
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says his party knows more about banks than the largest law firm in the country does.
This was in response to law firm Chapman Tripp’s views on NZ First's ‘woke bank’ bill, which were published earlier this month.
Chapman Tripp lawyers said the Bill, which is actually called the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill, was flawed in “many technical ways”.
NZ First’s bank bill would require financial institutions to offer financial services to all consumers unless there was a valid and verifiable commercial reason not to do so.
“In our view, as written, the Bill would impose a further layer of bureaucracy (record keeping of commercial reasons and their verifications for any market segmentation decisions) rather than meaningful change,” Chapman Tripp’s Penny Sheerin, Emma Peart and Tim Williams said in early March.
Interest.co.nz asked Peters for his response to Chapman Tripp’s view that the party’s bill was full of technical flaws at a press conference on Sunday, following Peters’ speech at NZ First’s State of the Nation event in Christchurch.
Peters kept it short and sweet.
“ [...] with great respect to Chapman Tripp, we know more about what happens in Australia with respect to those banks than Chapman Tripp does,” he said.
Peters then asked who had paid Chapman Tripp telling interest.co.nz it was their job to ask them.
“How much are they paying? Hundreds of thousands of dollars of advice legally so to speak to try and throw doubt on a guy called Winston Peters,” he said.
“No you’re not going to win that way but you've got to do your job.”
Peters rounded off his reply by commenting that perhaps he needed to take some time off and start being a journalist for a while.
NZ First’s bank bill was proposed by NZ First MP Andy Foster after it was reported that BNZ had told a coal mining company it would close all of its accounts by 2030.
BNZ has also came under fire in December 2024 when the bank revealed it was planning to wind up all outstanding loans to petrol stations over the next six years to reduce or eliminate exposure to fossil fuel risk.
Foster’s bill was drawn from the ballot last month and will be debated in Parliament this term.
'Make New Zealand First Again'
Peters' speech at NZ First’s state of the nation meeting on Sunday afternoon was full of his usual vigour but lacked anything concrete in terms of policy that his party wants to roll out before the 2026 election.
Pro-Palestine protestors were lined up outside the James Hay Theatre while the meeting was held and chanted “shame, shame on Winston” amongst other things while police officers watched from outside and inside the building.
During the first half hour of Peters’ speech, at least six protestors interrupted and shouted over Peters which caused audience uproar. Each time a protester was removed from the audience, NZ First supporters clapped and chanted “out, out, out”.
In his speech, Peters didn’t give much of an idea of policies that the party plans – or wants to – run with through the 2026 election either.
It does, however, appear to be likely themed around ‘Make New Zealand First Again’, a comment Peters made sure to trumpet near the end of his hour-long speech.
A point Peters was keen to hammer home in his speech was his views on the Paris Agreement, which NZ joined back in 2016 under the then National Government.
New Zealand is one of 196 countries that signed up to the Paris Agreement, the legally binding international climate change treaty that came into force in 2016.
Countries who have signed up to the Agreement have a commitment to limit climate change.
Peters said some of the world’s largest economies have no intention of following through with their commitments to the Paris Agreement.
“That means that no matter what we do, our sacrifice will make no difference,” Peters said.
He said it was “common sense” that NZ instead invested into its own environment, which got enthusiastic applause from his audience.
Peters' view of NZ’s role in the Paris Agreement now means he has something in common with ACT leader David Seymour who will be taking over as deputy Prime Minister from Peters at the end of May.
Seymour said in February that NZ should consider withdrawing from the Paris Agreement as “half of the world appears to be pulling out of it”.
Peters also said on Sunday that the political left is no longer “fighting for the worker”.
“Labour sadly no longer represents the workers. They have only forgotten what a worker is or even what a worker stands for,” he said.
Following the NZ First’s event, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said while Peters was “yelling at protestors and channeling Donald Trump”, Labour was focussed on what really mattered which was jobs, health and homes.
“This Coalition drove the economy into a recession and now they’re trying to distract from the damage they’ve done with even more division,” Hipkins said.
14 Comments
For those interested in AI’s (Grok-3) ideas on man-made climate change.
From a press release..
New Study by Grok 3 beta and Scientists Challenges CO2 ’s Role in Global Warming
March 21, 2025 – Lexington, MA, USA – A provocative new study led by artificial intelligence Grok 3 beta (xAI) and co-authors Jonathan Cohler (Cohler & Associates, Inc.), David R. Legates (Retired, University of Delaware), Franklin Soon (Marblehead High School), and Willie Soon (Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Hungary) questions whether human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions truly drive global warming.
Published today in Science of Climate Change, the paper, A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis, suggests natural forces—like solar activity and temperature cycles—are the real culprits.
Chapman Tripp are corporate lawyers, inside, outside and back to front and that world is precisely where they operate and expect to thrive. Personally have had experience of that capability in that field with an outstandingly good result but on the other hand, as an individual with a case against a reasonably large concern, it soon became apparent that I was tilting against their modus operandi as a law firm, as well. As such, in my opinion, any advocacy by this law firm on national issues would have little connection with the common folk.
He said it was “common sense” that NZ instead invested into its own environment, which got enthusiastic applause from his audience.
I get so exasperated by politicians that think 'back in the ages' when we clear felled forests; burned off hillsides and drained all our wetlands that these environmental actions made us "developed" and prosperous.
And that reducing our emissions can only have costs, not environmental benefits (alongside the atmospheric benefits).
I reckon our Foreign Minister ought to take a trip to Costa Rica. They near tie us on the Happiness Index, yet their nominal GDP per capita is $19,000 - whereas ours is $48,000 and we both have populations around 5 million. However, they get international accolades with respect to their environmental management/transformation;
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/ethics-and-environmentalism-costa-ricas-les…
Payment for Ecosystem Services - yes, Winston, spend it here with our farmers and landowners and DOC - AND meet our Paris commitments at the same time.
Cost Rica aside Kate I tend to agree with Winnie. We have long established that anything NZ does on the climate front will have not one iota of effect in the greater scheme of things. That is not an argument that we should do nothing, but an indication of an opportunity to rethink what we do to build a resilient, sustainable economic base for our future. The Paris accords have just resulted in our governments taking 'conventional' measures which are visible, but have little impact, are damaging to the economy and the majority of the population.
The disappointing thing here is the there is/was an opportunity for Chloe to step up and offer constructive, alternative options. But she hasn't and that's a waste.
The Paris accords have just resulted in our governments taking 'conventional' measures which are visible, but have little impact, are damaging to the economy and the majority of the population.
Totally agree - the conventional approaches we have taken - such as the "One billion trees" provincial growth fund grants given to plant exotic pines (a New Zealand First initiative) are/were more harmful to our environment and economy than helpful. While NZF were promoting that initiative, many, many farmers were sending up SOS signals as more and more of our small farms were selling out to the international and corporate foresters.
I wrote about it here back in 2019;
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/102433/katharine-moody-government-op…
As far as I'm concerned, Winston is a bit late to the party - his party was part of the waste of money (i.e., wrong subsidies) problem in relation to addressing our emissions profile - but I'd be very happy to see him start listening to the farmers and other experts who see and/or have taken alternate paths to emissions reductions. Paths that are win-win - a benefit to NZ biodiversity and pollution reduction AND with the side-effect of emissions reduction.
Did not the Swiss where, similar to NZ, their emissions are inconsequential relative to the giant industrial nations who are scarcely acting at all, kick the can into touch. A spokesperson stated in the circumstances, comparative speaking, what was the point of the Swiss having to do something about nothing.
Which is exactly why I've always promoted environmental actions that improve NZ's actual environment and have the side benefits of reducing emissions as well.
Subsidising monocultural forestry was not that kind of action. and it was a flagship NZF policy.
Same old ,same old....Winston targeting 5+%...this is the latest iteration he has identified.
In the last 4 days or so. So much for the Paris Agreement. Let's bow out gracefully.
"Only 15 countries have met the latest Paris agreement deadline. Is any nation serious about tackling climate change? " Published: March 20, 2025 3.08am NZDT
https://theconversation.com/only-15-countries-have-met-the-latest-paris…
Also this website, but not for climate alarmists as it's likely to give them apoplexy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/21/only-15-nations-bothered-to-subm…
I've always said that our ETS was not the right vehicle for NZ if we wanted to participate in emissions reductions. But it (offsets) is the basic framework the UN FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) has been pushing that barrow since the Kyoto Protocol.
I suppose because the Montreal Protocol worked (the atmospheric CFC reduction measures) to repair/halt degradation of the ozone layer - they thought they were on a roll. But the Montreal agreement placed regulatory restraints (bans) requiring a re-work of manufactured products. It called for technological innovation.
There is no innovation in an offset framework - it's a polluter pays type of initiative. They never work (well not in my experience anyway).
NZ First is advocating for the fossil fuel industry and not for the best interests of the country. Let the banks decide who they want to lend money to, not politicians for goodness sake. Fossil fuel related businesses are going to be an increasingly risky bet going forward, so I'm not surprised the banks are pulling back on their financing.
Agree. This 'woke' bank bill is indeed an odd piece of proposed legislation. And the WP response to interest's question is so classically, embarrassingly Winston;
“ [...] with great respect to Chapman Tripp, we know more about what happens in Australia with respect to those banks than Chapman Tripp does,” he said.
Sort of reminds me of the "trust me", I'm from the all-knowing government.
Don’t know. I have met a few PMs, going back to Sydney Holland when I was little, and more so MPs. My first encounter with a noted lawyer was a QC in the early 1960s who advised me, which I have never forgotten, that there is much in the way that law is practiced that is legal but immoral and conversely, much that is moral but illegal. Having myself survived in the corporate world, at a reasonably high level for thirty odd years, I would not view the lawyers, that attach themselves to the associated activities, with any more regard than a politician and that is bearing in mind, that in the the various surveys concerning trustworthiness, lawyers seem to settle at about the level of used car salespeople. I do believe, again only an opinion as per my previous post here, that Chapman Tripp consider themselves to be consummate corporate lawyers and not without good reason.
I suggest it is about balance. setting aside the excessive population issue and the consumption that drives, I suggest fossil fuels don't need to be removed from use completely, indeed I don't think that is possible if there is a need to sustain or grow current capabilities. Just that their use needs to be reduced to significantly lower levels.
Strategically NZ will need fossil fuels for many years to come, and at some level (much reduced, forever), while viable and sustainable alternatives are developed and put in place. Winnie is correct that our government was asleep at the wheel when the Marsden Point refinery was shut down, but that was a virtually inevitable consequence of successive governments privatising strategic assets. I think Winnie at some levels, understands this. He is the only politician talking about it publicly.
The real, long term problem is too many people.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.