Submissions

This submission is the product of wide collaboration, consultation, and consensus between a broad range of stakeholders, including genetic health professionals, researchers, consumer support groups, health and financial services advocacy organisations, professional member organisations and others. The submission represents broad community views, beyond the organisations which contributed to the original A-GLIMMER study.

Financial Rights and our peers have been advocating for the regulation of BNPL products for years and keenly await the implementation of the new legislative regime, which will reduce the risk of people being signed up to unaffordable BNPL debts that leave them worse off. However, the regime is novel and complex so we strongly support ASIC’s intention to provide guidance on the laws.

Despite operating for less than 12 months, the CSLR has already paid out life-changing amounts of compensation to some applicants whose disputes have been in limbo for months or even years. It is not an easy or short pathway to become eligible for CSLR compensation – applicants must have strong evidence of misconduct in connection with a narrow scope of licensed products and services, and persevere undeterred in the face of successive failures by the financial service provider over time. Our submission contains examples of cases where the CSLR has provided a lifeline to people left in difficult financial situations by professional misconduct.

While use of cash has decreased in recent years, this should not be interpreted as a sign that people no longer need or care about the ability to use cash. Over the last two months, CHOICE surveyed 12,999 supporters to gauge sentiments towards cash. Over 97% of respondents told us it is very important or quite important that businesses selling essential goods and services should be required to accept cash. By comparison, around 92% of people considered those businesses’ acceptance of credit/debit card payments as very important or quite important.

We, along with our peers, have been advocating for the regulation of BNPL products for years, and keenly await the implementation of the new legislative regime, which will reduce the risk of people being signed up to unaffordable BNPL debts that leave them worse off. However, we are extremely disappointed to see the changes made in the Draft Regulations to the cap on default (late) fees. For certain BNPL models (notably, the model used by Afterpay), the permitted annual cap on late fees has more than doubled the previous proposal.

We support the urgent passage of the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 (SPF Bill) but with a key amendment to give effect to the Assistant Treasurer’s stated intention that regulated entities will compensate victims if they fail to meet their SPF obligations. Without this amendment we are deeply concerned that the SPF Bill will introduce a burdensome regime that fails to ensure fair outcomes for scam victims.

Unfair business practices cost people time, money and wellbeing, and erode trust in markets. While the existing legislative framework addresses some extreme forms of exploitation, it remains insufficient to counter the nuanced and systemic nature of unfair practices, particularly in the digital age.

This submission represents combined efforts and consistent perspectives from the consumer sector. It builds on our past submissions to Treasury, which identified more than 50 examples of unfair business practices that harm consumers and should be captured by reforms.

We support AFCA introducing both the Duty Approach and the Updated Approach. This submission provides a small number of recommendations to clarify some of the concepts addressed.

Our submission opens with general comments on the proposed changes, as well as our experience of how banks, superannuation funds and financial institutions have (or have not) applied the Current Guide since we last provided input on its review in 2022. We also provide feedback and recommendations on specific sections of the draft changes, as well as a response to the guiding questions proposed as part of the consultation process. Finally, we provide case studies to illustrate the ongoing challenges that consumers and their advocates continue to face attempting to have their identities verified using non-standard forms of identification, particularly when it comes to identifying people experiencing vulnerable circumstances.

This submission responds to the request in AFCA’s consultation paper for feedback on whether there are aspects of the Approach that could be further improved or clarified, with a particular emphasis on family and domestic violence considerations, and issues particularly impacting First Nations communities.

The regulatory settings for financial markets should be designed to help Australians to finance a purchase of a property that they can afford, and to ensure as many people as possible can maintain that property in times of hardship or stress. This submission combines the insights of consumer organisations with the cases we see from our work helping people in financial stress. Our strong view is that responsible lending protections are working as intended.

We recognise the challenge of introducing an overarching framework and proposed industry Codes (Codes) across multiple sectors, while scammers continue to innovate, adapt and harm consumers day by day. The SPF can be a world-leading framework, but only if Government recasts the dispute resolution approach so that the burden is off the consumer and the right incentives exist to drive industry action.

We support AFCA introducing an Approach to sections 29(6) and 29(7) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Superannuation) and updating its Approach to delayed insurance claims in superannuation. This submission provides a small number of comments and recommendations on the proposed wording for each of these Approaches.

Consumer Data Right Rules as it stands and based on some of the proposals within this consultation is creating a situation where it disproportionately places on individuals the burden of their own safety online. This submission provides comment on the series of proposals for amendments to the rules, and provide comment on the standards’ changes, where relevant or needed.

In this joint response we provide feedback on the proposal to extend the small business responsible obligation’s exemption. We believe the small business RLOs exemption should expire, for the following reasons: lending that should be subject to RLOs can fall outside them under the exemption, the exemption opens the door to poor lending practices and small business operators experience many of the same vulnerabilities as consumers.

Every Australian should be able to access food and groceries at fair and reasonable prices regardless of where they live, but many remote communities face significant challenges in accessing affordable food and groceries. Communities living in remote areas should not be disadvantaged because of their geographical location.

Consumer advocates warmly support the proposal to introduce a Minimal Asset Procedure into Australia’s personal insolvency system. We recommend that the debt threshold be higher and seek clarification that the assets are in addition to existing allowances for tools or trade and a vehicle. Overall, we feel the proposal is largely appropriate for the clients we assist who are struggling with debt they will, for one reason or another, never be able to repay.

This is a supplementary submission to the joint consumer submission provided in June to the Independent Review of the General Insurance Code: Initial Consultation Paper. In that submission we provided information regarding our 2021 research examining whether general insurance code subscribers met not just the letter of the commitment but the spirit of the existing commitment at Clause 95 – i.e. the quality of the policies developed and what protections and commitments were being made to customers who may be subject to family violence. We have since updated our research.

This is a supplementary submission to our submission provided to the committee’s inquiry into the Financial Services Regulatory Framework in Relation to Financial Abuse, provided in June. In this supplementary submission we review and report on the findings of our updated Family Violence and General Insurance: Updated Desktop audit of family violence policies, August 2024.

This is a further supplementary submission to our previous two submissions provided to the committee’s inquiry into the insurers’ responses to 2022 major floods. In our first supplementary submission we recommended that the committee seek specific improvements to the self-regulated General Insurance Code of Practice to address the issues impacting consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers.