Phase two of the National Credit Reforms : examining the regulation of payday lenders

This study seeks to analyse the adequacy of the current regulation of the payday lending industry in Australia, and consider whether there is a need for additional regulation to protect consumers of these services. The report examines the different regulatory approaches adopted in comparable OECD countries, and reviews alternative models for payday regulation, in particular, the role played by responsible lending. The study also examines the consumer protection mechanisms now in existence in Australia in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (NCCP) and the National Credit Code (NCC) contained in Schedule 1 of that Act and in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

Regulating the cost of small loans : overdue or overkill?

Small-amount short-term lending began in 1994 in response to the initial exemption of such loans from consumer credit regulation. Growing demand for such loans now produces industry turnover of approximately $800 million each year. Regulators recognised early the need for consumer protection due to the vulnerability of borrowers and the emergence of various predatory practices. This led to reforms designed to regulate these loans, prevent particular misconduct and provide remedies against injustice. Some were enacted as part of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), which also imposed licensing and responsible lending requirements on lenders and increased consumer access to remedies. The Government has now introduced the Consumer Credit and Corporations Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 which limits the price that can be charged for credit and restricts access to small loans. This article examines the extensive reforms which have taken place in this sector, and compares these regulatory approaches with the “bright line approach” of the Enhancements Bill. The article argues that the repercussions of this step will require careful monitoring to ensure that further harm is not suffered by those least able to bear it, and that the government will also need to facilitate other, more sustainable, solutions to the problem that small loans are currently used to solve. After we wrote this article, the Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and the Report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on the Enhancements Bill were released. These are referred to in a postscript.

Protecting the most vulnerable in consumer credit transactions

There are two key ways in which the Australian Uniform Consumer Credit Code seeks to protect consumers in relation to consumer credit transactions. The first is by means of disclosure regulation where information is required to be disclosed to the consumer before the credit contract is entered into and the second is by way of “safety net” provisions, where contracts can be varied or set aside in the event of hardship, a finding that the transaction was unjust, or a finding of unconscionable fees or charges. This article explores the limitations of both of these means of protection, particularly in the case of vulnerable, low-income consumers. In order to highlight the inadequacies of these forms of consumer protection and the need for regulatory reform, we draw on interviews conducted with 30 low-income consumers who had recently signed a credit contract, focusing on their understanding of information disclosed in the contract, as well as their responses to hypothetical unfair terms and their understanding of their rights, for example in the event of an unjust transaction. These interviews were conducted as part of a joint research project between Brotherhood of St Laurence and Griffith University’s Centre for Credit and Consumer Law, funded by Consumer Affairs Victoria.

Interest rate caps : protection or paternalism

In a context where over-indebtedness and financial exclusion have been recognised as problems in Australia, it is undesirable that those who can least afford it, pay a high cost for short-term consumer credit. Evidence points to an increase in consumer debt in Australia and consequential over-indebtedness which has been shown to lead to a wide range of social problems.2 There is also evidence of financial exclusion, where consumers suffer a lack of access to mainstream financial services, and in Australia this is particularly the case with regard to access to safe and affordable credit.3 Financial exclusion can only exacerbate over-indebtedness, given that financially excluded, predominantly low income consumers , have been shown to turn to high cost credit to meet their short term credit needs. This is a problem that has been explored most recently in the Victorian Consumer Credit Review...

Revisiting the Australian code of banking practice: Is self-regulation still relevant for improving consumer protection standards?

The Code of Banking Practice is one of the oldest examples of consumer protection provided through self-regulation in the Australian financial services sector. However, since the Banking Code was first released in 1993, the volume of consumer protection legislation applying to banks has increased exponentially and parts of the Banking Code that once provided new consumer rights have now been largely superseded by legislation. In light of the increasingly complex set of laws and regulations that govern the relationship between banks and their consumer and small business customers it could be argued that the Banking Code has a limited future role. However, an analysis of the Banking Code shows that it adds to the consumer protection standards provided by legislation and can continue to facilitate improvements in the standards of subscribing banks and of other institutions in the financial services sector. Self-regulation and industry codes should continue to be part of the regulatory mix. Any regulatory changes that flow from the recent Financial System Inquiry should also facilitate and support the self-regulation role, but the government should also consider further changes to encourage improvements in industry codes and ensure that the implicit regulatory benefits that are provided, in part, because of the existence of industry codes, are made explicit and made available only to code subscribers.

Cluster randomised-control trial for an Australian child protection education program: Study protocol for the Learn to be safe with Emmy and friends™

Background Child maltreatment has severe short-and long-term consequences for children’s health, development, and wellbeing. Despite the provision of child protection education programs in many countries, few have been rigorously evaluated to determine their effectiveness. We describe the design of a multi-site gold standard evaluation of an Australian school-based child protection education program. The intervention has been developed by a not-for-profit agency and comprises 5 1-h sessions delivered to first grade students (aged 5–6 years) in their regular classrooms. It incorporates common attributes of effective programs identified in the literature, and aligns with the Australian education curriculum. Methods/Design A three-site cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of Learn to be safe with Emmy and friends™ will be conducted with children in approximately 72 first grade classrooms in 24 Queensland primary (elementary) schools from three state regions, over a period of 2 years. Entire schools will be randomised, using a computer generated list of random numbers, to intervention and wait-list control conditions, to prevent contamination effects across students and classes. Data will be collected at baseline (pre-assessment), immediately after the intervention (post-assessment), and at 6-, 12-, and 18-months (follow-up assessments). Outcome assessors will be blinded to group membership. Primary outcomes assessed are children’s knowledge of program concepts; intentions to use program knowledge, skills, and help-seeking strategies; actual use of program material in a simulated situation; and anxiety arising from program participation. Secondary outcomes include a parent discussion monitor, parent observations of their children’s use of program materials, satisfaction with the program, and parental stress. A process evaluation will be conducted concurrently to assess program performance. Discussion This RCT addresses shortcomings in previous studies and methodologically extends research in this area by randomising at school-level to prevent cross-learning between conditions; providing longer-term outcome assessment than any previous study; examining the degree to which parents/guardians discuss intervention content with children at home; assessing potential moderating/mediating effects of family and child demographic variables; testing an in-vivo measure to assess children’s ability to discriminate safe/unsafe situations and disclose to trusted adults; and testing enhancements to existing measures to establish greater internal consistency.