1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:02,600
Speaker 1: So to the ongoing question of why it is that

2
00:00:02,600 --> 00:00:04,800
Speaker 1: the government is changing the law to stop key we

3
00:00:04,960 --> 00:00:08,600
Speaker 1: customers taking class action against two Wosie banks. It's being

4
00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:11,160
Speaker 1: speculated that the reason the government's doing that is because

5
00:00:11,200 --> 00:00:13,920
Speaker 1: of the size of the potential payout. The government was

6
00:00:13,920 --> 00:00:15,800
Speaker 1: told it could be as much as twelve point nine

7
00:00:15,840 --> 00:00:19,320
Speaker 1: billion dollars, which seems extraordinary. Rachel read Casey is one

8
00:00:19,320 --> 00:00:22,320
Speaker 1: of the lawyers representing the class action plaintiffs, and with us, Hey.

9
00:00:22,239 --> 00:00:24,640
Speaker 2: Rachel, hello, how are you tonight? Quick?

10
00:00:24,920 --> 00:00:26,680
Speaker 1: I'm well, thank you. Twelve point nine is too high?

11
00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 2: Right, Oh, it's fantastical. It's not just too high. It

12
00:00:31,080 --> 00:00:34,320
Speaker 2: doesn't have any grasp of reality. And there are several

13
00:00:34,400 --> 00:00:38,159
Speaker 2: reasons for that. A and Z at this point claims

14
00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:43,280
Speaker 2: in respect of its breaches that only seventeen thousand customers

15
00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:46,280
Speaker 2: were affected, and says a claim of three hundred million

16
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:49,800
Speaker 2: against it is too high. But A and Z represents

17
00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:53,040
Speaker 2: some thirty percent of the market. Now, if they represent

18
00:00:53,120 --> 00:00:55,880
Speaker 2: thirty percent of the market and three hundred million is

19
00:00:55,920 --> 00:00:59,120
Speaker 2: too high for their breaches, how on earth would you

20
00:00:59,200 --> 00:01:01,920
Speaker 2: ever get to twelve zo point nine billion sector? Right?

21
00:01:02,520 --> 00:01:06,640
Speaker 2: It just doesn't make any sense on that first fundamental level.

22
00:01:06,800 --> 00:01:08,440
Speaker 1: Where do you think it actually sits?

23
00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:11,520
Speaker 2: Then well, I couldn't tell you where it actually sits,

24
00:01:11,560 --> 00:01:14,480
Speaker 2: because we need more information from the banks in relation

25
00:01:14,600 --> 00:01:18,319
Speaker 2: to exactly the number of customers affected and exactly the

26
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:22,800
Speaker 2: interest in fees and paid that would need to be

27
00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:29,640
Speaker 2: recouped under the current legislative provisions. But there are all

28
00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:33,760
Speaker 2: sorts of other reasons that this model and this figure

29
00:01:33,920 --> 00:01:38,120
Speaker 2: just simply doesn't work. It assumes that the planters win

30
00:01:38,160 --> 00:01:40,920
Speaker 2: at every point in the litigation, and also ignores the

31
00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:45,880
Speaker 2: reality of settlement, and it talks about a sect to

32
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:49,600
Speaker 2: wide liability. But these are claims that could have been

33
00:01:49,600 --> 00:01:53,640
Speaker 2: made any time for breaches from twenty fifteen to twenty nineteen,

34
00:01:54,360 --> 00:01:58,480
Speaker 2: and there are statutory limitation periods and respect of these

35
00:01:58,480 --> 00:02:03,280
Speaker 2: breaches of three or six years. Now. If they had

36
00:02:03,280 --> 00:02:08,280
Speaker 2: come to light throughout that time or not long afterwards,

37
00:02:08,960 --> 00:02:11,600
Speaker 2: there wouldn't be another claim that would be in existence

38
00:02:11,639 --> 00:02:14,800
Speaker 2: that could be pursued. Not only that, it's got to

39
00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:18,799
Speaker 2: be financially viable to do so against a smaller lender.

40
00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:21,680
Speaker 2: And the fact is, none of these other cases have

41
00:02:21,760 --> 00:02:24,320
Speaker 2: been taken. This is the only one that's on foot.

42
00:02:24,560 --> 00:02:27,640
Speaker 1: Okay, so did the Reserve Bank just fail to do

43
00:02:27,680 --> 00:02:31,640
Speaker 1: its calculations properly, or did they deliberately and artificially inflate

44
00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:32,200
Speaker 1: this number.

45
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:36,200
Speaker 2: I wouldn't accuse them of deliberately and artificially inflating them.

46
00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:39,280
Speaker 2: I wouldn't do that. What we don't have is any

47
00:02:39,320 --> 00:02:42,400
Speaker 2: transparency in relation to their modeling. We can see that

48
00:02:42,440 --> 00:02:44,960
Speaker 2: it doesn't make sense, but the relevant parts of the

49
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:50,200
Speaker 2: modeling have been obscured through reductions and Official Information Act responses,

50
00:02:50,720 --> 00:02:53,600
Speaker 2: so we can't actually pick behind it. And the difficulty

51
00:02:53,680 --> 00:02:58,680
Speaker 2: here is that retrospective legislation is extraordinary in itself, and

52
00:02:58,720 --> 00:03:03,520
Speaker 2: it's been used here in extraordinary way to deliberately target

53
00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:07,960
Speaker 2: litigation that's been on foot for four years. And where

54
00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:11,079
Speaker 2: you have got that extraordinary use of power in an

55
00:03:11,120 --> 00:03:18,040
Speaker 2: extraordinary way, it's underlying foundation must be unassailable, and it

56
00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:21,640
Speaker 2: must be transparent so that someone can contradict it if

57
00:03:21,720 --> 00:03:24,720
Speaker 2: it deserves to be contradicted, and we don't have that

58
00:03:24,840 --> 00:03:27,040
Speaker 2: at all here, so none of that has occurred.

59
00:03:27,080 --> 00:03:29,400
Speaker 1: How do you rate the chances that Brian Roach actually

60
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:31,519
Speaker 1: gives you what you want what you want, which is

61
00:03:31,520 --> 00:03:34,000
Speaker 1: an investigation here, Well, I would.

62
00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:37,560
Speaker 2: Hope that he would undertake his functions in a proper manner,

63
00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:41,120
Speaker 2: and I consider that there is a foundation for it,

64
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:44,160
Speaker 2: which was carefully set out in a letter to him,

65
00:03:44,640 --> 00:03:47,000
Speaker 2: with the concerns that we have. So I would hope

66
00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:49,440
Speaker 2: that he would take that seriously and do what is

67
00:03:49,520 --> 00:03:52,440
Speaker 2: right in the circumstances here, because this is quite an

68
00:03:52,480 --> 00:03:54,920
Speaker 2: extraordinary position that we found ourselves in.

69
00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:56,880
Speaker 1: It really does seem this way, Hey, Rachel, thank you

70
00:03:56,960 --> 00:03:59,960
Speaker 1: very much appreciated. That's Rachel. Read For more from Heather

71
00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:03,040
Speaker 1: Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to News Talk Set B

72
00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:07,040
Speaker 1: from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.