Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on this the third reading of the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill. When this bill was introduced into the House we held a view that there were a number of things that it was doing that were positive—things such as further regulation of mobile traders fit and proper person tests—and while we generally have issues with creating new regulations we did agree that in this instance a regulation-making power to allow the Government or the Minister in the future to determine that certain payment arrangements should be deemed to be credit contracts for the purposes of the legislation we thought was a very very good idea.We were a little sceptical not on the idea of a total cost of credit cap but about just what it might mean in terms of the availability of credit for those who genuinely need it. Let's be fair I mean people find themselves in enormous difficulty in some occasions but everyone enters into their first loan at least under these high-cost lenders on the basis of need. It's not purely a discretionary desire. So we were a little bit mindful that there was potential that a regime that was too hard or too harsh might actually create other harms for people—fix some but exacerbate others.We were also concerned at the change to the obligations on lenders not just high-cost lenders about establishing the bona fides of affordability for borrowers. It's fair to say that that one at least was handled very well by officials in the select committee stage and we are comfortable with it.Likewise looking into the heart of the discussion document that led up to the introduction of the bill and then later confirmed in discussions with officials it really looked like they had structured the total interest cap in a manner that wasn't meant to knock out large swathes of commercially available high-cost lending products today. It was instead more focused on not allowing those things to expand or get worse. So we had reached a degree of comfort in that area as well although we still have lingering concerns.There will be a change to availability of credit for people in need under this bill when it is passed and that will force some people into other areas of harm. It may not be black market lending but one thing—for instance it was postulated by officials that in the UK up to 30 percent of people unable now to get a high-cost loan will borrow from family or friends as well. But when pressed on that officials accepted that in most circumstances those families or friends that they seek to borrow from will be in very similar circumstances to the person who's already in financial trouble. So there is a real risk that that simply spreads a bit of misery around rather than genuinely solving a problem. But for all of that we had determined that the changes weren't a great evil and we were comfortable enough to support the bill.But then out of the blue of course came this daily interest rate cap which came out without official advice. The officials weren't even asked to give advice on the merits of it. Before the bill's introduction they had been asked and had given advice that it was a bad idea and that the consequences of it couldn't be accurately predicted. Their advice at the time that the Minister accepted at the time was don't do it. Then in the w-e-a-k of delivery out of the blue on Tuesday all of a sudden: a daily interest rate which the Minister hadn't bothered talking to officials about. This will exacerbate this issue about will this constrain availability of credit to those who actually need it and what will that then lead to in terms of their borrowing habits and the financial straits they may find themselves in?For that though—for all of that—the question for us then was: if we have an issue particularly with this daily interest rate cap and the manner in which it was introduced is that issue sufficiently serious that we would refuse to support the bill? Although the reservations persist and are real with the review in three years we think there are sufficient grounds that if it doesn't work well it can be removed. So we will continue to support this bill through to its conclusion in this the third reading.