TLDR: Expect incremental adjustments, not sweeping reforms—competition and consumer safeguards will remain contested terrain.
New Zealand’s year-long Parliamentary inquiry has produced a comprehensive list of 19 recommendations. However, there has not been a single breakthrough, and the partisan emphasis around “light-touch” versus “protective” regulation shapes what happens next.
What actually shifts—and what doesn’t
Prudential settings
The National-led majority is pressing the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) to pause the scheduled rise in bank capital ratios and create a new “Prudential Policy Committee” to make rules more efficiency-focused. If adopted, this trims funding costs for the big four in the short run and may free up lending capacity—but it also reduces the capital buffer that insulates the economy during a downturn.
Open-banking and data portability
Cross-party agreement survives here. Standardised credit files, real-time payments and open APIs are likely to proceed, lowering switching costs for customers and giving fintechs cleaner access to account data. These are slow-burn infrastructure projects, not overnight fixes.
Kiwibank’s role
Parliament will inject $500M into Kiwibank, but without consensus on permanent Crown ownership or special regulatory privileges, the bank is expected to “scale into a smaller version of the incumbents” rather than become a disruptive fifth pillar.
Ramifications for key groups
1. Retail customers
- Margins on mortgages and deposit accounts are unlikely to fall quickly; the big four still control ~90 % of the market.
- Over time, richer account-level profit disclosure and easier product comparison could exert fee pressure—but only if customers actively switch.
2. Small banks & fintechs
Lower entry capital (NZ$30 m) and a broader “regulatory sandbox” help new players, yet pausing big-bank capital hikes can neutralise that advantage; the playing field flattens, but not necessarily in the newcomer’s favour.
3. Rural and Māori borrowers
- Easing capital weights on agricultural lending could lift credit supply, but higher risk premiums may remain.
- Removing AML roadblocks for Māori and trusts is meaningful, reducing compliance drag on multi-owner entities.
4. Regulators & taxpayers
- A lighter capital regime places more weight on supervisory skill; if a bank mis-prices risk, losses could eat into thinner buffers, transmitting stress to the Crown via deposit-guarantee commitments.
- Political dynamics: a moving target
Think of regulation as a pendulum: National is nudging it toward “efficiency,” Labour/Greens toward “safety.” Because many recommendations require Cabinet or RBNZ follow-through rather than legislation, progress can be swift—but equally vulnerable to reversal after the next election. The six-monthly progress hearings built into the report will keep banking policy visible during the electoral cycle, ensuring continued sparring over who is “soft on banks” or “soft on consumers.”
- International and AML implications
New Zealand is due for its next Financial Action Task Force (FATF) mutual evaluation in 2026. Diluting AML checks—e.g., exemptions for Māori trusts—must be balanced against FATF expectations; failure could raise correspondent-banking costs and dent the country’s “clean” reputation. Conversely, stronger transparency rules on everyday-account profits could enhance credibility with ratings agencies.
- Big-picture lens
Metaphor: picture the banking sector as four massive boulders sitting mid-river. Reducing capital requirements chips away at the boulders, hoping water (competition) will flow more freely. Strengthening consumer and AML rules instead tries to build guiding walls to redirect the flow around the boulders. The inquiry ends up doing some chipping and some wall-building, but neither approach alone will reroute the river; real change still depends on sustained political will and customer movement.
- What to watch next
• RBNZ’s capital-settings review (due end-2025) for how far, if at all, capital trajectories are relaxed.
• Cabinet decisions on open-banking timelines and mandatory account-level profit disclosure.
• Whether Kiwibank’s growth plan includes product innovations that genuinely undercut incumbents or merely adds capacity.
• FATF and credit-rating agency commentary on any AML carve-outs.
Bottom line: the inquiry nudges multiple levers but pulls none decisively. Consumers can expect gradual, uneven gains in transparency and switching ease, while banks gain some regulatory breathing space—leaving the long-standing dominance of the big four largely intact unless future governments choose bolder, more disruptive measures.
Made with Bullet