Parliament bill

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill

Royal assent · Introduced by Hon Cameron Brewer · National Party

Last checked
July 15, 2026 15:55
Source captured
July 15, 2026 15:55
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

The bill passed its third reading 67–45; the vote was not unanimous. According to the bill’s explanatory material, consumer-credit rules have created unnecessary compliance costs, delays, and declined credit applications for some creditworthy borrowers. The bill aims to streamline consumer-credit regulation, reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, and align it with other financial-services regulation. The bill transfers oversight of consumer credit from the Commerce Commission to the Financial Markets Authority. Consumer-credit lenders move into the FMA licensing regime, and the FMA gains powers to issue stop and direction orders for breaches.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Latest voting result

May 28, 2026
Third reading: Passed Party vote

Ayes 67 · Noes 45

  • National Party Aye · 48 votes
  • ACT Party Aye · 11 votes
  • NZ First Party Aye · 8 votes
  • Labour Party No · 29 votes
  • Green Party No · 14 votes
  • Ferris, Tākuta No
  • Kapa-Kingi, Mariameno No

View the vote in Hansard

Earlier votes (1)

May 14, 2026

Second reading: Passed Party vote

Ayes 68 · Noes 54

  • National Party Aye · 49 votes
  • ACT Party Aye · 11 votes
  • NZ First Party Aye · 8 votes
  • Labour Party No · 34 votes
  • Green Party No · 14 votes
  • Te Pāti Māori No · 4 votes
  • Ferris, Tākuta No
  • Kapa-Kingi, Mariameno No

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

For consumer-credit users, moving oversight from the Commerce Commission to the FMA is claimed to give the FMA licensing and administrative tools to supervise lenders and respond effectively to breaches.

For lenders facing trivial or harmless historical disclosure breaches, the retrospective court-relief setting is claimed to prevent disproportionate loss of all borrowing costs by allowing courts to grant just and equitable relief.

Arguments against

For borrowers with claims not already filed, the bill’s retrospective changes are argued to stop legitimate claims against lenders and thereby deny repayment for past disclosure breaches.

For borrowers seeking redress for disclosure failures, the new liability test is argued to make recovery harder because they must prove loss or damage in addition to a disclosure breach.

For borrowers without reliable digital access, replacing continuing disclosure with information on a lender’s website is argued to make essential balance information less accessible.

Nuance and qualifications

Bill text

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill

Version published May 15, 2026 00:00.

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2025 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on a date or dates set by Order in Council. Any part of the Act that has not come into force 6 months after Royal assent comes into force then. However,— a sections 6(2) , 8 , 9(2) , 11 to 14 , 43 , 47 , and 48(3) come into force on the day after Royal assent; and b section 6(3) comes into force 6 months after Royal assent. An Order in Council made under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). This Act comes into force on 1 July 2026 . However,— a sections 35, 36(1A), 39A, 46A, and 70(3) come into force on the day after Royal assent; and b sections 6(3), 15 to 18, and 48 come into force 6 months after Royal assent. 3 Principal Act This Part amends the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. 4 Section 3 amended (Purposes) Repeal section 3(3)(i). 5 Section 4 amended (Overview) Replace section 4(d) with: d Part 4 provides for enforcement and liability matters, including— i statutory d…
Read full bill text
Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2025 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on a date or dates set by Order in Council. Any part of the Act that has not come into force 6 months after Royal assent comes into force then. However,— a sections 6(2) , 8 , 9(2) , 11 to 14 , 43 , 47 , and 48(3) come into force on the day after Royal assent; and b section 6(3) comes into force 6 months after Royal assent. An Order in Council made under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). This Act comes into force on 1 July 2026 . However,— a sections 35, 36(1A), 39A, 46A, and 70(3) come into force on the day after Royal assent; and b sections 6(3), 15 to 18, and 48 come into force 6 months after Royal assent. 3 Principal Act This Part amends the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. 4 Section 3 amended (Purposes) Repeal section 3(3)(i). 5 Section 4 amended (Overview) Replace section 4(d) with: d Part 4 provides for enforcement and liability matters, including— i statutory damages: ii providing the FMA and the courts with certain powers in connection with breaches of this Act: iii prohibitions on the enforcement of consumer credit contracts, guarantees, consumer leases, and buy-back transactions in certain situations: iv offences: v a reasonable mistake defence: vi pecuniary penalties: Guidance note See also the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011, which provides for— this Act to be financial markets legislation; and the FMA to perform or exercise various functions, powers, and duties in relation to this Act. Repeal section 4(ea). 6 Section 5 amended (Interpretation) In section 5, repeal the definitions of certified and family trust . In section 5, definition of creditor , replace paragraphs (c) and (d) with: c includes a person declared to be a creditor, or a person of a class of persons declared to be creditors, by regulations made under section 138(1)(abb) In section 5, insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: express trust has the same meaning as in section 12 of the Trusts Act 2019 FMA means the Financial Markets Authority established by Part 2 of the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011 In section 5, replace the definition of repayment waiver with: repayment waiver means an agreement between a creditor or lessor and a debtor or lessee under which the creditor or lessor, for an additional consideration, agrees to waive the creditor’s or lessor’s right to any amount payable under the credit contract or consumer lease in the event of any 1 or more of the following: a the unemployment of, sickness of, injury to, or the disability or death of the debtor or lessee: b the amount payable under a contract of insurance on the total loss of the insured property is less than the unpaid balance of the credit contract, where the insured property is subject to a security interest that was taken in connection with the credit contract 6A Section 7 amended (Meaning of credit contract) After section 7(2), insert: 3 A particular arrangement or facility, or an arrangement or a facility of a class, declared by the FMA under section 138A(1)(a) is not a credit contract if the person who relies on the declaration complies with the terms and conditions (if any) that apply to the declaration. 7 Section 9A amended (Outline of Part) Before section 9A(2)(a), insert: aaa the FMA to make stop orders or direction orders in respect of a breach of the principles ( see subpart 2A of Part 4 ): In section 9A(2)(a), delete 98A, 98B, . 8 Section 9B amended (Interpretation) In section 9B(1), replace the definition of relevant guarantee with: relevant guarantee — a means a guarantee given, or proposed to be given, by a natural person in respect of a consumer credit contract; but b does not include a guarantee under which the guarantor is acting in their capacity as— i a trustee of an express trust; or ii a partner of a partnership under the Partnership Law Act 2019 In section 9B(2)(f), replace lender with lender, and the lender knows, at the time the agreement is entered into, that the insurance will be financed under the agreement . 9 Section 9C amended (Lender responsibility principles) In section 9C(3)(f), delete subpart 5A of Part 6 of . In section 9C(3)(f)(ii), delete under the Fair Trading Act 1986 . After section 9C(8), insert: 9 However, neither of the following involves a material change for the purposes of subsection (3)(a): a a lender paying unpaid rates under section 62 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (and the treatment of an amount paid under section 62(3) of that Act): b a lender paying or advancing an amount as referred to in section 87 of the Property Law Act 2007 (and interest accruing as referred to in section 87(2) of that Act). 10 Section 9CA amended (Records about inquiries made) Repeal section 9CA(8). 10A Section 11 amended (Meaning of consumer credit contract) Replace section 11(1C) with: 1C An arrangement or a facility is also a consumer credit contract if it is of a class declared by the FMA under section 138A(1)(b) . 11 Section 15 amended (Certain contracts not consumer credit contracts) In section 15(1)(c), replace a family trust with an express trust . 12 Section 21 amended (Continuing disclosure not required) After section 21(1), insert: 1A The requirement in subsection (1)(b)(i) must be treated as satisfied to the extent that it relates to the information set out in section 19(1)(b) if, in connection with a consumer credit contract, the creditor maintains (at all reasonable times) a website that does either or both of the following: a the website allows the debtor to access information about the unpaid balance after each transaction is credited or debited to the debtor’s account: b the website allows the debtor to access information about the unpaid balance as at the end of each day in which a transaction is credited or debited to the debtor’s account. 1B In subsection (1A) , transaction means any advance, interest charge, amount paid or credited, fee, or charge referred to in section 19(1)(c), (d), (e), or (f). 13 Section 22 amended (Disclosure of agreed changes) After section 22(3)(b), insert: ba reduces the amount of each payment due under the contract for a period not exceeding 3 months, where— i the creditor considers on reasonable grounds that any consequential increase to the total amount of interest charges payable, and to the total number of payments, under the contract is immaterial; and ii the reduction is not made following an application under section 55; or 14 New section 26AB inserted (Disclosure not required for guarantor who is trustee or partner) After section 26A, insert: 26AB Disclosure not required for guarantor who is trustee or partner Sections 24 to 26A do not require disclosure to be made to a guarantor who is— a a trustee acting in their capacity as a trustee of an express trust; or b a person acting in their capacity as a partner of a partnership under the Partnership Law Act 2019. 15 Section 27 amended (Right to cancel consumer credit contract) After section 27(2), insert: 3 If a consumer credit contract involves a repayment waiver or an extended warranty, the waiver or warranty is to be treated as forming part of the contract for the purposes of this section and sections 28 to 31 (with the effect that a cancellation of the contract also operates as a cancellation of the waiver or warranty). 4 See also section 27A , which enables a debtor to cancel a repayment waiver or an extended warranty separately from the consumer credit contract. 16 New section 27A inserted (Right to cancel repayment waiver or extended warranty separately from consumer credit contract) After section 27, insert: 27A Right to cancel repayment waiver or extended warranty separately from consumer credit contract 1 This section— a applies if a consumer credit contract involves a repayment waiver or an extended warranty (or both); but b does not apply if— i the creditor requires the debtor to obtain the repayment waiver or extended warranty (as the case may be); and ii that requirement is not unreasonable under section 69. 2 The debtor under the contract may cancel the repayment waiver or extended warranty (or both) by giving written notice of the cancellation to the creditor under the contract within 5 working days of the day that disclosure is made under section 17 (or at any time if that disclosure has not been made). 3 This section does not limit section 27(3) , which provides for a cancellation of a consumer credit contract under that section to also operate as a cancellation of a repayment waiver or an extended warranty. 17 Section 28 amended (Notice of cancellation, return of property, and payment of cash price) Replace section 28(1) with: 1 Written notice of cancellation may be expressed in any way that shows the intention of the debtor to cancel or withdraw from the consumer credit contract, repayment waiver, or extended warranty. 18 Section 30 amended (Effect of cancellation) After section 30(3), insert: 4 If a repayment waiver or an extended warranty is cancelled under section 27 or 27A , the following rules apply: a the rights and obligations of the parties under the waiver or warranty cease; and b no debtor is liable to pay any amount for the waiver or warranty other than any reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by the creditor in connection with the waiver or warranty and its cancellation; and c if the debtor has already paid any amount for the waiver or warranty that the debtor is not liable to pay under paragraph (b) , the amount paid is due to the debtor under subsection (1)(c)(ii) or must otherwise be repaid to the debtor. 19 Section 41A amended (Records and reviews about how fees calculated) Repeal section 41A(7). 19A Section 45C amended (Meaning of high-cost consumer credit contract) In section 45C, definition of high-cost consumer credit contract , replace paragraph (d) with: d a contract of a class declared by the FMA under section 138A(1)(c) 19B Section 45E amended (Costs of borrowing must not exceed loan advance) In section 45E(5), definition of related consumer credit contract , replace declared by regulations to be a type of contract that is a related consumer credit contract with of a class declared by the FMA under section 138A(1)(d) . 20 Subpart 9 of Part 2 repealed Repeal subpart 9 of Part 2. 21 Section 83G amended (Creditor must serve repossession warning notice on debtor and other persons before taking possession of consumer goods) In section 83G(1)(b), after contract , insert (other than a guarantor referred to in subsection (7) ) . After section 83G(6), insert: 7 For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), this subsection refers to a guarantor who is— a a trustee acting in their capacity as a trustee of an express trust; or b a person acting in their capacity as a partner of a partnership under the Partnership Law Act 2019. 22 Section 85 amended (Jurisdiction of High Court) After section 85(a), insert: aa appeals under section 92K : 23 Section 88 amended (Creditors, creditors’ agents, lessors, transferees, and buy-back promoters liable for statutory damages) Repeal section 88(1)(d) and (1AA). 24 New subpart 2A of Part 4 inserted After section 92, insert: 2A FMA’s enforcement powers 92A Interpretation in this subpart In this subpart,— disclosure statement means— a a disclosure statement under Part 2 or 3; or b a disclosure statement under section 132A; or c a repossession warning notice or a post-repossession notice; or d a notice under section 83L(2)(b) distribute has the meaning set out in section 9B(1) provider means a provider of a relevant CCCFA service relevant CCCFA service means any of the following: a acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract or other credit contract: b acting as a creditor’s agent: c acting as a lessor under a consumer lease: d acting as a transferee or buy-back promoter: e acting as a paid adviser or broker: d acting as a transferee under a buy-back transaction or as a buy-back promoter: f acting as a debt collector (as defined in section 132A(4) ): g acting as a mobile trader restricted communication — a means a form of communication— i that— A directly or indirectly refers to the supply, or possible supply, of a relevant CCCFA service; or B is reasonably likely to induce persons to request the supply of a relevant CCCFA service; and ii that is authorised or instigated by, or on behalf of, the provider, or an associated person of the provider, or that is prepared with the co-operation of, or by arrangement with, any of those persons; and iii that is to be, or has been, distributed to a person; and b includes any advertising within the meaning of section 9B(1). Stop orders 92B When FMA may make stop orders 1 The FMA may make a stop order if it is satisfied that— a any of the provisions of section 9C, 9CA, 9J, or 9K or of Part 2, 3, or 3A have been, or are likely to be, breached in relation to a relevant CCCFA service; or b a restricted communication relating to the supply, or possible supply, of a relevant CCCFA service,— i is false or misleading, or is likely to mislead or confuse, in a material particular; or ii is materially inconsistent with any disclosure statement referred to in it; or iii contains any material misdescription, material error, or material matter that is not clearly legible; or iv does not comply with this Act or the regulations; or c a disclosure statement given by a provider of a relevant CCCFA service— i is false or misleading, or is likely to mislead or confuse, in a material particular; or ii contains any material misdescription, material error, or material matter that is not clearly legible; or iii does not comply with this Act or the regulations. 2 If the FMA is satisfied that a provision is likely to be breached by a person ( A ) in the future, the FMA may make a stop order— a whether or not A has previously breached the provision; and b whether or not there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the provision is breached. 2013 No 69 s 462 92C Terms of stop order A stop order may, in relation to the relevant CCCFA service referred to in section 92B(1) , do 1 or more of the following: a prohibit the supply of relevant CCCFA services specified in the order from being made while the order is in force: b prohibit the distribution of 1 or more of the following while the order is in force: i a disclosure statement: ii a restricted communication referred to in section 92B(1)(b) : iii any restricted communication that relates to the supply of relevant CCCFA services specified in the order. 2013 No 69 s 463 92D FMA may make interim stop order pending exercise of powers 1 The FMA may make an interim order (an interim stop order ) of the kind referred to in section 92C that is in force for the period referred to in subsection (2) if— a the FMA is considering, at any time, whether it may exercise a power under section 92B ; and b the FMA considers that making an interim stop order is desirable in the public interest. 2 An interim stop order is in force from the time at which it is made until the close of— a the date that is 15 working days after the day on which it is made; or b a later date specified by the FMA by notice to the provider to which the order relates. 3 For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) ,— a the FMA may specify a later date if the FMA is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable for it to complete its consideration as referred to in subsection (1)(a) within the 15-working-day period referred to in subsection (2)(a) ; and b the later date must be a date that is no more than 30 working days after the day on which the interim stop order is made. 4 The FMA— a may act under subsection (1) or (2)(b) without giving the provider to which the order relates an opportunity to make submissions to, or be heard before, the FMA in respect of the matter (and, accordingly, section 475 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (as applied by section 92I ) does not apply); but b must, after acting under subsection (1) or (2)(b) , give that provider or that person's representative an opportunity to make written submissions and to be heard on the matter. 2013 No 69 s 465 92E Persons to whom stop orders and interim stop orders may apply 1 A stop order or an interim stop order of the kind referred to in— a section 92C(a) may apply to any person specified in the order: b section 92C(b) may apply to 1 or more providers or any associated persons of a provider. 2 If a stop order or an interim stop order of the kind referred to in section 92C(b) extends to associated persons of the provider, the order may require— a all, or any specified class or classes, of the associated persons to comply with the order (including associated persons that may be incorporated or formed after the date of the order); and b the provider to provide a copy of the order to all or any of those associated persons. 3 For the purposes of subsection (2) , the order is not required to refer to the associated persons by name. 2013 No 69 s 466 92F Extended application of subpart 1 The FMA may make a stop order or an interim stop order in respect of a restricted communication that is distributed or to be distributed to a person outside New Zealand by a person resident, incorporated, registered, or carrying on business in New Zealand. 2 In this section, registered means registered under the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008. 2013 No 69 s 467 Direction orders 92G When FMA may make direction orders 1 The FMA may make a direction order if it is satisfied that, by engaging in any conduct, a person (the relevant person ) has breached, or is likely to breach,— a any of the provisions of section 9C, 9CA, 9J, or 9K or of Part 2, 3, or 3A; or b a term or condition of an exemption or a declaration prescribed, granted, or made under Part 6. 2 If the FMA is satisfied that, by engaging in any conduct, the relevant person is likely to breach a provision referred to in subsection (1) in the future, the FMA may make a direction order— a whether or not the relevant person has previously breached the provision; and b whether or not there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the provision is breached. 2013 No 69 s 468 92H Terms of direction orders A direction order may— a direct the relevant person to comply with the relevant provision referred to in section 92G (the provision ): b set out any reasonable steps that the relevant person must take in order to comply with the provision or to avoid or mitigate any actual or potential adverse effects of a breach, including (without limitation)— i disclosing, in accordance with the order, information for the purpose of securing compliance with the provision: ii publishing, at the relevant person's own expense and in the manner and at the times specified in the order, corrective statements that are specified in, or are to be determined in accordance with, the order: iii complying in accordance with the order with a prohibition or restriction on the making of any statement or the distribution of any document by, or on behalf of, the relevant person for the purpose of preventing a breach or further breach of the provision: c in the case of section 92G(1)(b) , prohibit the relevant person from relying on an exemption: d require the relevant person to report to the FMA within the time specified in the order stating how and when the order has been or will be implemented. 2013 No 69 s 469 General provisions 92I Process for FMA's orders Sections 475 to 478 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 apply with all necessary modifications to an order under this subpart. 92I Process for FMA’s orders Sections 475 to 478 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 apply with all necessary modifications to an order under this subpart, including treating a reference to a stop order under section 463(c) as a reference to a stop order under section 92C(b) of this Act. 92J Consequences of failing to comply with FMA’s orders 1 If an order made by the FMA under this subpart applies to a person, the person must comply with the order ( see sections 93 and 107A, which provide for the court to make an order in relation to a breach of this provision). 2 A person who refuses or fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with an order made by the FMA under this subpart commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $300,000. 2013 No 69 s 479 Appeal 92K Appeals against other decisions of FMA on questions of law only An aggrieved person that considers that a decision of the FMA under this subpart is wrong in law may appeal to the High Court against the decision on a question of law only. 25 Section 93 amended (Court’s general power to make orders) In section 93, replace or broker with broker, or mobile trader . In section 93(a), replace 3A, or 5A with or 3A or of section 92J . In section 93(b) to (e), replace or 9K with 9K, or 92J . 26 Section 94 amended (Court orders) After section 94(1)(cc), insert: cd in the case of a breach of a provision referred to in section 94AA(1) , an order of the kind referred to in section 94AA(3) : 27 New sections 94AA to 94AC inserted After section 94, insert: 94AA Court orders in relation to costs of borrowing, costs of lease, and costs of buy-back transaction 1 This section applies if the court finds, in a proceeding under section 93, that— a a creditor has breached section 17 or 22; or b a lessor has breached section 64 or 65; or c a transferee has breached section 72 or 77. 2 The court may, in a proceeding under section 93, make an order referred to in subsection (3) if the court is satisfied, after having regard to the matters set out in section 94AC , that it is just and equitable to make the order. 3 The kinds of orders that the court may make against the person who engaged in the conduct referred to in subsection (1) are as follows: a in the case of subsection (1)(a) , an order that the debtor and any other person are not liable for any or all of the costs of borrowing in relation to the consumer credit contract and the period that— i starts on the date of the breach of section 17 or 22; and ii ends at the close of the day (if any) on which the disclosure under section 17 or 22 is made: b in the case of subsection (1)(b) , an order that the lessee and any other person are not liable for any or all of the costs of the lease in relation to the consumer lease and the period that— i starts on the date of the breach of section 64 or 65; and ii ends at the close of the day (if any) on which the disclosure under section 64 or 65 is made: c in the case of subsection (1)(c) , an order that the occupier and any other person are not liable for any or all of the costs of the buy-back transaction in relation to the buy-back transaction and the period that— i starts on the date of the breach of section 72 or 77; and ii ends at the close of the day (if any) on which the disclosure under section 72 or 77 is made: d any other order that the court thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to an order under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) . 94AB Costs of borrowing, lease, or buy-back transaction do not include fees or charges that are passed on 1 In section 94AA(3)(a) , the costs of borrowing do not include fees or charges payable to another person, body, or agency as referred to in section 45 unless the other person, body, or agency is an associated person of the creditor. 2 In section 94AA(3)(b) , the costs of the lease do not include fees or charges payable by a lessee for an amount payable, or to reimburse an amount paid, by the lessor to another person, body, or agency unless the person, body, or agency is an associated person of the lessor. 3 In section 94AA(3)(c) , the costs of the buy-back transaction do not include fees or charges payable to another person, body, or agency as referred to in section 81 unless that person, body, or agency is an associated person of the transferee. 94AC Court must have regard to certain matters under section 94AA The matters the court must have regard to under section 94AA(2) are as follows: a the role that section 94AA has in providing incentives for compliance with this Act: b whether the person referred to in section 94AA(1) had an appropriate compliance programme: c the extent to which any person has been prejudiced by the breach or breaches: d any other matters as the court thinks fit. 28 Section 95A amended (Court may reduce effect of failure to make disclosure) Before section 95A(1), insert: 1AA This section and section 95B apply for the purposes of section 48 and for the purposes of sections 99(1A), 101(2), and 102(2) as in force before their repeal by the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2025 (and a reference to those provisions is a reference to those provisions as in force before their repeal). Guidance note See clauses 14 and 15 of Schedule 1AA. Those transitional provisions provide for— sections 99(1A), 101(2), and 102(2), as in force before their repeal, to continue to apply to existing agreements; and sections 95A and 95B to retrospectively apply to most certain agreements entered into on or after 6 June 2015. 29 Section 96 amended (Injunctions) In section 96(1)(a), replace 3A, and 5A with and 3A or of section 92J . In section 96(1)(b), replace 3A, or 5A with or 3A . In section 96(1)(b) to (f), replace or 9K with 9K, or 92J . 30 Section 98 amended (Interim injunction) In section 98(4), replace Commission’s with FMA’s . 31 Sections 98A and 98B and cross-heading above section 98A repealed Repeal sections 98A and 98B and the cross-heading above section 98A. 32 Section 99 amended (Enforcement of consumer credit contract prohibited) Repeal section 99(1A) to (1C). 33 Section 101 amended (Enforcement of consumer lease prohibited) Repeal section 101(2) to (4). 34 Section 102 amended (Enforcement of buy-back transaction prohibited) Repeal section 102(2) to (4). 35 Section 102A amended (Infringement offences) Repeal section 102A(7A). 36 Section 103 amended (Other offences) In section 103(1), replace , subpart 6A of Part 2, and section 59B with and subpart 6A of Part 2 . In section 103(6), delete section 116AAA or . Repeal section 103(6). 37 Section 107A amended (Pecuniary penalties) Replace section 107A(1)(a)(vi) to (x) with: vi section 92J (duty to comply with stop order or direction order); or Replace section 107A(2) with: 2 In determining an appropriate pecuniary penalty that a person ( A ) must pay under this section, the court must have regard to all relevant matters, in particular,— a the purposes set out in section 3 and any other purpose set out in this Act that applies to the provision to which the proceeding relates; and b any exemplary damages awarded under section 94(1)(c); and c the nature and extent of A’s conduct; and d the nature and extent of any loss or damage suffered by any person because of A’s conduct; and e any gains made or losses avoided by A; and f the circumstances in which A’s conduct took place (including whether any contravention was intentional, inadvertent, or caused by negligence); and g whether A has previously been found by the court in proceedings under this Act, or any other legislation, to have engaged in any similar conduct; and h the relationship of the parties to the transaction constituting the contravention. 2A In this section, A’s conduct means the conduct of A for which A is liable to the pecuniary penalty. After section 107A(5), insert: 6 If the court orders that a person pay a pecuniary penalty, the court must also order that the penalty must be applied first to pay the FMA’s actual costs in bringing the proceedings. 38 New subpart 5B of Part 4 inserted After section 107E, insert: 5B Declarations of breach 107F When court may make declarations of breach 1 The court may, on the application of the FMA or any other person, make a declaration of breach if it is satisfied that a person— a has breached any of the provisions referred to in section 107A(1)(a); or b has attempted to breach such a provision; or c has aided, abetted, counselled, or procured any other person to breach such a provision; or d has induced, or attempted to induce, any other person, whether by threats or promises or otherwise, to breach such a provision; or e has been in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the breach by any other person of such a provision; or f has conspired with any other person to breach such a provision. 2 In this subpart, a person has an involvement in the breach if the person has acted as referred to in subsection (1)(b) to (f) . 107G Purpose and effect of declarations 1 The purpose of a declaration of breach is to enable an applicant for an order under subpart 3 to rely on the declaration in the proceedings for that order, and not be required to prove the breach or involvement in the breach. 2 Accordingly, a declaration of breach is conclusive evidence of the matters that must be stated in it under section 107H . 107H What declarations must state A declaration of breach must state the following: a the provision to which the breach or involvement in the breach relates; and b the person who engaged in the breach or involvement in the breach; and c the conduct that constituted the breach or the involvement in the breach and, if a transaction constituted the breach, the transaction. 39 Section 108 amended (Power to order certain persons not to act as creditors, lessors, transferees, or buy-back promoters) After section 108(1)(a)(va)(C), insert: D the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013; or 39A Section 116AAA repealed (Requirement for annual return) Repeal section 116AAA. 40 Subpart 7 of Part 4 repealed Repeal subpart 7 of Part 4. 41 Subpart 8 of Part 4 replaced Replace subpart 8 of Part 4 with: 8 Miscellaneous 111 State of mind of directors, employees, or agents attributed to body corporate or other principal 1 If, in a proceeding under this Act in respect of any conduct engaged in by a body corporate, being conduct in relation to which any provision of this Act applies, it is necessary to establish the state of mind of the body corporate, it is sufficient to show that a director, an employee, or an agent of the body corporate, acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority, had that state of mind. 2 If, in a proceeding (other than a proceeding for an offence) under this Act in respect of any conduct engaged in by a person other than a body corporate, being conduct in relation to which any provision of this Act applies, it is necessary to establish the state of mind of the person, it is sufficient to show that an employee or agent of the person, acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority, had that state of mind. 3 In this Act, state of mind , in relation to a person, includes the knowledge, intention, opinion, belief, or purpose of the person and the person’s reasons for that intention, opinion, belief, or purpose. 1986 No 5 s 90(1), (3), (5); 2013 No 69 s 535 112 Conduct of directors, employees, or agents attributed to body corporate or other principal 1 Conduct engaged in on behalf of a body corporate by any of the following must be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as having been engaged in also by the body corporate: a a director, an employee, or an agent of the body corporate, acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority: b any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether express or implied) of a director, an employee, or an agent of the body corporate, given within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the director, employee, or agent. 2 Conduct engaged in on behalf of a person other than a body corporate ( A ) by any of the following must be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as having been engaged in also by A: a an employee or agent of A acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority: b any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether express or implied) either of A or of an employee or agent of A, given within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the employee or agent. 1986 No 5 s 90(2), (4); 2013 No 69 s 536 113 Disposal of things seized 1 In any proceedings relating to any thing seized under a warrant, the court may order, either at the trial or hearing or on an application, that the thing be delivered to the person appearing to the court to be entitled to it, or that it be otherwise disposed of in any manner that the court thinks fit. 2 The FMA may, at any time, unless an order has been made under subsection (1) , return the thing to the person from whom it was seized, or apply to a District Court Judge for an order for its disposal. 3 On any application under subsection (2) , the District Court Judge may make any order that a court may make under subsection (1) . 4 If proceedings relating to the thing are not brought within a period of 3 months of its seizure, any person claiming to be entitled to the thing may, after the expiry of that period, apply to a District Court Judge for an order that it be delivered to the person. 5 On any application under subsection (4) , the District Court Judge may— a adjourn the application, on any terms that the Judge thinks fit, for proceedings to be brought; or b make any order that a court may make under subsection (1) . 114 Court order for disposal of things seized to be suspended on conviction 1 If any person is convicted in any proceedings for an offence relating to anything for which a warrant has been issued, and any order is made under section 113 , the operation of the order is suspended,— a in any case, until the expiration of the time prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for the filing of a notice of appeal or an application for leave to appeal; and b if a notice of appeal is filed within the time so prescribed, until the determination of the appeal; and c if application for leave to appeal is filed within the time so prescribed, until the application is determined and, if leave to appeal is granted, until the determination of the appeal. 2 If the operation of any order is suspended until the determination of the appeal, the court determining the appeal may, by order, cancel or vary the order. 42 Part 5A repealed Repeal Part 5A. 43 Section 132A amended (Disclosure about debt collection) Replace section 132A(4) with: 4 In this section, unless the context otherwise requires,— debt collection — a means an act to recover (or attempt to recover) any money that is owing by a debtor under a credit contract as a result of the debtor’s breach of the contract; but b does not include— i making an application, or doing any other act, under the Insolvency Act 2006; or ii any other act of a kind prescribed by the regulations debt collector , in respect of a contract,— a means a creditor or any other person engaging in debt collection in respect of the contract; but b does not include any of the following: i a guarantor: ii a person who provides a budgeting or financial advice service to the debtor: iii a person acting on behalf of the debtor: iv a person of the kind prescribed by the regulations. In section 132A(5)(a), replace either with 1 or more . In section 132A(5)(a)(i) and (ii), after a payment reminder , insert , or a credit limit notice, . In section 132A(6), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: credit limit notice — a means a communication that— i is made within 6 months of a debtor causing a credit limit under the contract to be exceeded; and ii does only either or both of the following (subject to subsection (6A) ): A notifies the debtor that the credit limit has been exceeded: B requests a payment so that the credit limit is no longer exceeded; but b excludes in-person visits to the debtor, the debtor’s residence, or the debtor’s place of work In section 132A(6), definition of payment reminder , paragraph (a)(ii), after overdue , insert (subject to subsection (6A) ) . After section 132A(6), insert: 6A A payment reminder and a credit limit notice may be included in the same communication (in which case the communication may include any information that is permitted in either of those notices). 44 Sections 137A to 137C and cross-heading above section 137A repealed Repeal sections 137A to 137C and the cross-heading above section 137A. 45 Section 138 amended (Regulations) In section 138(1), after Order in Council, , insert on the recommendation of the Minister, . Replace section 138(1)(ab) and (aba) with: ab exempting any of the following from the application of any provision or provisions of this Act, and prescribing the terms and conditions (if any) of the exemption: i any credit contract, consumer lease, buy-back transaction, or other agreement; or ii any class of credit contracts, consumer leases, buy-back transactions, or other agreements: aba exempting any person or class of persons from compliance with any provision or provisions of this Act, and prescribing the terms and conditions (if any) of the exemption: Repeal section 138(1)(da)(ii), (hb), and (jb) and (1BB). After section 138(1), insert: 1AA The Minister must consult the FMA before making a recommendation under this section. In section 138(1A), replace Regulations may be made under subsection (1)(a) to (aba) only on the recommendation of the Minister, and the Minister may make a recommendation only if he or she with The Minister must not recommend regulations under subsection (1)(a) to (aba) unless the Minister . Replace section 138(1A)(c) with: c is satisfied that the exemption is necessary or desirable to promote 1 or more of the purposes of this Act, including by doing either or both of the following: i avoiding unnecessary compliance costs: ii promoting innovation and flexibility in the markets for credit. In section 138(1B), delete under subsection (1A) . After section 138(1B), insert: 1BAA The breach of a term or condition of an exemption under subsection (1)(ab) and (aba) is a breach of the provision to which the exemption relates (unless the terms of the exemption otherwise provide). Replace section 138(1BA) with: 1BA The Minister must not recommend regulations under subsection (1)(abb), (abc), or (abd) unless the Minister has consulted the persons or representatives of the persons who the Minister considers will be substantially affected by the regulations. In section 138(1C), replace Regulations may be made under subsection (1)(da) only on the recommendation of the Minister, and the Minister may make a recommendation only if he or she with The Minister must not recommend regulations under subsection (1)(da) unless the Minister . 46 New sections 138A to 138F and cross-headings inserted After section 138, insert: Declarations 138A FMA’s declaration power 1 The FMA may— a declare that the following are not credit contracts: i a particular arrangement or facility: ii a class of arrangements or facilities: b declare any class of arrangements or facilities to be consumer credit contracts: ba if a declaration is made under paragraph (b) , declare that any person or class of persons is, or is to become, the creditor under the relevant consumer credit contracts: c declare any class of consumer credit contracts to be high-cost consumer credit contracts for the purposes of subpart 6A of Part 2 (provisions relating to debtors under high-cost consumer credit contracts): d declare any class of consumer credit contracts to be related consumer credit contracts for the purposes of subpart 6A of Part 2 (provisions relating to debtors under high-cost consumer credit contracts). 2 The FMA’s reasons for making a declaration (including why the declaration is appropriate) must be published together with the declaration. 3 If a declaration is made under subsection (1)(b), (c) , or (d) this section , this Act applies with any modifications specified in the declaration and with all other necessary modifications. 4 A declaration made under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 138B Procedural requirements for declarations 1 The FMA must not make a declaration under section 138A unless the FMA— a is satisfied, in the case of section 138A(1)(a) , that the declaration— i is necessary or desirable to promote certainty about whether this Act applies; and ii is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act set out in section 3; and b is satisfied, in the case of section 138A(1)(b) or (ba) , that— i the declaration is necessary or desirable in order to promote any of the purposes of this Act set out in section 3; and ii an arrangement or a facility of the class to which the declaration relates has, or is intended to have, the effect of a person receiving a loan or goods or services with deferred payment; and c is satisfied, in the case of section 138A(1)(c) or (d) , that the declaration— i is necessary or desirable to promote certainty about whether subpart 6A of Part 2 applies; and ii is not inconsistent with the purposes of that subpart; and d has had regard to the economic substance of the arrangements or facilities to which the declaration relates; and e has consulted the persons or representatives of the persons who the FMA considers will be substantially affected by the declaration. 2 A failure to comply with subsection (1)(e) does not affect the validity of the declaration. 138C General provisions about declarations 1 A declaration made under section 138A may be made subject to terms and conditions, including (without limitation) terms and conditions relating to— a the circumstances in which the declaration applies, whether by reference to any persons, arrangements, or facilities, or any other circumstances: b transitional matters. 2 Nothing in section 138A, 138B , or this section prevents the granting of an exemption under section 138 or 138D that applies to a matter that is the subject of a declaration. 3 A declaration made under section 138A that something is a consumer credit contract prevails over a statement to the contrary in section 15. 138CA FMA may make interim orders pending exercise of powers 1 The FMA may make an interim order that no goods or services specified in the order may be supplied, while the interim order is in force, if— a the supply of the goods or services involves an arrangement or a facility; and b the FMA is considering, at any time, whether it may exercise a power under section 138A in respect of the arrangement or facility; and c the FMA considers that making an interim order is desirable in the public interest; and d the FMA considers that the extent of the interim order is not broader than is reasonably necessary to address the matters that gave rise to the order. 2 An interim order— a must specify the supplier or suppliers of the goods or services to which the order applies; and b may require— i all, or any specified class or classes, of the associated persons of the supplier or suppliers to comply with the order (including associated persons that may be incorporated or formed after the date of the order); and ii a supplier to provide a copy of the order to all or any of those associated persons. 3 For the purposes of subsection (2) , the order is not required to refer to the associated persons by name. 4 The FMA— a may act under subsection (1) or section 138CB(1)(b) without giving the supplier to which the order relates an opportunity to make submissions to, or be heard before, the FMA in respect of the matter; but b must, after acting under subsection (1) or section 138CB(1)(b) , give that supplier or that person’s representative an opportunity to make written submissions and be heard on the matter. 5 The FMA must, immediately after making the order, notify each supplier to which the order relates that the order has been made and the reasons for the order. 6 Section 478 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 applies with all necessary modifications to an order under this section. 7 A person who refuses or fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with an order made by the FMA under this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $300,000. 138CB Period in which interim order is in force 1 An interim order under section 138CA is in force from the time at which it is made until the close of— a the date that is 15 working days after the day on which it is made; or b a later date specified by the FMA by notice to the supplier to which the order relates. 2 For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) ,— a the FMA may specify a later date if the FMA is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable for it to complete its consideration as referred to in section 138CA(1)(b) within the 15-working-day period referred to in subsection (1)(a) : b the later date must be a date that is no more than 30 working days after the day on which the interim order is made. Exemptions 138D FMA’s exemption power 1 The FMA may, on the terms and conditions (if any) that it thinks fit,— a exempt from the application of any provision or provisions of this Act— i any credit contract, consumer lease, buy-back transaction, or other agreement; or ii any class of credit contracts, consumer leases, buy-back transactions, or other agreements: b exempt any person or class of persons from compliance with any provision or provisions of this Act. 2 The FMA’s reasons for granting an exemption (including why the exemption is appropriate) must be published together with the exemption. 3 An exemption granted under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 138E Procedural requirements for exemptions The FMA must not grant an exemption under section 138D unless the FMA— a has had regard to the purposes of this Act set out in section 3; and b is satisfied that the exemption would not cause significant detriment to debtors under credit contracts, lessees under consumer leases, or occupiers under buy-back transactions; and c is satisfied that the exemption is necessary or desirable to promote 1 or more of the purposes of this Act, including by doing either or both of the following: i avoiding unnecessary compliance costs: ii promoting innovation and flexibility in the markets for credit; and d is satisfied that the extent of the exemption is not broader than is reasonably necessary to address the matters that gave rise to the exemption; and e has had regard to whether the matter to which the exemption relates would be more appropriately dealt with by way of regulations made under section 138(1)(a) to (aba) . 138F General provisions about exemptions 1 An exemption granted under section 138D may continue in force for not more than 5 years (and at the close of the date that is 5 years after the exemption first comes into force, the exemption must be treated as having been revoked unless it is sooner revoked or expires). 2 The breach of a term or condition of an exemption granted under section 138D is a breach of the provision to which the exemption relates (unless the terms of the exemption otherwise provide). 46A Schedule 1AA amended In Schedule 1AA, after clause 12, insert: Annual return requirement ceases to apply 12A Annual return requirement does not apply to periods starting on or after 1 April 2025 The requirement in section 116AAA ceases to apply to 12-month periods starting on or after 1 April 2025. 47 Schedule 1AA amended In Schedule 1AA,— a insert the cross-heading and clauses set out in Schedule 1 of this Act as the last provisions; and b make all necessary consequential amendments. In Schedule 1AA, clause 7, after clauses 8 to 10 , insert and 15 . In Schedule 1AA, replace clause 8(6) with: 6 The amendments made by section 35 of the 2019 Act apply to existing agreements in accordance with clause 15 clauses 14 and 15 . 6A See clause 15(3A) , which provides for subclause (6) (as in force immediately before the commencement of clause 15 ) to continue to apply to the proceeding referred to in clause 15(3)(c) . 48 Schedule 1 amended In Schedule 1, paragraph (q)(ii), after security interest , insert (including, to the extent that the property is consumer goods, information that specifically identifies * the consumer goods) . In Schedule 1, after paragraph (q), insert:   *For the purposes of determining whether consumer goods are specifically identified,— a the goods are specifically identified if the disclosure contains an adequate description of the goods by item that enables the goods to be identified; and b it is insufficient to merely describe the goods by kind. In Schedule 1, paragraph (s), replace section 27 with sections 27 and 27A . 49 Amendments to various references to Commission In the provisions specified in Schedule 2 , replace Commission with FMA in each place. 50 Principal Act This Part amends the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. 51 Section 6 amended (Interpretation) In section 6(1), replace the definition of client with: client , in relation to— a a financial advice service or client money or property service, has the meaning set out in clause 2 of Schedule 5: b a service of acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract, means a debtor under a consumer credit contract In section 6(1), replace the definition of consumer credit contract with: consumer credit contract — a has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (and for that purpose sections 12 to 15 and 16 and 16A of that Act apply); but b in subpart 6A of Part 6, has the meaning set out in section 446P In section 6(1), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: creditor has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (and for that purpose sections 16 and 16A of that Act apply) In section 6(1), definition of financial advice product , after paragraph (d), insert: da a buy-back transaction or consumer lease (within the meaning of section 5 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003); or In section 6(1), definition of financial service , replace paragraph (b) with: b includes— i a market service; and ii a relevant CCCFA service (as defined in section 92A of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003); but In section 6(1), definition of market service , after paragraph (d), insert: da acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract: In section 6(1), definition of market services licensee obligation , after paragraph (e), insert: f in the case of a creditor under a consumer credit contract, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 52 Section 387 amended (Territorial scope for licensing and other regulation of certain market services) Before section 387(2), insert: 1B For the service of acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract, this Part applies if the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 applies to the contract under section 137 of that Act. 53 Section 388 amended (When provider of market services needs to be licensed) After section 388(d), insert: e acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract. 54 Section 389 amended (Exemptions from need for market services licence) After section 389(4), insert: Exemptions for creditor under consumer credit contract 4A A person is exempt from the licensing requirement under section 388(e) in respect of a service (unless a declaration applies under subpart 3 of Part 9) to the extent that the service is a prescribed exempt service. In section 389(5), replace and (4)(a) and (b) with (4)(a) and (b), and (4A) . 54A Section 446N repealed (FMA must obtain consent of Commerce Commission before commencing certain proceedings) Repeal section 446N. 55 Section 446P amended (Other definitions used in subpart) In section 446P(1), delete and section 546 . In section 446P(1), repeal the definition of creditor . 56 Section 451 amended (Meaning of FMC reporting entity) Replace section 451(2)(a) with: a the licence only covers 1 or more of the following: i acting as a provider of a financial advice service: ii acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract: iv acting as an administrator of a financial benchmark; and 56A Section 506 amended (Only 1 pecuniary penalty may be imposed for same conduct) Repeal section 506(4). 57 Section 546 amended (Regulations for purposes of Part 6 (market services)) Replace section 546(1)(c) with: c exempting (on terms and conditions, if any) services from the licensing requirement for the purposes of section 389(2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b), (4A), and (4B) and (4A) : Repeal section 546(1)(ca) and (cc). In section 546(2), delete (ca), (cc), . 58 Section 550 amended (Procedural requirements for regulations relating to exemptions, exclusions, and definitions) In section 550(2)(d), replace , (c), (ca), and (cc) with and (c) . 59 Schedule 4 amended In Schedule 4, clause 1(1), insert as the last paragraph: k Part 12 provides for transitional provisions relating to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2025 . In Schedule 4, clause 1(1), in the last paragraph (as inserted by subsection (1) ), make any necessary consequential amendment. In Schedule 4,— a insert the Part set out in Schedule 3 of this Act as the last Part; and b make all necessary consequential amendments. 60 Principal Act This subpart amends the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011. 61 Section 4 amended (Interpretation) In section 4(1), definition of financial markets participant , after paragraph (b)(v), insert: vi a creditor under a consumer credit contract, a creditor’s agent, a paid advisor or broker, a debt collector, a repossession agent, a repossession employee, a lessor under a consumer lease, a transferee under a buy-back transaction, a buy-back promoter, or a mobile trader (within the meaning of those terms in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003) and any person who is treated as being one of those persons for the purposes of 1 or more provisions of that Act; and In section 4(1), replace the definition of financial service with: financial service — a has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008; and b includes a financial service within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 62 Schedule 1 amended In Schedule 1, Part 1, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 63 Principal Act This subpart amends the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008. 64 Section 4 amended (Interpretation) In section 4, definition of credit contract , paragraph (c), replace a contract with an arrangement or a facility . In section 4, definition of credit contract , replace paragraph (d) with: d does not include any of the following (unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies): i a contract specified in section 15(1)(a), (b), or (ca) of that Act; or ii a contract under which— A no interest charge (as defined in section 5 of that Act) is payable; and B no credit fees (as defined in section 5 of that Act) are payable; and C no security interest (as defined in section 5 of that Act) is or may be taken; or iii an arrangement or a facility declared not to be a credit contract under Part 6 of that Act In section 4, replace the definition of family trust with: family trust has the same meaning as in section 173M(5) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 65 Section 13 amended (Qualifications for registration as financial service provider) Repeal section 13(2) and (3). 66 Section 23 and cross-heading repealed Repeal section 23 and the cross-heading above section 23. 67 Section 27 amended (Contents of register) Repeal section 27(1)(cb). 68 Section 67 amended (Duty to co-operate and communicate information in certain circumstances) Repeal section 67(1)(e). 69 Section 67A repealed (Duty to communicate information about mobile traders) Repeal section 67A. 70 Consequential amendments Amend the Acts specified in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as set out in that Part. Amend the secondary legislation specified in Part 2 of Schedule 4 as set out in that Part. Revoke regulation 29 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Regulations 2004 and the cross-heading above regulation 29. 1 New cross-heading and clauses inserted into Schedule 1AA of Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2025 13 Interpretation In clauses 14 to 21 , unless the context otherwise requires,— 2025 Act means the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2025 agreement means any credit contract, security agreement, lease, buy-back transaction, or other contract or arrangement to which the principal Act applies. 14 Application of amendments to existing agreements 1 Except as provided for in subclauses (2) and (3) and clause 15 ,— a an amendment to the principal Act in a provision of the 2025 Act does not apply to an agreement entered into before the commencement of the provision; and b the principal Act, as in force immediately before the commencement of that provision, continues to apply for the purposes of those agreements. Example Section 99(1A) to (1C) is repealed by section 32 of the 2025 Act. Section 99(1A) provided that a debtor was not liable for the costs of borrowing in relation to a period during which the creditor failed to comply with its disclosure obligations. The repeal of section 99(1A) does not apply to existing agreements. Instead, section 99(1A), as in force before its repeal, continues to apply to those agreements. See , however, clause 15 . Clause 15 provides for sections 95A and 95B to apply to most existing agreements to which section 99(1A) applies certain agreements . Sections 95A and 95B allow the court to reduce the effect of section 99(1A). 2 The amendments referred to in subclause (1) apply in relation to existing agreements as follows: a the amendments made by section 9(2) of the 2025 Act (lender responsibility principles) apply only to material changes made on or after the commencement of that provision: b the amendments made by section 12 of the 2025 Act (continuing disclosure statements) apply only to continuing disclosure statements that are, or are required to be, given or sent on or after the commencement of that provision: c the amendments made by section 13 of the 2025 Act (disclosure of agreed changes) apply only to disclosure statements that are, or are required to be, given or sent on or after the commencement of that provision: d the amendments made by the 2025 Act in connection with transferring any function of the Commission in relation to this Act to the FMA apply in relation to all existing agreements. 3 Nothing in this clause limits the FMA’s functions, powers, or duties under this Act or any other legislation in relation to any existing agreement. 4 In this clause, existing agreement means an agreement entered into before the commencement of the relevant provision. 15 Application of court powers in sections 95A and 95B to existing agreements 1 Sections 95A and 95B apply to— a any agreement entered into on or after 6 June 2015 (and to which any provision of sections 99(1A), 101(2), or 102(2) applies); and b any costs of borrowing, costs of a lease, or costs of a buy-back transaction under that agreement (as the case may be) in relation to any period on or after 6 June 2015. 2 Subclause (1) applies— a despite any provision in this Act or any other legislation or other rule of law to the contrary (and, in particular, subclause (1) applies with retrospective effect despite section 12 of the Legislation Act 2019); and b in relation to all existing proceedings; and c regardless of whether a failure to comply with any of sections 17, 22, 64, 65, 72, and 77 occurred before or after the commencement of this clause or the commencement of sections 95A and 95B; and d regardless of any right, interest, title, immunity, duty, status, or capacity that exists before the commencement of this clause or the commencement of sections 95A and 95B. 3 Despite subclauses (1) and (2) , subclause (1) does not affect any of the following: a any settlement agreement entered into between 2 or more persons (including between the Commission and 1 or more other persons) in relation to a failure to comply or allegations of a failure to comply with any of sections 17, 22, 64, 65, 72, and 77 (and that settlement agreement continues to be binding on all of the parties to that settlement agreement): b any enforceable undertaking in relation to a failure or allegations of a failure of a kind referred to in paragraph (a) that is accepted by the Commission under section 74A of the Commerce Act 1986 (as applied by 113(aa) of this Act (as in force before its repeal by section 40 of the 2025 Act)): c the proceeding Simons & Ors v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited and ASB Bank Limited CIV 2021-404-1190 (including any settlement of the proceeding in relation to any respondent) . 3A Nothing in the 2025 Act limits the application of section 33 of the Legislation Act 2019 to the proceeding referred to in subclause (3)(c) . In particular, clause 8(6) (as in force immediately before the commencement of this clause) continues to apply to the proceeding as if the 2025 Act had not been enacted. Guidance note Subclause (3A) confirms that section 33 of the Legislation Act 2019 applies to the proceeding Simons & Ors v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited and ASB Bank Limited . This means that the amendments made by the 2025 Act do not affect the completion of the proceeding. The principal Act continues to have effect for that purpose as if it had not been amended. In particular, the original 2019 transitional provision relating to sections 95A and 95B that was in force before the main commencement of the 2025 Act (clause 8(6)) continues to apply to the proceeding. 4 In this clause, existing proceeding — a means a proceeding that has not been settled, discontinued, or finally disposed of by the court of first instance before this clause comes into force that involves a failure to comply or allegations of a failure to comply with any of sections 17, 22, 64, 65, 72, and 77; but b does not include Simons & Ors v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited and ASB Bank Limited CIV 2021-404-1190 (or any settlement of the proceeding in relation to any respondent) . 16 Consequences of transfers of functions under Act 1 This clause applies to a function of the Commission in relation to the principal Act that is transferred to the FMA as a consequence of the amendments made by the 2025 Act. 2 On and after the commencement of section 62 of the 2025 Act (which provides for this Act to be financial markets legislation),— a all information that relates solely or principally to the function and that is transferred by the Commission to the FMA is held by the FMA; and b all rights, liabilities, entitlements, and engagements of the Commission in relation to the function become the rights, liabilities, entitlements, and engagements of the FMA; and c all directions to the Commission that relate to the function and that are in force immediately before the commencement of section 62 of the 2025 Act become directions to the FMA; and d anything done, or omitted to be done, or that is to be done, in relation to the function by, or in relation to, the Commission is to be treated as having been done, or having been omitted to be done, or to be done, by, or in relation to, the FMA; and e the commencement, continuation, or enforcement of a proceeding relating to the function by or against the Commission may instead be carried out by or against the FMA without amendment to the proceeding if the Commission and the FMA agree; and f a matter or thing relating to the function that would, but for this clause, have been completed by the Commission may be completed by the FMA. 3 On and after the commencement of section 62 of the 2025 Act, property identified by the Commission as being owned by the Commission solely or principally for the purposes of the function and that should be transferred to the FMA is vested in the FMA. 4 The transfer of information from the Commission to the FMA under subclause (2)(a) does not constitute an action that is an interference with the privacy of an individual under section 69 of the Privacy Act 2020. 17 Restriction on compensation for technical redundancy 1 An employee of the Commission is not entitled to receive any payment or other benefit on the ground that the position held by the employee in the Commission has ceased to exist if— a the position ceases to exist as a result of a transfer of a function from the Commission to the FMA as referred to in clause 16 ; and b in connection with that transfer of a function,— i the employee is offered equivalent employment in the FMA (whether or not the employee accepts the offer); or ii the employee is offered, and accepts, other employment in the FMA. 2 In subclause (1) , equivalent employment , in relation to the employee’s employment in the Commission, is employment in the FMA that is— a in substantially the same position; and b in the same general locality; and c on terms and conditions of employment that are no less favourable than those that applied to the employee immediately before the transfer of the function (including any service-related, redundancy, and superannuation conditions). 3 This clause overrides Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. 18 Employment of transferred employee to be treated as continuous employment 1 The employment of a transferred employee by the FMA is to be treated as continuous employment for the purposes of any legislation. 2 In this clause, transferred employee means a person referred to in clause 17 who has been offered and has accepted employment in the FMA. 19 Declaration of buy now, pay later contracts as consumer credit contracts continues in force 1 Regulation 5B of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Regulations 2004 continues in force as if the 2025 Act had not been enacted. 2 Regulations under section 137A of this Act (as in force immediately before the commencement of section 44 of the 2025 Act) may be made under section 138 for the purpose of amending or revoking regulation 5B. 20 Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Crown Infrastructure Partners Limited Milldale Development) Declaration 2020 continues in force 1 The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Crown Infrastructure Partners Limited Milldale Development) Declaration 2020 (the 2020 declaration ) continues in force as if the 2025 Act had not been enacted. 2 The Minister may make a declaration under section 137B of this Act (as in force immediately before the commencement of section 44 ) for the purpose of amending or revoking the 2020 declaration. 3 A declaration made under this clause is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 21 Pending application for certification 1 This clause applies if,— a before the commencement of section 42 of the 2025 Act, a person has applied for certification under section 131F; but b on the commencement of section 42 of the 2025 Act, the Commission has not yet made a decision referred to in section 131H. 2 The application must be treated as withdrawn (and, accordingly, the Commission is not required to consider the application further). 3 The Commission need not refund any fee paid under this Act in relation to the application. 2 Amendments to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 relating to references to Commission Section 9CA(3) and (7) Section 41A(4) and (6) Section 45D(2)(d) Section 45J(6)(b) Section 90(1) and (4) Section 95(1) and (3) Section 96(1) and (3) Section 98(3) and (4) Section 105C(1) and (2) Heading to section 105E and section 105E Section 107A(1) Section 107B(b) Section 109 Section 125(1) and (5) Section 138(1)(jd)(vi) 3 New Part 12 inserted into Schedule 4 of Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 12 Provisions relating to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act 2025 110 Creditor may be treated as holding market services licence 1 This clause applies to a person ( C ) that,— a immediately before the commencement of this clause,— i holds a certification under Part 5A of the CCCFA that covers the service of being a creditor under a consumer credit contract; or ii provides that service but does not hold that certification because the person is exempt under section 131C(1)(a) of the CCCFA; and b on the commencement of this clause, is not exempt under this Act from the licensing requirement under section 388(e) . 2 C must be treated as holding a market services licence that covers the service of acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract. 3 If C’s certification under Part 5A of the CCCFA was subject to conditions referred to in section 131K of the CCCFA, the licence under subclause (2) must, in respect of the service of acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract, be treated as being subject to those conditions (and those conditions must be treated as being conditions of the licence for the purposes of this Act). 4 However, subclause (3) does not apply to the extent that the conditions referred to in section 131K of the CCCFA are inconsistent with any conditions referred to in section 402 of this Act. 5 If, immediately before the commencement of this clause, C’s certification was suspended under section 131P of the CCCFA for a specified period or until a specified requirement is met, the licence under subclause (2) must be treated as suspended for that period or until that requirement is met. 6 In this Part, CCCFA means the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. 111 FMA may exercise powers in respect of licences Nothing in clause 110 prevents the FMA from exercising any powers under this Act in respect of a licence referred to in that clause (for example, to vary, revoke, add to, or substitute any conditions or to suspend or cancel the licence). 4 Consequential amendments In section 48P(6), definition of financial service , replace paragraph (b) with: b includes a financial service within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013; but In Schedule 2, repeal the item relating to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. In regulation 3(1), definition of BNPL contract , paragraph (b), delete section 137A(1) of . In regulation 5B, replace under section 137A(1) with for the purposes . In regulation 18K(4)(b)(iii), replace Commission with FMA . In regulation 23(1)(f)(ii), replace Commerce Commission with FMA . Revoke regulation 22 and the cross-heading above that regulation. Revoke regulations 24 to 29 28 and the cross-heading above regulation 24. Revoke regulation 3(b). Replace regulation 3(b) with: b Part 2 declares, for the purposes of Part 2 of the Act (fair dealing), that a contract of insurance is a financial product: In regulation 5(1), revoke the definition of credit contract . Revoke regulation 14. In the heading to regulation 229L, before credit , insert consumer . Revoke regulation 253. In regulation 3, replace the definition of consumer credit contract with: consumer credit contract — a has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (and for that purpose sections 12 to 15, 16, and 16A of that Act apply); and b includes a contract that is declared to be a consumer credit contract under Part 6 of that Act Revoke regulation 23(2)(c). In Schedule 2, Part 2, replace the items relating to being a creditor under a credit contract and being a mobile trader with: The following table is medium in size and has 2 columns. Column 1 is headed Finance service. Column 2 is headed Required information. Being a creditor under a credit contract ( section 5(1)(e) of the Act) Whether the applicant provides, or intends to provide, the financial service in respect of either or both of the following: a consumer credit contracts: b non-consumer credit contracts. In the case of acting as a creditor under a consumer credit contract, whether 1 or more of the following apply: a the applicant holds, or intends to hold, a market services licence that covers the financial service: b the applicant is, or intends to be, authorised to provide the financial service as an authorised body under a market services licence: c the applicant is, or will be, required to be registered for the financial service but is, or will be, exempt under section 389(4A) of the FMC Act or exempt from section 388(e) of the FMC Act under an FMA exemption. In Schedule 3, revoke clause 4A(b) and (c).

Hansard

May 14, 2026

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill — Second Reading · Full day report

Second Reading Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:17): I move, That the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, commonly referred to as the CCCFA, is one of the three bills developed by the Government to address the complex legislative landscape governing financial services. The bill aims to streamline these overly complex financial services regulations and remove unnecessary compliance costs. Previous reforms are focused on reducing harm from irresponsible lending by imposing greater obligations on lenders. In doing so, they increase the overall burden of regulation and this has resulted in inefficiencies that affect the majority of borrowers. We have seen examples of credit-worthy borrowers being declined credit, and unnecessarily long processing times due to excessive risk aversion. This is just not good enough and we have acted to change it. The bill was a continuation of the work from 2024 to remove the overly prescriptive requirements that were preventing Kiwis from accessing affordable finance. I want to quickly acknowle…
Read full Hansard debate
Second Reading Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:17): I move, That the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, commonly referred to as the CCCFA, is one of the three bills developed by the Government to address the complex legislative landscape governing financial services. The bill aims to streamline these overly complex financial services regulations and remove unnecessary compliance costs. Previous reforms are focused on reducing harm from irresponsible lending by imposing greater obligations on lenders. In doing so, they increase the overall burden of regulation and this has resulted in inefficiencies that affect the majority of borrowers. We have seen examples of credit-worthy borrowers being declined credit, and unnecessarily long processing times due to excessive risk aversion. This is just not good enough and we have acted to change it. The bill was a continuation of the work from 2024 to remove the overly prescriptive requirements that were preventing Kiwis from accessing affordable finance. I want to quickly acknowledge two of my predecessors for their hard work making these reforms possible: the Hon Andrew Bayly, who helped develop these proposals, and the Hon Scott Simpson, who brought these three bills to the House and saw them through select committee. The bill further improves regulation of consumer credit in four ways. It transfers regulatory responsibility for the CCCFA from the Commerce Commission to the Financial Markets Authority. It better aligns the regulatory model with that used for other financial services. This includes bringing consumer credit into the licensing regime of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). It removes a due diligence duty on directors and senior managers that doesn’t fit with the new regulatory model, and it better ensures consequences for breaching certain disclosure requirements are proportionate. I want to thank the very learned Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) for its thoughtful consideration of the bill and submissions. Having chaired that committee, I now find myself responsible for a bill I know was carefully considered by all members on the FEC. Thank you to everyone who took the time to make submissions. The committee received 1,634 written submissions and heard 35 oral submissions. Due to the heightened interest in a particular part of this bill—the retrospective elements—I will focus on this. The bill achieves proportion in how lenders are regulated by addressing historical issues with the law, the result of which could be that lenders who breached disclosure obligations between 2015 and 2019 were not entitled to any interest or fees during the period of their non-compliance. I don’t think it had ever been the intention of Parliament to disproportionately punish financial service organisations for making minor mistakes around their disclosures—for example, getting people’s middle names wrong in their mortgage documents. Parliament has already recognised that this outcome is likely to be excessive in some cases, and in 2019, Parliament provided a very sensible solution: let the courts decide whether it would be just and equitable to give lenders relief from the effect of this provision. All the bill does is extend that solution back to cover potential disclosure failures between 2015 and 2019. This is the bill’s retrospective change. My predecessor explained to the House already why the Government believes this retrospective change is justified in the public interest. How liability for disclosure failures between 2015 and 2019 is determined under the current law has recently been considered by the High Court in a judgement against ANZ. The judgement confirms the Government’s concern. The High Court found it is indeed bound to require lenders to refund the full costs of borrowing from any period of non-compliance to affected borrowers, whether the court thinks that is a just and equitable outcome or not. Ultimately, the intent is to ensure that courts have the discretion to reach fair and equitable outcomes. The Finance and Expenditure Committee considered concerns about the fact this retrospective change would have applied to class litigation against ANZ and ASB that was active at the time. It concluded that the cases should be allowed to run on the basis of the law that stood at the time when the case was first brought. The Government has accepted that conclusion. My predecessor was clear that he welcomed the committee’s scrutiny of this part of the bill. The public expressed its views and the Government listened. The bill is concerned with ensuring the courts are able to avoid any injustice the historical law might cause in the case of other disclosure failures that may have been committed between 2015 and 2019. Before closing, I wish to draw the House’s attention to some amendments that I will propose be adopted by the committee of the whole House. The first purpose of Amendment Paper 505 is to set a date for most of the bill’s changes to take effect. The proposed commencement date is 1 July 2026—obviously, to coincide with the beginning of the next financial year. This will enable stakeholders, including the Commerce Commission and the FMA, to plan towards a realistic date for implementation of the changes, including the transfer of the functions. Conclusion: to conclude, this bill—we’ve got a headline for “conclusion”, then “pause”. To conclude, this bill will ensure the burden of consumer credit regulation is (1) proportionate for lenders, (2) streamlined across financial services, and (3) overseen by a regulator that is effectively equipped to protect the interests of consumers. This is a sensible bill—“said to applause”. In all seriousness, I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its well-considered amendments, and I encourage members to support this bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:25): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, good on that new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, boxing on down to the House and giving a speech about a bill which has sunk two of his predecessors. New Zealanders can see that if there was any single bill that told them exactly who this Government is for, it’s this one. In the face of two banks required to pay back debts that they owe thousands of New Zealanders who have held mortgages, loans for their cars, personal lending, this Government chose to forgive those debts. This is a bill that reached back in time. It took a period from 2015 to 2019, after the Key Government had decided that it was fair that banks should be punished squarely when they get things wrong for their consumers, because ordinary mums and dads who have this lending can’t go along to the bank and renegotiate their terms. They can’t go through the screeds of documents to make sure that everything is perfect. Even if they did, they wouldn’t have any power to renegotiate with their big lender. At the time, the Key-English Government, following the practice internationally, attributed harsh penalties for those things—indeed, the sorts of harsh penalties that this Minister got up on the stump about yesterday. He made an announcement, to wild applause, that he would now gladly defend his Government taking away these penalties at the first sniff that a big bank didn’t like them, at a first sniff that one of the four major banks in New Zealand, which they have been at pains to call having a cosy pillow fight—to call big bad lenders who need to be dealt to by this tough Government that’s going to stand up for consumers. As soon as they were penalised, as soon as it was possible for those millions of dollars which had been wrongly charged to consumers, they rode in and made a decision that the Labour Cabinet in 2019 would not. That is what their Minister has stood up and delivered in this House. He has pointed back on the record and he has said that in the Key Government, they made the decision to make the penalties. In 2019, Labour was asked to remove those penalties and they didn’t, but in 2024, when the National Cabinet was asked to do the same, it did. Why did it do that? A history of different points of our Government being asked to do so by banks. It is on record that not only Ministers but the Public Service was asked repeatedly by the banks for this change. What did National do? It gave it to them. This was legislation that was made to serve the interests of big corporates at the absolute detriment of the consumers who were going to pay for it—$135 million paid out by ASB; $135 million ordered by a court for ANZ to refund. This is what it means for consumers. Hundreds and thousands of dollars that mums and dads need right now that National would have kept for them. More than any tax cut, more than any transfer payments, more than any subsidy that is being taken away from students right now by fees free—so much money that National would have given the banks to enable this legislation to go through. That is why we still oppose it. We still oppose this until the committee stage, because when the Minister stands up there and he says that the Government has accepted this conclusion from the select committee, I don’t believe him. Why should New Zealanders buy into the idea that this Government would stand by its promise to Kiwi consumers when at every turn, behind closed doors, it has made decisions in the interests of the corporates who ask for them? This is a bill which is evidence of that. This is a bill which was wrong from the get-go and the Government was found out. It is also, frankly, a bill that walks back some important consumer protections that existed within the law in the first place and that were bipartisan. The Key Government and Labour Government both upheld those protections for consumers, because when you have consumer law which punishes large corporates for getting things wrong, that’s the right kind of balance, because consumers can’t renegotiate these things. That’s why we have this law in the first place. National has walked that back, not just retrospectively but in the future. There is a balancing act to apply here, but when we show consumers that the Government won’t act in their interests, what happens? We get the kind of politics that we are seeing around the world now, where citizens all around the world see strong-man politicians say they’re going to do something about the cost of living and fail to deliver—in fact, they act in the interests of their mates. We need to show people that Government will act in their interests. We need to show consumers that when they are owned money by their banks, or they are owed money by their insurers, or someone has charged them more money than they should have, that the Government will enforce the law in their favour, and that everyone is viewed equally in the eyes of the law. The most important thing for economic development in a country like ours is the rule of law and people’s faith in the system. This is a bill that undermines that. That is why it’s so wrong. There are also parts of this bill that shouldn’t be progressed. This particular provision took up everyone’s time and energy; there were 1,500 submissions that opposed the retrospectivity from the get-go. It was unfair, because we had mums and dads coming along to the committee and saying, “I think I’m owed a few thousand dollars, and the bank won’t pay me back if this goes through.” There are other parts of this that reverse longstanding consumer protections that are important. Credit contracts and consumer financing provisions—yes, they are about making sure that there is a responsibility at the lenders level to make sure that people are getting the kind of deal that they know they can get. It’s not just about their middle names, Mr Brewer; it’s also about those things like: how much are you paying? How much will you pay over time? When will you have to pay back the terms of your loan? All of those things, which are really important to consumers, are the things that are protected by this legislation and legislation like it. It’s this that means New Zealanders can have faith in our financial system. It’s these kinds of rules, alongside our banking supervisory system, that are the thing that keep consumers continuing to be able to invest in long-term savings products and long-term products that give them access to the finance that they need. If we undermine those protections, people become not only more and more mistrustful of the banking and financing system but also of the law that protects them from misuse of it in the first place. It creates unequal treatment for people in litigation going forward as well. The record of this Government on banking reform is actions like this repeatedly. These are three bills that the Minister points to are all part of a system that has undermined protections for consumers across the board. In some circumstances, you can imagine that it would be useful for consumers to be able to access lending quicker and to be able to access banking services more easily, and those are important provisions. But the three bills here work together to undermine some of those most important protections. That’s why there are still things in this that on their own would make sense, but within the framework of the three, create some problems going forward. This is something that, unfortunately, we had to work through at the Finance and Expenditure Committee with the officials. We constantly had to keep asking officials to help us to understand the other provisions that were being drowned out by not only the legal advice that we had, the timelines that we had, and the submissions that we had on the retrospectivity point, but also the level of public interest in the retrospectivity point because it affected thousands of New Zealanders and their financial interests directly. This was bad lawmaking from the get-go, but it was also bad lawmaking through the process, because we were no able to properly interrogate how consumers were affected by every other provision within the bill. It’s a shame that we are doing something like this, which in the past has been bipartisan, and now, in the future, becomes just another battleground for what the State can do to ordinary people. The mums and dads who are harmed by this kind of lawmaking approach won’t forget this. I will never forget the ASB customer who came along to the committee, and he said: “I live on the North Shore. I’ve voted for National all my life. I can’t believe that this Government, who I still support, would make a decision like this, which affects me in this way. I had a mortgage, and I thought that National was the party that would bring down my cost of mortgage.” But National is a party that has constantly this legislation, which would cost him more. This is legislation with the intention and the design—and in full knowledge of that, every Cabinet Minister voted for it—to cost him and his wife more on the cost of their home. He was a first-home buyer. The impact of a decision like that is not just about National, is it? It’s about every politician in this House using their power against someone like him. If we continue to accept that kind of lawmaking in the New Zealand Parliament, we will lose not just him but people who vote for every party, because they need to see us acting in their interest—especially on things like the cost of lending, the cost of basic food, and the cost of electricity. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:35): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill tells us that when the National Party says that they’re back on track, they mean back on track to back big corporates. This bill does not benefit everyday people; it turns its back on them. I think it’s outrageous that while the previous member was rightly pointing out that this is a capitulation to the big banks, rather than engaging constructively, what I saw from the other side of the House was literal mocking, laughing, and finger pointing. It’s so telling that—on a bill that literally extinguishes the right of borrowers to pursue claims for past disclosures breaches between 2016 and 2019 and, as the previous speaker noted, their ability, in this case, and I’m talking about as the bill stands, for consumers to be able to recover millions of dollars—this Government introduces legislation that extinguishes those rights. I note that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs spoke about the intention to move some amendments in the committee of the whole House addressing some of the commencement date issues. This is not a solution. This is a form of harm minimisation because of the humongous backlash that the Government received, including, as it has been noted, from National voters who were affected by this. ASB and ANZ do not need any form of assistance or handouts. They are very well and fine. In fact, those banks are actually doing OK considering that many New Zealanders who are paying the price of the cost of living crisis. I think this is also a bit of an evolution of the previous position that was taken by the former National Government. To turn their back on an approach that was taken and upheld by two successive Governments is deeply problematic. What this tells us is that this is a Government that would rather ignore countless consumers who were affected by the behaviour of the big banks and capitulate to those banks. I think it’s also telling that the Minister, when justifying and explaining the bill, used the example of getting middle names wrong. I don’t think that stands. We cannot just simply take the Minister’s approach in good faith when we know that middle names are not the issue at heart in this bill. We’re talking about consumers who were genuinely negatively affected by the banks, not for just simply getting middle names wrong but for not adequately disclosing information. I just think it’s a really gross form of deflection to try to fixate on something like the accuracy of middle names as opposed to upholding the dignity of hundreds of submitters who were generous enough to share with us their experiences that they had in challenging these big banks. I’m specifically talking about ASB and ANZ here, who obviously have been the subject of discussion in relation to this bill. I particularly want to thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their engagement on this bill. I got to sub in to some of the sessions, particularly later down the line, in juggling the many commitments that we have being a smaller party that often has its members moving in and out of multiple select committees at once. Something that was really clear to me was the inability of Government members to see the harm that this bill was causing to consumers’ faith in our own Government to be on their side instead of the side of big, huge corporate players—many of whom take their profits offshore at the expenses of consumers. I think this is part of a trend that we’ve seen where the Government tells us that they’re making decisions for the benefit of the many, and then we see the detail of their legislation, and it says the exact opposite. This is a Government that is choosing to continuously make legislation for the powerful few. There’s a whole different conversation around the need to strengthen consumer protection and simplify enforcement under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, but this is not what we’re seeing in this legislation. It’s a shame, in my view, that the retrospectivity element has sucked so much of the oxygen in a debate that should have been around genuinely enhancing consumer rights, as opposed to the debate of whether we are capitulating to the big banks. Once again, the Green Party reiterates our position that consumers deserve access to clear information when engaging with banks when they’re taking out loans—loans that often will affect people in the longer term and their ability to make ends meet. When people end up engaging with the banks and taking out these loans, we got to remember we’re talking about people who are juggling perhaps multiple jobs to make ends meet; who often just do not have access to the support and the information that they need to engage with these big players—players that make big profits that they could be redirecting to adequately support consumers to engage adequately when they need these loans for whatever reasons they may be needed, whether it’s a personal loan or getting a mortgage, etc. Whenever somebody takes a loan from a big bank, it’s a humongous—sometimes lifelong—decision that has lifelong impacts. I think if consumers feel like they have been done wrong by one of those big players and pursues action through the courts, as a Parliament I think we should allow that process to run its course and I think we shouldn’t rush to legislate to basically try to legalise something that we know is wrong. On the issue around the amendments—and I go back to the comments from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs around the commencement date—this once again does not fix the underlying issue. Ultimately, sure, this may be dealing with a group of people who were trying to fight the system to get justice, but it still legalises something that we know should not be happening and it will prevent future consumers from being able to take this sort of action that we’ve seen before. I’m really hopeful that consumers will continue rising up and challenging a Government if they want a Government that rules for the many and not for the big banks. The best course of action is probably not through litigation through the courts; it’s actually through a change of Government to actually have a Government that upholds the pushback that the previous Government did in 2019 when it was recommended to basically erase these provisions and into take on the side of regular, everyday people and to put its legislative efforts into enhancing consumer protections. We did spend a humongous amount of time—and the members who are permanent members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee spent a huge amount of time—on this legislation. It feels like a waste of time for consumers to have to come to select committee to plead for the Government to not take on the side of the big banks. Right now, as the legislation stands, the Green Party continues to be opposing it and I do not believe that our position will change simply because of a commencement date change. That’s just simply not good enough. I think the commencement date is a concession that was granted because I genuinely believe that the National Party members realise—and probably its coalition partners as well—that votes are at stake; that their own constituents’ livelihoods are at stake. This is not about fixing a piece of legislation; this is about minimising the harm that this legislation is doing to its voter base because the mum and dad investors and the mum and dad landlords—the people who this Government claims to represent—were upset. We saw that upset in the select committee stage, and I think we shouldn’t take these sorts of concessions as some sort of gracious offering from the Government. But I think it’s an acknowledgement that this bill should have never been introduced as it was to begin with, and that this bill as it stands was a betrayal to everyday people and a capitulation to huge banks. We know that they are not the ones struggling in a cost of living crisis—shareholders certainly aren’t, and the people running it certainly are not. This goes back to the need to ensure that we have a Government that actually puts consumer protections and looks at reforms within the banking sector that benefit the many and enhanced competition at the forefront—not this piece of legislation and the package of legislation that accompanies it, which ultimately won’t be there for the people. I go back to the contribution from the previous member, who noted one specific submitter who noted that they had voted for this Government and now feels betrayed. This is the kind of feedback that we are seeing left, right, and centre out in our communities: people who are wondering whether they got a fair deal when voting for this Government. My message to those people is: if they feel like they didn’t get a fair deal, vote them out—7 November. Thank you. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (16:45): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill. I’ve listened to speeches from the Labour Party and the Green Party, and I’ll say this: the ACT Party will always support consumers if we see that consumers are hurting. On the other side, if we see businesses are hurting, we will support them as well. We want to bring a balanced approach where we are ensuring that businesses are not hurting at the cost of consumers and consumers are not hurting at the cost of businesses. We need to have that balanced approach in our marketplaces for our marketplaces to function properly. The way the penalties are being adjusted, they actually bring that kind of balance and that is why the ACT Party supports this. As this is the second reading of this bill, I would like to talk about the select committee process. I’m not a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but I do want to acknowledge my colleague Todd Stephenson—who is a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and all other members for working so diligently on this bill and making some really good changes in the select committee; recommending some really good changes to this bill in the select committee. To this bill, as the Minister in charge said, attracted a reasonable number of submissions—more than 1,600 submissions were received. If I just focus on one change that the select committee has recommended, which is the most important change in this bill, that change attracted submissions from 1,500-plus individuals or organisations basically opposing that retrospective change to how the penalties would work for lenders who fail to provide certain disclosures. Here what is really good to note is that the select committee took that on board and made changes. The two class action cases, we know that the active ones which were known to the select committee at that time were excluded from the retrospective provision. It’s a really good change, and other changes are also good changes. That’s why we support this bill in the second reading. Thank you. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:47): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and also on behalf of Dr David Wilson to sub and speak on this bill. I’m not a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but I will try and do what I can in terms of encapsulating our views. First of all, what’s the bill all about? Well, it’s about streamlining the regulation of financial services and reducing compliance burdens. Of course, we’ve already heard about the transfer of regulatory responsibility from the Commerce Commission to the FMA, the Financial Markets Authority—and I will come back to that shortly. I’ve heard a lot from the Opposition—they’ve focused very much, it seems to me, on this issue of the court cases. There were quite some discussions about that, I can say. I’m aware of some of those and some of the discomfort around them. But my understanding is that the Labour Government, as it was then, actually wanted to make sure that courts had discretion over what penalties to apply for disclosure failures, but what they didn’t do is cover the period between 2015 and 2019. Now, yes, there’s an issue of retrospectivity in there, but maybe they just overlooked it in the legislation which they passed when they did. Usually we hear from the Opposition parties that they are very, very keen on courts being able to exercise discretion—in fact, they regularly tell us that. Here it seems that they don’t want to do that. So I’m not sure about the consistency which they are displaying. I also just wanted to touch on a couple of other things here. We support the bill and we think that credit regulation should be reasonable. We also want to get rid of any undue red tape. We also want to see a regulatory system which balances the needs of lenders and borrowers, and doesn’t unfairly penalise or benefit one or the other too much—that’s about striking balance. Also we believe in streamlining the credit laws and bringing regulatory oversight to the FMA. Look, if I might just finish off by saying—I’ve had this conversation with Dr David Wilson; I know the people involved in this—that there have been noticeable improvements in the performance of the Financial Markets Authority under the leadership of I think it is now ex-chair Craig Stobo. We very much hope that, looking forward, we have the kind of experience, the kind of expertise, the kind of knowledge, and the approach that Mr Stobo has brought to this very important function in the financial sector. I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER (16:50): Just before I call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I just want people to be very careful about mentioning people who are not in the House in future speeches. It’s OK to say that you’re speaking on behalf of somebody else; I don’t want my colleagues over here to be upset by not pointing it out. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:50): I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, which is, in some ways, a little bit of a shame. Like my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has said, there are some genuinely, supposedly good aspects of this bill, particularly with some of the changes and some of the transfers of functions, etc. We’ll talk more about that in a little bit, and I think that is in some ways—actually, I’ll talk about that first. In some ways, I think the main policies around the transfer of functions from the Consumer Commission to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), or even aligning aspects of the regulatory model under the CCCFA, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, with the Financial Markets Conduct Act (FMCA) is, in some ways, supposed to be, I guess, a good move towards some sort of regulatory adjustment. But, again, when we’re looking at this in conjunction with some of the other bills, and I know that today there have been questions—and the previous weeks, we’ve been speaking on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill in terms of shifting the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) and FMA functions now to the Department of Internal Affairs. There is a lot of shifting of functions, so as part of the committee stage, one of the things I will be quite interested in is what that means to the actual staffing and expertise of part of that transfer of functions from the Consumer Commission this time to the Financial Markets Authority. I think the biggest challenge that it has presented, which in some ways tainted this bill overall, and potentially the package of bills that’s going to come through, is around this idea of retrospectivity. A retrospective change will extinguish the rights of borrowers to pursue claims for past exposure breaches between 2015 and 2019. This is specifically in relation to the class action suit, and I know a lot of them did submit on this during the committee stage, and that is Simons & Ors v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited & ASB Bank Limited. This is interesting because in the select committee stage, the select committee received 1,586 submissions from individuals and 48 from organisations, and it’s important to point out that, particularly when it comes to the individuals that submitted on the retrospectivity aspect of this bill, 1,530 of them opposed it and only three people supported it. That means 99.8 percent of submitters opposed the retrospectivity and yet, once again, we see the Government going through with something that does not have the public interest at heart and does not have the public at heart in its decision making. This is something that we see over and over and over again with this Government when it comes to these retrospective changes that affect a current case or current legal proceedings in the court. We see over and over again this Government’s complete and utter disregard for the principle of comity and the separation and ability for the judiciary to act independently— Andy Foster: Exactly, and you don’t want them to do it. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —and for them to do the job they’re meant to be doing. This retrospectivity, Andy Foster, will destroy that. This retrospectivity is actually affecting and impeding on that principle of comity, which is something that that particular party knows all too well with a deputy leader constantly mouthing off and undermining the judiciary. This is a persistent and ongoing pattern we see with this Government. This Government, they love to talk about victims, but not when it comes to financial victims: victims of financial scams and also abuse—let’s just say abuse—by large banks. In fact, this Government, through this bill, signals that they are going to be siding with financial abusers over your everyday New Zealanders. There are normal, everyday, ordinary people who are just trying to get on with their lives, but this Government has decided to rip them off and side with big corporations. That’s what we’re seeing with this bill: we’re seeing the Government punching down and punishing the weak and the poor in order for them to please their financial and corporate overlords. The Green Party will not stand for that. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:55): I feel sorry for the member that’s just sat down because clearly he hasn’t read the bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which one? DAN BIDOIS: Lawrence Xu-Nan. He hasn’t read the bill. He called it the “Consumer Commission”; no, it’s the Commerce Commission, firstly, and then, secondly, he talked about the FMCA—there’s no FMCA, and if the member checks the Hansard, he’ll realise he hasn’t actually read the bill. This is a very important bill to streamline and modernise the law. It is being led by my colleague Cameron Brewer and we do just want to mention, about the retrospectivity clause, we did have a carve out for the two active cases that are in train. I thought, actually, we struck the right balance: that we applied the retrospectivity but kept those carve outs for those existing cases. I think we’ve reached the right balance in this piece of legislation and I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:56): Unlike other speakers, I’m not going to talk about this retrospectivity issue; I think we’ve had a great deal of focus on it. It is an important issue, although it was, in some ways, an issue that was sandwiched into this bill a little bit. There are some other important measures in this bill that I think it is worth talking about in terms of credit contracts and the legislation that is set up to support the little guy, really. The interesting this is, I’ve sat on a couple of sets of credit contracts legislation, in previous Parliaments and on this one, and in those case we’ve usually had FinCap and budgeting services—so, the associations of budgeting services and financial advisers. Not the financial advisers who are doing highfalutin investment, but the financial advisers who are working with people who are in trouble and needing a hand with their finances. They’ve repeatedly come to select committee and urged for more action to be taken. The interesting thing is that the various budget advisers, financial counsellors, and FinCap—the umbrella organisation—came and talked to the select committee. One by one by one, they said, actually, they support a lot of the work that is being done in this bill, so there’s plenty in this bill which is good work, which is being agreed on across the House in terms of trying to protect people who have, one way or another, ended up in onerous credit contracts. And it continues, a body of work that was started, as far as I know—it certainly was done when we were in Government. But, of course, that work has extended back through Government after Government after Government trying to do work to protect consumers. We can argue about the extend and the detail of it, but the objective has always been to provide better protections for consumers, and it is work that has carried on under Governments of various colours. I guess what I can see in this bill, though, is some missed opportunities where more work could have been done to protect vulnerable consumers. I’ve had an interest in this since I first became a member of Parliament, when one of the first things that I dealt with in the first year or two, as an electorate MP, was an onerous credit contract where one of my constituents had bought a car, had been pressured into a particular loan at a particular rate. But, in fact, the only way that he could get the car was by taking the finance from the car dealer. Then he ended up with a bit of a dud car which didn’t work, and onerous debt which built up more and more and more. My staff and I worked quite hard on that case and worked hard with—I think at that stage it was the Salvation Army, to help him to get it sorted. We were able to resolve some things for him. But it did mean that I have developed a deep interest in this particular area as to how we protect vulnerable consumers. While we’ve tidied up some stuff like the mobile truck - lending that was going on—and I’d like to pay credit, in particular, to Andrew Bayly, who was very strong on this and talked about how he had chased those trucks out of his electorate every time he saw them; frankly, I’m with Mr Bayly on that—there are some other aspects that could have been done better. FinCap has gone through them in its submission. FinCap came along with a pretty good submission, really, and said, “Hang on a second, we need a prohibition on flex commissions.” Those are commissions where the lender or the insurer can get, kind of, extra money themselves by providing a flex commission—a little bit of extra on the top. It makes the price of the contract harder for the borrower in the first place. FinCap said could we not do some work on that, and we haven’t actually done it. This committee hasn’t adopted those suggestions, but I will be putting in some amendments at the committee stage to see if we could do that. They wanted us to do some work—and this seems particularly onerous, where a person can enter into a credit contract to buy a car, but then the lender can, if the repayments on that car are not being met, install a disabling device; a tyre lock on the car. And, in fact, you have to pay an upfront cost that’s included in the fee for installing that device; you have to pay a regular rental payment for the device to be active, and then there’s a fee for removing the device at the end of the loan. FinCap has gone through some of what their financial mentors have been told about these disabling devices and where they are used—cars stopped in car parks—and where fines and towing costs have compounded the issue; cases where a person has taken their child to a hospital and the car is in a hospital car park and then it gets disabled there. So there’s something a bit—there’s a word I want to use but I mustn’t use it in this House. But there is something onerous going on that means that vulnerable people are being exploited again by these lenders who are—well, they’re not the most reputable of lenders. They’re not like the lenders that people in this House would normally be able to access, like banks. They’re kind of the less reputable lenders. So that’s a shame that we didn’t perhaps do some work on that within the context of this bill. We could also have maybe done some work on debt collection and the extent to which debts can be passed over to debt agencies who then impose onerous costs as well; so a whole series of areas where more work could have been done. The one that I would particularly have liked to have seen some work done on was on Afterpay. Now, in the previous set of Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act legislation that went through the House, we did do some work on Afterpay, and now a lot of the buy now, pay later operators who operate will only extend a certain amount of buy now, pay later credit in the first place. A person has to establish a good record of repaying them before a person can get more buy now, pay later schemes. That sounds like there’s protection in there, and buy now pay, later is a good service. Madam Speaker, you and I probably remember putting clothes on lay-by or shoes on lay-by in our younger days. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: So do I, Madam Speaker. Of course, the difference with buy now, pay later is that a person gets the goods in their hands straight away. I’m not convinced this is a great idea compared to the old-fashioned lay-bys. I was in Palmerston North a couple of weeks ago doing some visits. Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’m sorry to hear that. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I enjoyed my time in Palmerston North, thank you very much, Kieran McAnulty. Tangi Utikere and I visited Moneywise there—some of the financial counsellors there—and they said, “Well, look, buy now, pay later schemes can work well” but they’ve come across clients who have four or five or six or seven or eight buy now, pay later loans; they get rid of one only to get another and they build up and up and up. Not just that, but they have people who are using buy now, pay later for everyday consumable items: food and petrol. I feel as though those are some of the schemes that are quite good for buying shoes and clothes, but perhaps not so good for buying consumables like that. So I do think we need some more regulation in the buy now, pay later space, particularly when it comes to vulnerable borrowers. There’s something that needs to be done there which it would have been good to have seen this legislation address. So as I said, there’s plenty of good stuff in this bill and when we have FinCap and the financial counsellors coming and saying, “Actually, this bill has got some good stuff in it.”, you have to take them at their word and believe them. They are saying, “We’re on the right track.” But they are also saying, “Could we please go further?” I think that brings us to the point of who this legislation should support. Now, obviously, we need to have legislation that is fair to the lenders—fair to the businesses. We need to get the right measures in place so that business can be transacted reasonably easily. But it also has to be fair to the consumers, and there’s a basic principle that comes into play there that if we have to legislate and we have a choice in who that legislation is going to favour—it doesn’t need to be excessive, but we should always favour the weaker party. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (17:07): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about streamlining the financial services regulatory landscape. It’s about removing unnecessary compliance costs and improving outcomes for consumers. This bill is about fixing the basics and building the future for, amongst other things, making it easier for Kiwis to access affordable finance. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (17:07): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Gee, what a hard act to follow there, Suze. Otirā tēnā rā tātou katoa e te Whare. Kei te tū ake awau i te whakahē i tēnei pire mā te Pāti Reipa. [However, greetings to us all in the House. I stand to oppose this bill on behalf of the Labour Party.] As I traverse Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and, indeed, Aotearoa, very few people approach me to talk about credit contracts and even fewer have been reading the consumer finance Act. But what whānau in my electorate do understand is that while they’re struggling to get ahead in Aotearoa, while they’re struggling to make a living, struggling to find good housing, access to education, and good healthcare, banks are continuing to make massive profits. While whānau are struggling, banks are still making massive profits—and they don’t understand that. So I just want to do a big mihi to my colleagues, and colleagues across the House, who decided to protect the rights of consumers. That’s a win for the people who matter, the people who put us here, and that’s actually a win for Parliament to demonstrate that when it matters, we can prioritise the people who put us here. Suze Redmayne: Well said. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Thank you, Suze. Borrowing—often, for a lot of people I know—represents security. It represents giving their whānau some hope. It represents putting a roof over their heads. I know the Minister talked about excessive risk aversion, just before he said, “Pause, for conclusion”, and I understand that a lot of people will do whatever it takes to get the loan to get their whānau a car to get from A to B. They’ll do whatever it takes to get their whānau into a home. But, often, when the risks of that lending are not fully explained to them, all their dreams are shattered. Not only are they left without the home and without the vehicle, they are still left with the shattered dreams and with the debt. They are far worse off than they would have been with the disappointment of getting refused credit. Currently, we have whānau in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti who are using Afterpay to buy groceries. They’re using Afterpay, so they’re borrowing to buy the essentials just to get by. And while, as I said, I can understand the desire to just get your lending and get on with it; we also have to think about what’s at risk for everyday people across Aotearoa. It’s not just low-income earners and beneficiaries who are at risk of this. When the Hon Dr Deborah Russell mentioned lay-by, which actually was even a thing when I was young. There was also a thing—a professional couple that I know became victim to—called balloon payments. So here they were paying off their late-model vehicle, had the means to do that, lo and behold, just when they thought it was going to be the last instalment, they were hit with a massive final payment, effectively paying for the vehicle, probably, thrice at that point. So while I can understand that people want to get on with their borrowing, I think we also have to be mindful of the real-life risks for everyday New Zealanders here; people for whom borrowing represents a dream for their whānau. And since we’re talking about risk aversion, something I think we could move forward as a Parliament, if we really want to have some benefit for Māori, is, perhaps, start looking closely at lending on things like multiply owned Māori land, especially when people have the means to service the mortgages and the loans for that. That is something that could have some real impact, because people can already borrow according to the criteria now. So koirā tāku [that’s mine]—just to think of, once again, the parties who got the win for the consumer and to be mindful of what is at risk when we fast track some processes. Kei te whakahē au i tēnei pire. [I do not agree with this bill.] Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:12): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about reducing the compliance burden for making simple transactions and lending; for people to get on and get things done that they want. This is a practical and responsible bill, and I commend it to the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:13): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. You know, there’s a division, I think, when it comes to dealing with credit, between the National Party and the Labour Party, because, here, in the Labour Party, we understand that people are, in fact, vulnerable, and whilst you can blow the trumpet of individual responsibility and free choice, when your baby’s crying and it needs food and you haven’t got cash to pay for that food, there’s not a lot of choice there. And if you’re going to put that baby formula on Afterpay, if you can put it on Afterpay, or on your credit card, you will, because that’s, you know, a natural human demand. And, essentially, that kind of situation is what the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, in this amendment, should be aimed at addressing. It’s worth just recognising, at the outset there, this is a moving feast in a number of ways. Certainly, when I first came into Parliament the issue was loan sharks. These were lenders who would lend to people in vulnerable circumstances. We saw instances, on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, of interest rates sometimes in excess of 600 percent per annum. They might be a loan of 200 bucks for six weeks, but when you saw that it was a $200 interest payment and worked out exactly how much interest there was, it might sound like it’s not a lot of money, but it was truly exorbitant and often couldn’t be repaid—and then, of course, it would compound. And that was running into huge issues. The other thing, which I think is worth recognising, just in terms of landscape, is the change in technology space. We see, for example—Afterpay’s a good example of that—where, essentially, an app-based payment system allows someone to have a continuous stream of credit. Whilst Afterpay and other—I shouldn’t just say Afterpay, because there are a number of providers out there and they’re all pretty much of a muchness—whilst they would say, “Well this is an interest-free payment.”, the fact of the matter is that, firstly, there are merchant fees that drive costs up overall; and second, that there are penal provisions—there are penalties if you don’t repay. That Government over there recently passed a rule which said they don’t have to be reasonable penalties in buy now, pay later transactions. Then we’ve got this piece of legislation here, and, I’ve got to be honest, when I first saw this and I first discussed it with people, it appeared that the Government was retrospectively changing the law to let banks—two of our biggest banks—off lawsuits, for hundreds of millions of dollars, that consumers were bringing. I kind of didn’t believe it. I was like, “No, no, this is not some kind of authoritarian state where you change the rules at any moment because it favours your mates.” I was like, “No. I know it’s the National Party, but they’re not like that. They’re the party who talk about rule of law, who talk about the protection of property rights.” But you know, as I read it, it was explained to me, and I spoke to people who were involved in it—it was true. It was true that the National Party was sponsoring the bill, the Minister was sponsoring the bill, in this House, that would change the law retrospectively to strip consumers of rights to hundreds of millions of dollars in favour of fat cat banks. Camilla Belich: Meow! Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That’s right. I’m not sure how that’s going to come up on Hansard. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was wondering that myself. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: But, you know, it really did shock me. Look, I’m glad to see that the select committee—and, you know, huge ups to the thousands of people who submitted on this; not only the academics and people in the industry, but also those ordinary people who are like, “Are you for real?” Of course, to put it in context, the rule was—a rule created by the National Government, the Key Government—that if the bank didn’t disclose to you, didn’t give you the full information about your loan, including how much interest you had to pay, then the cost of credit, which is pretty much the interest bill, is suspended until they disclose it correctly. Now, the banks didn’t do that. They made mistakes about, you know, what the interest rate was and what the repayment amounts were and all kinds of things. The rule was clear: if you made a mistake in your disclosure, if you didn’t disclose properly, you couldn’t charge interest. They had, of course, been charging interest, but they’ve been doing so illegally, and, in fact, they owed money. This what the court case that was recently decided against ANZ had found. They were obliged and are obliged to repay the consumers the interest that they wrongly charged; that they charged in breach of law. Now, the original version of this bill, though, would have done away with that rule entirely and retrospectively. I’m glad to see that the select committee has come around to the position that, at least in respect of those two cases—the two cases that were already filed—that that shouldn’t be the case. It does still make it retrospective in respect of, and we know that there are other cases out there. We know that some of the smaller banks have also done this, but it looks like they’re actually going to get off the hook, and that’s not a good thing. The other thing is this: now, the way the rule is being changed is that the borrower has to show, firstly, that there’s been a non-disclosure, a breach of the disclosure rules; then they have to prove that they suffered loss or damage by the failure; and then—and this is even weirder—must show that it’s just inequitable to make an order. Now, in what case do you have to show not only that you’ve suffered loss and that there’s been a breach in a contract but also that it’s just not fair? That’ not how contract law works. They had a promise to keep, they broke it, you suffered loss, they pay. So this “just inequitable” addition is entirely surplus. I have real problems with this bill, as you can no doubt see. The fact of the matter is that the bill in a number of ways improves the law, and that’s good. And, look, the National Party actually have a pretty good track record on understanding that central to our financial markets is a good credit market, and underpinning that is a fair credit market—and that’s not what this creates—and a certain credit market, one where people can predict what the rules are. One of the basic ideas of the rule of law is that the rules that are in place today will apply to things that happen today. You won’t do something today and two months later the rules are changed under you, and you discover that the contracts you entered into, the obligations you agreed to, are entirely different. So there are some real problems with that. The disclosure rules themselves are really good, and I want to make it clear disclosure is actually one of the most important and useful parts of the Credit Contracts Act regime, because at the centre of it is that you want people to know what they’re getting into, and not in some confused way but in a relatively simple and transparent way. The classic example is to say, “OK, you’re borrowing $500,000 and you’ve got it for 15 years at X percent. That means the total cost of credit will be such and such.” I can’t do it in my head but it’s going to be like $800,000 or $900,000. That lets people know exactly what they’re going to pay in the long run. Your payments are due on this date or these dates and will be this much—that’s what disclosure does, and it’s really important because it’s not necessarily that straightforward if someone says, “Yes, you can borrow $20,000 at 15.5 percent, repayable in, you know, equal weekly instalments.”, for people to know what that means and what the actual financial impact is. That is why this provision, the provision that was still being retrospectively changed, was important—because it said disclosure is so critically important that we want a relatively tough response when disclosure doesn’t occur. That’s why there was a presumption of no cost of credit if disclosure wasn’t made. This is a retrograde step and it weakens protections for consumers, and it still has a retrospective element, so it’s pretty disappointing that that’s come from the National Party, the so-called protector of rights and freedoms. Not on this occasion, not at all, not one bit. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (17:23): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is all about fixing the basics so that build a future for Kiwi families, Kiwi families that could be moving into their own house today but have been stopped by rules that are onerous and put unnecessary obligations particularly on lenders. We saw back in 2024 in the first round where there was bad lending and the old rules where you had to go, “Oh, I bought McDonalds this week and I got Netflix. Can I have a loan now?”, and it was just ridiculous. This is now about the impact that it had on putting rules on directors and they felt accountable to the point where they wouldn’t give loans that were affordable, safe, and good. We want to fix the basics so that these Kiwi families can go and build a house, so they can build their own future in their own home. That’s why we’re doing this. I commend the bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Vote Correction

Documents and supporting material