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 strongly supports extension of the exemption for a period of a further two years to 3 October 2026 and requests the Treasury explore making the exemption permanent to ensure certainty and reduce regulatory restrictions and barriers for small businesses seeking access to credit.
Banks play an active role to support customers during natural disasters. ABA’s submission is made in two parts, first, outlining banks’ active support of customers during natural disasters and second, responding to the questions in respect to impacts of insurance unaffordability put to the ABA.
Banks continue to strongly support measures to allow companies and registered schemes to fulfil their legal obligations to hold meetings and execute documents using electronic means under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The ABA makes four key recommendations, including providing optionality for companies to host AGMs in either hybrid or wholly online formats; amendments to… Read more »