Table of Contents
Will those who hold socially conservative values and beliefs still be able to have a bank account in New Zealand soon?
This may not be a question you are currently pondering but perhaps you should.
As reported in the NZ Herald recently the Court of Appeal is currently hearing a case where Bank of New Zealand is trying cancel its 40-year relationship with Gloriavale, due to an Employment Court decision where it found the community had broken the law. BNZ cited a breach of its Human Rights Policy as the reason.
Now let me make this very clear from the start of the article, Family First is not advocating for Gloriavale and we are not trying to be critical of BNZ for its decision. However, we are covering this story because this case could set a precedent in this country, depending on the court’s judgement.
The BNZ clause highlighted in the Court of Appeal’s document says the bank can close an account FOR ANY REASON. It then stipulates a few of the usual reasons which are to do with financial concerns which may arise. BNZ then cited its human rights policy to end the relationship.
BNZ follows a strong human rights policy. Under this policy, BNZ must not tolerate, or be complicit in, any activities that contribute to adverse human rights impacts. We believe that continuing to provide banking services to you would be inconsistent with our human rights policy.
Let’s park the court case to the side and look at the bigger picture. A human rights policy was evidenced to close the bank account. Is it that hard to imagine that ‘human rights’ policies potentially could change at any time to incorporate other actions or beliefs which are deemed ‘unsatisfactory’?
If you don’t think this can happen, guess what, it is already happening at a disturbing level overseas. Here are just some of the recent cases:
– In 2020 Barclays Bank in the UK shut the accounts of two counselling services as they were accused of conversion therapy, because they were helping people with unwanted sexual and gender issues.
– Again in the UK, a vicar’s account was closed by YBS in 2023 for speaking up against the transexual agenda.
– Metro Bank refused to open an account for a parenting organisation, called Our Duty, because they opposed transgender procedures for children.
– Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of citizens who protested his government’s handling of Covid-19.
– Nigel Farage at the time of Brexit was given the cold shoulder by his bank and when he went looking for a new bank, nine other financial institutions refused his business, seemingly due to “reputational risk”.
The list goes on and on.
A hypothetical example of an issue which may trigger a human rights breach in the future could be hate speech laws changing to include sexual orientation.
Right now in New Zealand, the Human Rights Commission is advocating for this and there have been numerous attempts through our political system and our courts to have this imposed.
If it ever did, do you think banks could then use this to restrict those who hold conservative and traditional beliefs like… marriage is only between one man and one woman?
What about those who publicly quote bible verses which state that homosexual behaviour is a sin, like Israel Folau did?
This would especially be the case at banks which have Rainbow Tick Accreditation. This is one of the statements which needs to be met for a company to keep its rainbow tick:
As part of your commitment to corporate social responsibility, have you informed your customers and other stakeholders, e.g., your supply chain, clients, contractors, that you are committed to being a fair workplace in line with the Rainbow tick principles?”
You can go to the WokeUP NZ website to see whether your bank has Rainbow Tick Accreditation.
It’s very hard to conduct life without a bank account. In fact, with moves afoot to become a cashless world, having a bank account has become an essential service.
We believe it is a human right for everyone to be able to have a bank account, whatever their beliefs, and we hope that the Court of Appeal accommodates this human right in any precedent it sets.
This article was originally published by Family First New Zealand.
