
• Erodes space for community‑owned, values‑based financial models.

One‑size‑fits‑all finance silences Indigenous priorities and social responsibility.

5. Mirrors a Wider Pattern of Legislative Erosion

This Member’s Bill echoes a broader governmental trend:

• Radical shifts cloaked as “technical amendments,”
• Ministerial authority expanded while professional autonomy shrinks,
• Environmental and social accountability reframed as bias.

Rule by stealth erodes trust, sector by sector.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The bill must be rejected. It undermines responsible finance, climate action, and Treaty‑consistent investment. Criminalising ethical discretion is neither just nor prudent.

• Reject the bill in full,
• Preserve the right of institutions to apply ESG, climate, and Treaty frameworks,
• Oppose the criminalisation of prudent, values‑based decision‑making,
• Promote legislation that strengthens — not suppresses — responsible finance in Aotearoa.

A resilient economy depends on the freedom to refuse harmful business when ethics, environment, and public trust demand it.

Respectfully submitted,

Ukes Baha

Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst

ukesbaha.com