11 August 2021
The ABA provides the following recommendations and observations:
1. Promises to pay vs. financial hardship arrangements: We are concerned that ARCA’s proposal to define financial hardship arrangements (FHAs) is overly prescriptive and conflicts with elements of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (NCCP).
2. Backdating the start of a financial hardship arrangement: The ABA does not support the approach allowing backdating of a financial hardship arrangement.
3. Payment test & catch-up periods: The ABA is supportive of the proposal for a payment test period or catch-up period to be treated as a financial hardship arrangement where the arrangement immediately follows, and is in response to, an earlier financial hardship arrangement.
4. Treatment of joint accounts where abuse is present: We are supportive of the interim proposal that ARCA has proposed to take extra care of customers experiencing family and domestic violence (FDV).
Latest articles
The ABA appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the RBA’s Review of Merchant Payment Costs and Surcharging (Proposals Paper).
The ABA thanks ASIC for the opportunity to comment on its discussion paper on the dynamics between public and private markets.
The ABA welcomes APRA providing clarity on the proposed targeted changes for Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debt obligations and the constructive approach it is taking on this consultation.