NAB shareholders rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed non-binding climate resolutions at the bank’s annual general meetings. That was not a direct vote to continue or stop fossil-fuel lending: the amendment’s failure meant a related disclosure resolution was not officially put to shareholders.
What did NAB shareholders vote against?
The measure was a proposed amendment to NAB’s constitution. It would have enabled shareholders to put non-binding climate opinions to future annual general meetings (AGMs). It would not itself have prohibited NAB from financing fossil-fuel companies.
Australian Associated Press (AAP) reported a preliminary tally of 4.2% in favour of the amendment and 95% against. The accessible report does not establish the vote’s year or provide a final certified result, so these figures should be treated as preliminary rather than final. AAP’s report does not show a precise publication date.
Was there a separate vote on fossil-fuel lending?
A related resolution sought clarity on whether NAB would continue financing fossil-fuel companies without a credible climate transition plan. AAP says that resolution was not officially considered after the constitutional amendment failed. Shareholders therefore did not officially vote down that follow-up resolution.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
AAP separately reported preliminary figures of 15.4% support and 84.1% opposition for the related resolution. Those figures are not a final result of an official shareholder vote; they should not be conflated with the preliminary tally on the constitutional amendment.
Why was the constitutional change opposed?
NAB chairman Philip Chronican argued that the change could lead to future AGMs being dominated by special-interest resolutions, adding that they could consume board management time and lengthen meetings. That was his stated concern, not an independently established outcome of the proposed amendment.
Rank #2
Market Forces banks campaigner Kyle Robertson said shareholders still lacked a clear answer about the bank’s financing of fossil-fuel companies without a transition plan. The group sponsoring the proposal said that clarity was needed beyond October 2025.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What did NAB say about lending without a transition plan?
AAP reported that NAB had promised in 2023 to stop lending to fossil-fuel companies without a climate transition plan by October 2025. Chronican described the policy as initially applying to some of the bank’s largest customers in power generation, oil and gas, and metallurgical coal.
Rank #3
He said that, for in-scope customers without a transition plan or unable to demonstrate progress, NAB would not provide new or renewed corporate project or trade finance facilities, or facilitate capital-market activities. That is a reported description of the stated policy. AAP’s report does not verify how it was implemented or establish NAB’s lending position after the October 2025 deadline.
Quick Recap
What the vote does—and does not—establish
- Established in AAP’s account: the proposed constitutional amendment was rejected in a preliminary tally, and its failure prevented official consideration of the related disclosure resolution.
- Not established by that vote: whether NAB would stop financing fossil-fuel companies, or whether it continued financing any such companies after October 2025.
- Still unresolved in the cited report: whether NAB’s stated policy was later implemented and what its current lending practices are.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
