Connell Brian: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8694] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The “CCCF Bill” has had a number of iterations. It started out as the Consumer Credit Bill but as my colleague Mr Ryall has pointed out there are a number of titles that could be floated and I want to build an argument as to why they have merit. I think an apt title is “Increased Compliance Bill” and I want to build an argument to demonstrate why I feel that is so. The “Nanny State Bill” would be an apt title. I will deal with that when we come to the hardship provision which I think is an absolute nonsense. The hardship provision will undermine the legislation’s credibility as far as the finance industry is concerned and will do immense harm. 
The bill could also be renamed the “Disclosure Bill”. When one thinks about it this bill is all about disclosure. But disclosure would not relate to the Prime Minister would it? Remember “corngate”? Members will recall all the “disclosure” we have gone through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Can the member— 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I am relating my comments to the title. The title “Disclosure Bill” goes to the heart of confidence—the “Corngate Disclosure Bill”. Remember the one memo that was held back—the only one that was not disclosed? Well that one memo turned into 105. If one were talking to the Prime Minister one would not know what else could be disclosed. God only knows! I put it to the Committee that the country needs a conservative— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The title is a very narrow debate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I am talking about disclosure. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Let’s have a few declarations here. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Harry Duynhoven—the “One Rule For Me” member—calls out. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill deals with disclosure around interest rates fees payment schedules and legal fees. I accept that that is fair and reasonable though it begs the question that small business is not covered in the title. Why is the title not extended to “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Including Small Business) Bill”? That would be fair and reasonable. With the benefit of time I am sure we could find a more concise title. We do need to be told why small business is not covered. About 80 percent of small business in this country is run by owners who employ five people or less. Why are they not being afforded consumer protection like individuals? I want to expand on that point and build my argument as we go through the Committee stage. 
The provisions on foreign languages in terms of contracts are clear enough. People should understand what they are signing and what they are contracting into. That is why I go back to the suggested title of increased compliance costs. Every time someone goes to a solicitor a compliance cost will be built into the credit consumer arrangement that people are entering into. That is something I want the Committee to dwell on as we go through this bill. Certainly the hardship provisions will create uncertainty. The way the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill is constructed at the moment it will bring that uncertainty to the retail sector of large banking organisations across this country and I do not think that was ever the intention. The bill will drive up compliance costs and that is a matter the National Opposition wants the Committee to think about. That is why National is giving this bill very limited support and is suggesting that it be sent back to the Commerce Committee for further work. 
The Minister in the chair should take a very good look at the legislation as it is constructed at present because it contains loopholes that will do enormous harm to the finance industry.