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 28, 2026

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

Third Reading Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:20): I move, That Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill continues this Government’s focus on reducing excessive regulatory burden that has accumulated over successive reforms to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). This bill is about ensuring consumer credit is regulated in a way that is effective, proportionate, and that makes sense within the wider regulatory landscape. The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) is the conduct regulator for the financial markets. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a different regulator responsible for consumer credit. This bill simplifies the regulatory landscape by transferring functions under the CCCFA from the Commerce Commission to the FMA. This puts the FMA in a position to regulate consumer credit consistent with its approach to other financial markets. When the FMA takes over from the Commerce Commission on 1 July this year, this bill will give it the regulatory tools to effectively protect the interests of consumers. This includes, among other things, improved oversight of lenders through the…
Read full Hansard debate
Third Reading Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (12:20): I move, That Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill continues this Government’s focus on reducing excessive regulatory burden that has accumulated over successive reforms to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). This bill is about ensuring consumer credit is regulated in a way that is effective, proportionate, and that makes sense within the wider regulatory landscape. The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) is the conduct regulator for the financial markets. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a different regulator responsible for consumer credit. This bill simplifies the regulatory landscape by transferring functions under the CCCFA from the Commerce Commission to the FMA. This puts the FMA in a position to regulate consumer credit consistent with its approach to other financial markets. When the FMA takes over from the Commerce Commission on 1 July this year, this bill will give it the regulatory tools to effectively protect the interests of consumers. This includes, among other things, improved oversight of lenders through the FMA’s licensing regime, and other administrative powers such as direction orders that enable the FMA to respond swiftly to breaches of the CCCFA. It is also important that liability settings in the CCCFA are proportionate. This bill does this in three ways. It removes a due diligence duty and intendent personal liability for directors and for senior managers. The changes I’ve just outlined make this form of liability unnecessary. The bill also addresses two issues with how the CCCFA assigns liability for the costs of borrowing, in the event a lender has breached certain disclosure requirements. The first issue, as this House well knows, is a historical one. The bill backdates reforms made in 2019 to protect the market from redress that the courts consider unjust. This has no impact on the class litigation against ANZ and ASB. The second issue is an ongoing issue. To say that lenders are liable for the full costs of borrowing until they have fixed the disclosure breach is the wrong starting point when the breach was trivial or otherwise harmless. The bill addresses this for new loan agreements without removing this form of redress for borrowers. The bill has its origin in policies announced over two years ago. I want to conclude by thanking everyone who has contributed to its development and evolution. I want to thank the Hon Andrew Bayly, I want to thank the Hon Scott Simpson—my predecessors. I want to thank officials and the many individuals and organisations who took time to make submissions on the CCCFA amendment bill, both during policy development and at select committee. Just on the select committee—the hard-working Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC), now chaired by Ryan Hamilton and deputy chaired by Dan Bidois—the FEC studied these reforms, worked through submissions, and developed some very sensible changes. The net result of all this thought and effort is a bill that I am confident will improve how effectively and efficiently consumer credit is regulated in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:24): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is relevant, what the Minister has said, in his legislative statement to the House: that this bill gives effect to policy decisions that were made two years ago and built on the work of the Labour Government in reforming consumer credit access to make sure that the rules were proportionate to the risk and to ensure that our financial system—that level of controls within organisations is robust. That is why it may surprise some of the members sitting around the House to be sitting here in what is, technically, Thursday of a Budget week, in this period that is well understood to be a free hit for the Government, where it is encouraged, even, that the Government would pass legislation that is to do with the Budget and to give effect to their financial decisions which are empowered by the Budget in a period of urgency, which is well understood and largely well-supported by major parties within the House. It is important that the Government would be able to give effect to those things which relate to Budget documents and Budget policy decisions as soon as possible when they’ve been announced and they affect ordinary people’s lives. But this is a piece of legislation which was first mooted in May 2025. Why was it delayed, you might ask. Well, it went swiftly to select committee, which the Minister has alluded to; he was the chair of it at the time. And we embarked swiftly on a programme of work to hear from submitters. It was important for submitters to be able to have their say, because it emerged, in the course of submissions, that thousands of New Zealanders were owed debts by two banks that posted a total profit of about $6 billion in that financial year, and the Government was seeking to forgive those debts at the point they crystalised, which was in a class action litigation before the courts at the time the committee considered it. So the delay, from the Labour Government’s introduction of laws to tidy up this process of credit contracts and then for the bill that was seeking to change the way that consumers were able to bring claims against their banks, not only from the date of the legislation but before the legislation was enacted—that delay happened because there was pushback from those people who would have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars that they were owed, that accrued during the period of 2015 to 2019. I want to read you the sort of correspondence that was received by those people when one of the banks let them know after the select committee made what was a sensible change—thousands of people around New Zealand, mums and dads who had mortgages on their homes, received a letter that said something like “Dear Tom, on 5 October 2025, ASB agreed to settle the representative proceeding commonly referred to as a class action that related to ASB customers who held a home or personal loan.” Those customers then duly went and checked their bank accounts and found that they had between $300 to thousands of dollars that had turned up overnight. That is more than any tax cut would have netted them. That is more than what the Government have offered them in things like childcare subsidies. These are people who are struggling with rising costs of groceries, of electricity bills, and of their personal banking services. For that to happen at that time was incredibly important to them, and that was through a series of really great submissions by ordinary people who came along to the committee and told the committee exactly how this would affect them. Parties around the House all accept the National Party, at that time, began to agree that it was unfair for consumers to have to shoulder that burden. That reason why we are here in Budget urgency debating this bill is because it has been an embarrassing attempt at a law change which would have required the Government to run roughshod over the rights of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders, and then an embarrassing backdown, because minor parties and opposite parties—Labour and the Greens included—advocated consistently for the Government to change their minds, and they eventually did. The delay, and the reason why it has taken two years to get to this policy point, is important to understand. What does it truly say about how we make law in this country? One, that we simply don’t have the appropriate safeguards for this kind of decision making. At all stages, Ministers and officials were contacted by the New Zealand Banking Association, by banks themselves, and by corporate lawyers who did not have to disclose that they were acting in the interests of the banks, to advocate for a policy change which would have created this debt forgiveness regime. It was unfair when they asked Labour for it in 2017. It was unfair when they asked John Key for it and Jacqui Dean for it in 2016. It was unfair when they asked Kris Faafoi for it in 2019. But this Government relied on not only the official advice, where the New Zealand Banking Association also had access to officials, but on their own decisions also based on the advice of the Reserve Bank that accepted the New Zealand Banking Association’s number of $12 billion worth of financial risk to the New Zealand financial system. That number was unreasonable; officials should not have relied on it, and it continues to be an example of where going back through the timeline shows that we are not getting the right kind of information about these kinds of risks before they come to light. And yet, the Finance and Expenditure Committee did make the right decision. The committee made the right decision to leave, essentially, those two cases to work their way through the courts. One of those banks saw the writing on the wall and made the refunds that it needed to make to its customers, and so we have thousands of happy customers, who are happy that National changed their mind on this. But there are still thousands of customers out there who are owed money by ANZ, and it would be unusual in this House to name one corporate entity, but it is directly relevant to this legislation. Because now that Parliament has given a clear indication of whether the law should or should not apply, that is a corporate organisation that owes money at this point in time, and a court has decided that it owes money at this point in time. It owes debts, and every day that passes is a debt that it has not repaid to consumers. New Zealanders who are owed money by ANZ should rightly be assured that this Parliament stands behind that debt because of this decision. That is still working its way through the courts, and they are entitled to do that, but it is important that this decision stands as a decision that was unanimously supported at the committee stage. Even if you’re not an ASB or ANZ customer, decisions like this matter—the implications matter. Consumer law is tough for a reason. We’ve had a National Minister in the last three weeks stand on the stage in front of a competition conference and up penalties for corporates who make mistakes in things that they do with consumers. Why? Because consumers can’t negotiate every contract that they enter into with their grocer, with their bank, with their energy company. The disparate power between those two entities is huge, so it’s important that the penalties for getting something wrong if you are the larger entity are fair and appropriate and large. But this kind of lawmaking says very clearly two things: (1) if you are a corporate entity and you muck up, you can wait for a Government like this to fix it for you, and we are seeing more and more of that, not only with this case but with the Uber decision and with Fonterra’s climate litigation. That is a problem. The law should be known and knowable at the time. It should be enforced by the courts and by Parliament alike. The second thing is that it tells the incumbents and challenger banks something important about the way the banking system works in New Zealand. There are countries that we sometimes compare ourselves to that will tell banks what Government thinks they should do, and banks will act on that under the proviso that they will be protected by their Governments. Jurisdictions that have that kind of arrangement between banks and Governments rely on a flow of information between banks and information that is not like our open economy has. Our open economy relies on incumbents and challenger banks being treated in the same way. But, if I was Revolut, looking to open cheaper banking services in New Zealand, I would back off fast, because what this decision shows is that a National Government has the interests of incumbent banks top and centre when it is considering legislation that will affect competition in this market. It is important that Governments are open to challenges, especially when they are telling the public that we need more competition in a sector like banking. Finally, it also is a bill that should have improved the settings around buy now, pay later. Because of this Government’s change to the settings, which was advocated by one minor party that got less than the constituency vote of New Zealand First, it was a decision that meant that Zip can charge $40 every purchase for young people who use it as a credit product, Afterpay can charge $68, and financial hardship cases that financial mentors are seeing have gone up by 700 in the year since that was introduced. There is more hardship because of the lack of change in these rules. This is a bill that should have sorted out buy now, pay later as a proper credit consumer contract; it did not, and therefore this is a failure of a bill. We thought we might be able to support it at this stage; we cannot. It does not improve things for consumers, it sends all the wrong signals, and this Government should hang its head in shame. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:34): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also want to reflect on the fact that we’re having this third reading under urgency. It is deeply puzzling that on a week that’s supposed to be about the Government advancing its priorities in relation to the Budget, we are rushing a third reading of a bill that, in my view, has had a shambolic process and has actually, in my view, required countless ordinary people having their voices made loud and clear for the Government to concede that what they were about to do was to make laws that were taking the side of huge banks as opposed to everyday people exercising their power to take on big corporates through the judicial system. I want to reflect that this follows on from a really, really concerning pattern of legislative behaviour and actions from this Government. The previous speaker commented on how the Government also overrode the case that people took against Uber, for example. Yes, this is such a prime example of the Government once again taking the side of big corporates—the same thing with Fonterra. I want to acknowledge first of all the people who took these proceedings to court, because that would not have been easy. It’s not easy to take on big banks at the court, let alone win. I think what is particularly concerning in the case of this legislation, if we look at the journey of the legislation, is that previous Governments had actually held their ground against lobbying from banks that sought to allow them to effectively have this debt forgiveness regime. It’s really clear that there’s been a shift of attitude and behaviour from this Government towards that kind of approach from big banks. After the select committee stage, we had huge concerns at that point that the retrospectivity component was not yet addressed. I’m glad that at least the National Party saw the light—and potentially, I guess, the electoral consequences—of going ahead with the bill as it was during the select committee. I think they realised that voters were likely about to punish them if they continued keeping the retrospectivity and allowed to override the proceeds of Simons and Others v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited and ASB Bank Limited. I think that the amendments that were put forward later on were an acknowledgment that you cannot just trample on people’s dignity and contributions when they are telling the Government crystal-clear that their decisions are about to take the side of huge corporates. While we are glad that the Government and particularly the National Party took this approach to back down from some of the retrospectivity components, I think that the changes to ensure consequences for disclosure failures are still, in my view, problematic. I want to make it clear that the Green Party does not support this bill. I think, as the previous speaker noted, this bill, if anything, had an opportunity to actually strengthen consumer protections and simplify enforcements under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, but we’re not actually making the most of the opportunity to actually look at this wholesomely. In fact, what I think was also a shame, if I reflect back on the select committee sessions that I had a privilege to sub in on—and I want to acknowledge my colleagues Francisco Hernandez and Chlöe Swarbrick, who have been, during this term, permanent members, as well as the other members who have been permanent members of that select committee, and I do want to give a shout out to Arena Williams, who I know has been very diligent in the scrutiny of this bill. Those members ended up taking, in my view, the majority of the time for the scrutiny of this bill to address the component of the retrospectivity. In my view, that’s a shame, because I think this bill in and of itself actually presented an opportunity to look at a range of broader issues. Buy now, pay later is another issue that I think the member Arena Williams described had merit being addressed in this bill but wasn’t. I do think this is a shame, because you’re not looking at the equity components of what bills like this one could genuinely address. If you look at, again, the process that we undertook for this bill, now that we’re finally at the third reading, I think it cannot be said in the context of the fact that, at every stage, when we have other procedures such as inquiries into banking competition and we have the Government talking about wanting to enhance competition within the banking sector but then sends signals, through bills like this one, that, actually, big banks will continue being favoured, basically, when it comes to competition laws. Or even legislation here versus, say, for example, outcomes of consumers. I think this sends a chilling effect to any potential competitor that wants to take on the likes of ASB and ANZ. Now, these two players are not small, family-owned businesses that deserve attention from, or any pandering from, any Government, any political party, as it has been noted they have made humongous profits while ordinary people are literally having to take on debt simply to make ends meet. This is why I think this bill attracted a big amount of public and media attention—because, again, it was people who were being generous enough to share during the select committee period the outcomes that this bill would have had if the retrospectivity component was not addressed. I know that we heard not just from clients and people who may have been taking part of the class action, we heard from legal experts and consumer advocates. When we’ve got experts that continuously get dismissed and ignored, brushed off, when we’ve got experts who questioned, for example, the numbers that were presented by officials in terms of the financial risk, I am concerned that this goes back to a pattern of behaviour where people who actually hold expertise—and I want to acknowledge that, across the whole of Parliament, no one is an expert in every portfolio and, therefore, we rely on people who actually have trained, have spent their lives being experts in subject areas to actually contribute to bills like this one. When we see that expertise being brushed aside and perhaps only listened to for matters of electoral convenience, I worry that people are going to start wondering, “Well, what is the point?” I want to reassure members of the public that this bill is also a great example that in numbers, there can be strength. When people—particularly people who voted for political parties that are in Government—show up and make it clear that support for Government parties is at risk due to decisions, that political parties can actually cave in to that pressure. This is why I want to, once again, commend that throughout this process people have made their voices loud and clear. They do not want a Government that takes sides with ANZ and ASB over everyday people. I want to commend, or I want to at least acknowledge, the coalition parties in the Government, outside of National, who I know actually understood what was wrong with this bill. I can tell that they did. I want to particularly acknowledge that as a constructive element in an MMP environment, where, sometimes, those other political parties can actually play a decent role in actually putting pressure on the larger party to do the right thing and address some of the most problematic components of this bill. Again, the amendment that was put during the committee of the whole House stage does not go far enough. I once again want to go back to the issue that, you know, successive Governments led by Labour or National have pushed back against the lobbying from the banks to make changes to the relationships to the debt collection regime. I hope that this is the last case—the last time that the National Party caves in to this pressure. We deserve a Government that actually— Ryan Hamilton: Read the bill. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —takes the side of everyday people as opposed to the big banks. When I hear members of the opposite side say, “Read the bill”, well, you know, I invite them to make contributions that are more than 10 seconds. Because as far as I’m aware, I am none the wiser, throughout this bill or other bills in every other debate, that they have actually read the bill when their contributions are 10 seconds long. I appreciate that, perhaps, they want to scrutinise my knowledge on the bill, but I invite them to show their own expertise on the bill by actually outlining the back-down that they took in the committee of the whole House stage. So, like I said, on the whole, we are disappointed that this bill didn’t actually do what was right for consumers, and the Green Party will not be supporting it in the third reading and question the use of urgency to rush it through at this time. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (12:44): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I rise to on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill. It’s actually entirely appropriate that we’re dealing with this in Budget week, under urgency. Not only did we have to clean up a massive economic mess left by the last Government; they also wasted six years to actually make regulatory changes in important areas to New Zealanders. This bill is proportionate. It’s effective. It’s cleaning up some red tape and regulations, and it’s making sure that credit and consumers are looked after. We’re modernising this area of law, and I want to say that the Finance and Expenditure Committee let me do an excellent job in listening to submitters on a whole range of issues, not just the ones around the banking cases. This is an excellent piece of law. It actually is going to continue to support this Government’s economic agenda, and I commend it to the House. Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (12:45): I rise in support of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill. This was one of the first bills that was put in front of me when I arrived in Parliament. Thank you very much for that—quite difficult to get through some of the issues, and I thank members from the other side basically saying that the select committee “got there in the end”, which, I agree, it did. I’d like to just sort of have a shout-out to the then committee chair, the Hon Cameron Brewer, who is now the Minister. The thing I think probably gives me the most confidence here is moving to the Financial Markets Authority oversight of this kind of activity, which I think will help in the future. We’re streamlining credit laws and strengthening regulatory oversight. Therefore, we commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:46): Madam Speaker, thank you. I want to address a couple of the broader, I think, comments around this bill that we’ve heard in the House. Particularly, I want to address the comments my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March made around why this bill needed to be under urgency. We heard from the Minister that part of the reason is because this bill needs to take effect on 1 July. Now, as we’ve seen with any bills that come through the House, this commencement date itself has been amended from the original date because the original date was a date set by Order in Council, which means that the day could actually be further amended. There is no reason for this bill to actually be coming into the House under urgency, for two additional reasons. I think this is partly an indication that this Government has, for lack of a better term, run out of gas when it comes to legislation. Because the committee stage of this took place on Wednesday morning, 27 May 2026, which is technically three days ago by calendar days, but one day ago by House days. This bill could have had its third reading Wednesday afternoon. It, again, does not need to be in the House right now. While I admit that if there’s no reason that this bill’s commencement date can be altered from 1 July 2026—bearing in mind that there is still another week and a half of sitting weeks before that date—it does bring into question why this and the subsequent bills we will be reading are coming into the House under urgency. Potentially, maybe that particular Minister, being one of the newest Ministers, is one of the few people who’s actually left from the team—so, maybe, because being one of the junior Ministers, you get the short end of the straw when it comes to the bills that go through the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Xu-Nan, the current Minister—and, actually, we don’t talk about Ministers, and I’m not suggesting you did, who are and aren’t here—but the actual current Minister is actually right there. Hon Cameron Brewer: There’s no such thing as a junior Minister. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, absolutely. Sorry. I apologise, Madam Speaker—not junior Minister; Minister outside of Cabinet. I do want to say that one of the disappointments with the committee stage for this particular bill is the fact that we weren’t given an opportunity to have a full engagement with the Minister. I do hope that for the some of the subsequent bills that the Minister is in charge of that we’re going to be discussing, we will get the opportunity. We could have asked a little bit more around the enforcement when it comes to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). I think we could have asked a little bit more around what exactly happened and around the timeline, when we’re looking at the potential retrospectivity which happened during the select committee stage and was later on taken out, and what that would involve in terms of the kind of responses that the Minister, as well as the officials and as well as the Government parties, received as a result of the class action when it comes to Simons & Ors v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited and ASB Bank Limited. On that particular part, even the fact that the Government parties have entertained the retrospectivity signals the priority of the National Government, when you’re looking at further punching down on everyday New Zealanders, to pander to their big corporation overlords. We’ve seen that with ASB and ANZ, which by way, as the previous speaker Arena Williams mentioned, make $6 billion. That money, considering successive Governments sold ASP and ANZ to Australia, isn’t going to be coming to New Zealand and going to be supporting our economy in that sense. But not only that: we’ve heard about Uber, we’ve heard about Fonterra, and we’ve heard about the other areas, as well, and I think this bill is, in essence, a good step. It’s something that we wanted to perfect and wanted to improve in the first reading and during the select committee stage, but I was disappointed in subsequent stages because of the changes. It also means that we couldn’t actually ask the Minister, in that sense, around the enforcement aspect and the actual penalties. If you’re going to be making $6 billion, what is a proportional penalty? This is why the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. It is not good anymore. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (12:52): Can I firstly just acknowledge the new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and this being the first bill to go through the full suite and come into law. There’s been great shepherding-through by several Ministers, but it’s a great finale for Minister Brewer. Secondly, when Labour passed this in 2019, we recognised that this retrospectivity clause was a bit untidy. It was a promise made, and, today, it’s a promise delivered. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (12:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s great to be able to take call on the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill—a bill without brackets in its title, which is a nice change from what we’ve been talking about this morning. The junior Minister opposite, I think, just said that that we’ve run out of time, and the good news is that we definitely haven’t, which is great, because we are in this third reading, which means it’s the final opportunity for us to talk about what it is that we are not happy about in this bill. I think what’s important is to come back to the essence of what this bill sets out to do and who it sets out to do it for. It’s talking about streamlining compliance, so my question is: for who? What it talks about—or what it should be talking about—is strengthening consumer protections, because what we’re talking about here is an environment where you might have an individual up against an incredibly large company. We’ve heard the scale of some of those annual turnover figures of some of our biggest banks. If you think about taking on a bank with a $6 billion turnover, I know who I’d be thinking probably has the most firepower and the most legal representation should it come to that. My question really is: if the aim is to simplify regulation, reduce compliance costs, and improve consumer outcomes, is that really what this bill is going to achieve? Now, when it was in front of select committee—and it’s good that there are some bills in this term of Government from this coalition Government that actually get the proper scrutiny— Ryan Hamilton: Heaps! Heaps! Heaps do. REUBEN DAVIDSON: —that a select committee should provide. Someone on the other side shouted out “Heaps!”. I think there are a number of examples of bills—very important bills; some even just in the last week in this Budget urgency—that have progressed through all stages without even getting near a select committee. That’s not good governance. It’s not responsible lawmaking, but it is a pattern of behaviour that we continue to see from this Government. What I’ve done is gone back to look at some of the 1,500 submissions that came to the select committee specifically about this bill, and I’m going to go through each one of those submissions—but I’m not, because I don’t have time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: You definitely don’t have time. REUBEN DAVIDSON: I’m going to look at a number of those submissions, and, particularly, I’m going to look at submissions that advocate on behalf of individuals as opposed to submissions that were made by large corporations or by people paid to act and represent those large corporations and their interests in that select committee environment. I’m going to start with the Citizens Advice Bureau, who do incredible work in our communities. We’ve got an amazing Citizens Advice Bureau located down in New Brighton, so I want to give a big shout-out to Stowe and the team at Citizens Advice Bureau for the amazing work that they do to advocate for and support individuals in our community. Now, they particularly call out clause 12 of the bill, and they say they are very concerned about the implications of clause 12 of the bill and recommend that it is removed. The reasons for this that it removes the requirement for continuing disclosure if the creditor maintains a website where the debtor can access information about their unpaid balance after each transaction. What you’re talking about here is an assumption, in law—and it is an assumption—that every New Zealander has easy and ready access to online websites, to the connectivity that they need, and to the data that they have to pay for to do that. You are assuming that every New Zealander can readily and easily access that information online and that if the lender, the big corporation, makes it available online, that person can come and find it. That would be a great assumption to make if you had also committed to resolving the issue that we have in New Zealand about digital equity and the huge gaps that we see for many New Zealanders who are unable to enjoy the access to services that they are increasingly needing to be able to operate in New Zealand currently. We’ve also seen this in some of the bills that we’ve discussed in Budget urgency this week about the interface with Government departments like the Ministry of Social Development and the increasing use of digital decision making, but, also, that digital interaction with those agencies. I think that’s a very good point that the Citizens Advice Bureau make. They do an amazing job of representing. I’m very grateful for their submission. I’m disappointed to see that even with the strength of this submission at that select committee, it was still not listened to by the governing parties, who are instead pushing this bill through today. Now, the next one I want to look at is the Community Law Centres of Aotearoa submission. It’s another amazing organisation that operates across Aotearoa, providing legal support and advice to New Zealanders. We refer a lot of people to community law. They do do great work. Now, the general comment that they start with is that the key concern is in relation to the suite of financial service legislative reforms; the adequate protection of financially or otherwise vulnerable customers. These are people who were given loans that were unaffordable from the start, and there’s a lot of challenges with these loans in having robust enough enforcement of protections in law to stop that from happening. We see there are people out there who will prey on vulnerable people and who will put them into situations that actually push them further into debt. They’re not there to help them. They are there to make things harder for them. They, the people doing this, financially benefit from doing that. They put people in compromising positions in far worse positions, and it would be good for us to be able to provide better protections for those people in law. That is not what is happening with this bill in its current form. The final submission that I wanted to get to was the submission here that came through from Salvation Army. Now, I don’t need to introduce the Salvation Army. Everybody knows about the incredible work that they do in our community. One of their biggest concerns was add-on insurance. This is where people will make a purchase, and then there are other things that the person selling them the product—in this example, it’s a car—adds on top to increase the level of the debt, and often unknowingly people commit to far greater levels of debt than they can afford. The example they give here is a person they call Maria who purchased a car in 2022 for $16,450, but by the time her loan included all of the additional add-ons, that was nearly 30 percent on top—more than $5,000 on top—which took the total loan to $21,503. It makes what seems like a very manageable, sustainable level of debt all of a sudden spiral out of control, because all of these additional costs and charges have been added on top. Sam Uffindell: You haven’t added much value to this. REUBEN DAVIDSON: There is an opportunity in this piece of legislation to stop that kind of behaviour. The Minister across the other side says, “You haven’t added much”. Sorry, not the Minister but the member; sorry for my false advertising—the member on the other side who claims that I haven’t added much should compare the contribution I’ve made in resharing three of the 1,500 submissions, the majority of which are opposed to this piece of legislation, to the contributions made by his colleagues in this House for this piece of legislation that they believe is so important that it has to be moved through in Budget urgency on a Saturday, and yet they will speak for five or eight or 12 seconds on the bill in order to move it through. It’s an embarrassment. It discredits the work that you’re doing when you cannot even speak—not you, Madam Speaker, the member opposite; not a Minister, but the MP opposite. My question in closing for my contribution this afternoon, as it is now in the House, is, really: who are you doing this for? It isn’t the people reflected in those submissions from those highly reputable organisations that do such good work in our community. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted. The House will resume at 2 p.m. Sitting suspended from 1.03 p.m. to 2 p.m. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The House is resumed. We’re on the third reading of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, and we’re on call 9, which is a National call. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (14:00): This bill is about fixing the basics so that we can build our future. I commend it to the House. GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (14:00): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Firstly, I’d just like to say that I have just received a text from my mum to say that it was her birthday yesterday and I missed it, so a really big happy birthday to my wonderful mum. Tom Rutherford: What’s her name? GEORGIE DANSEY: Her name’s Bridget, and she is the best mum. But also there’s been an argument that maybe I didn’t miss her birthday, because it’s still the 28th. I think general consensus was that I’m just a bad daughter, but I’ll go with the 28th! So very happy birthday to my mum, and she’ll be having a lovely day at the beach with her dog while we’re here. Speaking of being here, I’m here to take a call on the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill. I want to just acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I haven’t had a chance to say congratulations to Ryan Hamilton, the new chair; so congratulations to Ryan Hamilton for being the new chair of that committee. I know that this committee have done a lot of work on this bill. Other speakers have spoken to that work, and I want to begin by acknowledging all of that work because I know that this has been a long process. But, again, go back to being in urgency on a Saturday: I could be at the beach with my mum and her lovely dog, whose name is Casper, but I’m not; I’m here. And we’re not even debating a new bill. We’re debating something that could have gone through Parliament on a different day not in urgency. It’s disappointing that we’ve had the Budget on Thursday and all of the excitement around the Budget, but it was actually a complete flop because there was nothing in the Budget—nothing that helped people with the cost of living that our communities are really struggling with right now. I think that this bill speaks to that value that it feels like the Government holds, where they’re just not interested in helping people who really need it. And the way that that connects to this particular bill is that huge power imbalance that exists between large corporations and everyday people trying to live their lives. I feel like being a member here in Parliament, in this House, my main job in doing what I can to influence legislation is to balance things. It’s to balance our country so that there isn’t huge power imbalances sitting between different groups of people and so that we can all get what we need to achieve and do well. And this just gets me, because last night we were sitting in this House and we were debating a bill that would put extra pressure on beneficiaries, the most vulnerable in this community—a bill that would influence and disadvantage our disability community, our elderly, and those dealing with considerable medical issues. Those people from that bill are going to be disadvantaged. And this is just another example—not quite so big, I will say. That one’s pretty significant; this one’s way down the other end, not quite so much, but it’s the same concept. It’s the same values from this Government, which is they just don’t seem to care about the huge power imbalance that exists just from living in our society that we have today. In conclusion of my introduction, Labour does not support this bill, because we believe this bill is taking us in the wrong direction, away from strong consumer protection and towards weaker accountability for lenders. A lot of the discussion has been about the retrospective clause. I acknowledge that that has been removed from the bill after a considerable amount of submissions in the select committee process. The 1,500 submissions—many of them spoke about the unfairness of this retrospective aspect. I want to acknowledge the select committee again for pushing to get rid of that and for the Government to finally—even though it took them a really long time—agree that that was not good lawmaking, that that did not support of the rule of law and it did not support the separation of powers within our society. This bill, as I’ve said, is going in the wrong direction, like so many of the bills we have from this Government. It is not giving people the power to stand up for themselves. When you’re going up against a huge corporation, an individual just is no match, and we in Parliament need to make sure that that power is balanced. I strongly oppose this bill. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (14:06): Oh, Mr Speaker, it’s a great day. We’re going to get this legislation passed. I commend it to the House. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (14:06): Tēnā rawa atu koe, e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā ko taku mihi tuatahi ki a rātou mā, ngā tini aituā o tēnei wā. I tērā wiki ko tērā o ngā tipua arā a Tā Tāmati Reedy. I tēnei rā tonu ko Hirini Moko Mead. Nā reira ki te tini me te mano kua wehe atu, ngā tipua o tēnei wā kua ngaro atu, haere, haere, haere oti koutou ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou te tangata. Hoki mai rā ki a tātou te hunga ora. Kei te hoki aku mahara ki te wā kāinga i tēnei wā tonu, nā te mea i tēnei wā kei te whakanuia te wharekai a Tāwhiwhirangi ki te marae o Rāhui i tana tau iwa tekau. [My acknowledgements to you, Mr Speaker, and in particular I acknowledge, firstly, those who have recently passed on: last week, the great Sir Tāmati Reedy; today, Hirini Moko Mead. So, to the many who have passed on, go well, rest in the true resting place of mankind. I return now to those here, to the living. I turn my thoughts to my home at this time, as at this time there are celebrations for the 90th anniversary of the dining hall, Tāwhiwhirangi, at Rāhui marae.] Thank you for the indulgence of the House, Mr Speaker, as I acknowledge the great losses Māoridom and Aotearoa are feeling at the moment and the many tangihanga across our country. I send aroha to all the grieving families, communities, and to our nation. I also want to acknowledge a very special occasion at Rāhui Marae in Tikitiki, where we are celebrating 90 years of our wharekai Tawhiwhirangi. Speaking of descendants who are celebrating today, that’s who I am thinking of when I stand and speak on this bill, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill—the impacts this will have on descendants across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and across Aotearoa. I will get to the bill. It’s very rich when you hear members opposite heckling this side saying, “Get to the bill.” You guys get to the bill. How about you guys get to the bill, and then we can have a debate, because three seconds talking on the bill and then having the audacity to heckle such a great contribution about the real-life impacts this bill will have on consumers and voters is absolutely rich, and Aotearoa deserves better. Heoi anō rā, this bill transfers responsibility for the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill (CCCFA) to the Financial Markets Authority, which we support. We also support stronger consumer protections and clearer enforcement under the CCCFA. Until we can be guaranteed that clause 47 cannot be added back, we oppose this bill. Clause 47 changes how old lending mistakes are dealt with, giving lenders—lenders—a chance to avoid large penalties for “technical breaches” even if those loans were made before the new law existed. Now, that is the risk for all everyday New Zealanders. The focus on Parliament must always be on the people we serve—the consumer. I did a quick ask around my whānau to see some real-life examples of how this would be affected. Didn’t have to look far. My niece Kellyanne—not her real name; I told her she could remain anonymous—she went and got a loan for a vehicle. That’s not unusual. Now, she’s quite responsible. She’s got different spending habits to her auntie, and different financial management systems than her auntie. She thought, “I don’t want to have this debt looming over me for too long. I’m going to increase my payments”—you know, avoid paying less interest—so she did. She had in her mind the date. That was going to be the day she celebrated; that her vehicle was paid off, and that debt was gone. Because she’s got very responsible financial habits, she studied her bank statement and realised the payments were still going out. How can that be? Then she received a statement saying not only had, in fact, she not paid off the debt; she owed $10,000—she owed $10,000. Now, as I’ve said, this niece is quite financially savvy. She’s got nous, she’s got the inclination, and she’s got the confidence to deal with lenders and banks. Many whānau do not. The power imbalance that Georgie Dansey just mentioned is absolutely real. People assume that the lenders and the banks have all the power and, somehow, they must be wrong—they must have got their calculations wrong. Money is staying in the wrong pockets. In this case, in her case, it was $3,000 owed to her that otherwise may have just stayed in the lender’s pocket instead of hers. Whānau in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and around Aotearoa know exactly the value of each and every dollar right now. For her, that $3,000 will go a long way towards her $600 a week grocery bill. That’s just on the basic groceries to feed her family of five—$600, not $60. That’s why the 2015 disclosure regime was so important. It made sure that borrowers were made aware of the total amount being borrowed. Like I said, some people might just assume that everyone is savvy about these things, but not everyone is. Some people truly believe if they’re borrowing $50,000, they will pay back $50,000. That’s why these consumer protections are so important. It requires any security—people know the security taking over their properties—what their hardship rights are; information, importantly, about dispute resolution; and, of course, severe penalties for lenders were they to breach anything. Taking away those penalties is a major risk for consumers, and that’s what we on this side of the House want to protect: the rights of our consumers. There are many supporters of this bill who argue that it makes access to finance easier. On the face of it, most people would say that’s a great thing. Of course we want to make it easier to get a mortgage or the latest Ford Ranger or whatever it is for you. Access to lending sounds like a really good thing. But what I know for a fact is what borrowing represents to a lot of whānau is hope. It represents security, the opportunity to put a roof over their whānau’s heads, the opportunity to provide what they believe—and it’s their right to—is the best outcome for their whānau. However, when those agreements are entered into without the full knowledge and the full protections of these consumers, that dream can quickly turn into a nightmare where whānau are not aware of the interest payments; do not have the capacity to fulfil the repayments; then not only are they left with dashed dreams but they are still left with the debt, with the shame and the heartache of houses being removed from their whenua, being removed from their communities; and they are still sat there with the debt further back than when they were when they started. A few of my staff who serve Ikaroa-Rāwhiti in electorate and community offices around Aotearoa have been approached not just by families experiencing hardship but by the organisations who serve them; the organisations who come in in the aftermath who have to deal with the whānau who have not only found themselves with a mountain of debt, but, as I said, the disappointment of not even having the asset for which they borrowed. While we are all about efficiencies, the main priority for us on this side of the House is to protect the rights of consumers so that whānau are not left overpaying by $10,000 or not actually having to navigate a system where people whose job it is to do this—people have got to take time out of their day from their work to navigate these systems just to make sure they’re not getting ripped off. Hei whakakapi [in closing], it would be very remiss of me, as the spokesperson for sport and recreation for the Labour Party, not to acknowledge Ngāti Porou East Coast and Poverty Bay, who are about to take the field for the King’s Birthday local derby in Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa. Go the coast; he wīwī Nāti. Kāore rawa atu mātou e whakaae ki tēnei pire. [We absolutely do not agree with this bill.] NANCY LU (National) (14:16): It is my privilege to speak to commend the third reading of this bill. But before I commend it to the House, I have to say happy birthday to Minister Mike Butterick. I commend the bill to the House in building the future. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (14:16): I commend this 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 third time. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 45 New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Documents and supporting material