Bank Australia says it values ‘belonging and community’.   

It says it won’t deal with those who sell firearms, because they also sell nuclear weapons. 

They also say they value honesty and transparency.  That’s where they fail.

THE NSC was recently interviewed as part of the review of the Australian Banking Association’s review of the Banking Code of Practice.

The reason we decided to get involved in this because of the way three banks have behaved towards shooters: the NAB, Bank of Queensland and Bank Australia.

While the NAB’s closure of dealers’ accounts – and then reversal of that policy – had the most coverage in pro-shooting social medial, it was the Bank Australia’s conduct that got our attention.

That’s because it sees itself as the Brady Bunch of the banking industry.

Firearms industry

Here is a screenshot of what the bank says about the firearms industry – specifically on who we think it will affect the most: gun dealers and clubs.

Bank of Australia's policy on firearms

From RABBIT GUNS TO nuclear bombs

This page spends a lot of time going on about nuclear weapons – and then uses broader terms that capture anyone who sells firearms.

It says it recognises some legitimate firearm usage but doesn’t spell out what it means when its ban refers to lending to “companies who make money from weapons”.

However the title of the page makes it clearer:

To clarify what this meant – and what 82% of customers meant – we thought we’d clarify the question by asking the bank:

“Would your bank invest in businesses that trade
in firearms for hunting and target shooting?”

The response was that they would not – and the above policy applies. Their response also said:

“That research found that 82% of customers agreed

that we should not lend to [the firearms] sector.”

That rather large claim interested us, so we thought we’d dig a bit deeper.  We then asked them:

“Would it be possible for us to see the question(s)
put to the customers and what if any other
information might have been provided
– such as background, options or data?”

Surely if they were fair questions and the bank truly valued transparency, it would have no problems in sharing that information with us.

There’s no doubt we called them out – because their response was:

“Thanks for your interest however we aren’t
able to share this level of detail with you”

The Brady Bunch went quiet.


That’s why we decided to participate in the ABA’s review.

It will never be possible to force banks like the BA to deal with businesses they don’t want to.

However, we’re hopeful that the review will take our advice to require banks like the BA to be more transparent when they develop policies like this – and provide for a right of review or appeal through the ABA.

If our recommendation is accepted, it will give organisations like ours the right to have bogus claims like the 82% tested by the banking industry watchdog.

Maybe that will happen, maybe it won’t.

However in the meantime if you are looking around for someone to bank with, then this is one bank to avoid.

18 thoughts on “Here’s a bank 82% of shooters wish would go away

  1. Aslan Jemali says:

    So these banks will not deal with by far the largest arms supplier in the world, the USA. Also they are openly undermining Australian national security by denying finance to Australian manufacturers and suppliers of military and police forces. I wonder about that.

  2. WILLIAM+SCOTT says:

    What does this arrogant, uninformed fool think he is doing ??
    Apart from denying the youth of Tasmania the chance to be taught proper firearms skills and safety by responsible, experienced, licensed Instructors, probably his biggest fault/mistake is – taking notice and not being smart enough to see through those ambitious, self serving parasites, who are laughingly known as “Advisors”.

  3. Ben says:

    They’re probably being honest with the answer, 82% did answer that way. But the question they asked customers probably “Should we lend to corporations who manufacture nuclear weapons?”

  4. Brian Dungey says:

    I’d never heard of Bank of Australia, evidentally they’re a major player in the finance industry

  5. Andrew Yarnold says:

    Does this mean that the guard services the bank uses will not be utilising weapons of any sort to protect their assets and their customers money?

  6. cohenite says:

    Great job; I suspect a few woke executives have made this decision. Holding them to account is important, especially when they lie or exaggerate.

  7. Barry says:

    18% of the bank’s contacts were therefore either against or neutral to the bank’s ‘question/s’.
    Perhaps some of those folk could be located, assuming all customers were contacted, not just 100, the smallest number needed to get a true 82%.

  8. Lawrence Lyons says:

    Demonising non-criminals erodes the public’s confidence in the Police. Now that extends to certain Banks. Take, for example, the demonising of Brad Towner, a seller of harmless colourful toy guns that are an alternative to the Nerf brand toys. Brad’s case represents one battle in the cultural war being waged by some government agencies and politicians ( (now certain banks) against anything that looks like a firearm and anyone who takes an interest in them.

  9. David Pickford says:

    As a 40 year veteran with the NAB I was p@#@ed off with their stance on firearm dealers so withdrew all but $3.50 because as a good customer I don’t get charged fees on my account and thus this requires them to use some of their profits every month to send me a statement. Screw with my sport and I’ll screw with you.

  10. Ron Wilkinson says:

    So we can be assured that in the event of armed conflict our banks would be against call up to the armed forces as they wouldn’t want our citizens to be shot at or shoot at their adversaries.
    The most likely result of any armed conflict is that the Banks and Government hierarchies would be the Quislings in our midst ready to sellout the country to entrench their own positions, observe the Victorian government as an example.

  11. Paul says:

    Thank for publishing this. I’ll now know to avoid Bank of Australia. After what came out in the Hayne Royal Commission, these banks have had the the bright idea of trying to rehabilitate their tarnished to put it mildly reputation, by taking some supposed high moral ground, by targeting the firearms community. They may well come to regret it.

  12. Philip says:

    Thanks for keeping us in the know with the need to keep banks accountable for their actions and this is exactly why I closed my account and home loan with BOQ for their same discrimitive policies with regards to firearms owners in Australia and I also filled the online questionnaire out for customer feedback when asked why I closed the accounts.

    • David M says:

      Good for you. As the nation becomes mired in a stupidly self-imposed debt over the next few years, institutions that have accounts (you know… with money in them) will survive. That may seem academic at the moment but in a few years it won’t. The fantasy world of making money out of nothing and borrowing it at interest will fail, and people who lead healthy lifestyles will be alive to have accounts. And vote for change.

      I’m going to lay it on the line in political speak: the virus will be a realised opportunity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *