Coddington Deborah: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8695] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill and to address the title. I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee why there has been a change to the title. Up to this stage we have debated a bill titled the Consumer Credit Bill 2002. This morning the bill is back on the Order Paper as the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill still showing 2002. We are actually in 2003 in case people in the Labour Party have not noticed. 
The commentary on the bill as reported back from the Commerce Committee does not provide a good enough reason for the change of title. The commentary tells us that part of the reason is that Part 5 which we will be discussing later on addresses non-consumer arrangements and non-consumer contracts. I shall refer briefly to some of those reasons. A previous speaker mentioned the need for a dictionary when considering the words used here. All of those things do concern consumers but does the Government now consider that small business is not a consumer? That could be the only reason for changing the title. The bill should be called the “Leaving Small Business Out in the Cold Bill” because that is what it does. I call on the Minister to take a call to give a valid explanation of the change in the title of the bill. 
A previous speaker for New Zealand First said the bill is being rushed through. I do not think that Minister could rush to anything—except an art award that would be seen on television. If she were really passionate about the bill’s ability to address consumer finance we would not have waited so long for it to be introduced. After all the Ministry of Consumer Affairs discussed the issue in 1999. It has taken for ever and the title still includes the year 2002. 
The bill could be called the “Loan Sharks Bill” because it will make it much easier for loan sharks. The bill has absolutely nothing to do with protecting consumer finance. It has to do with paving the way for loan sharks. It should be called the “Loan Sharks Bill” because it will make it much harder for those poor people to get access to credit. Credit will be more expensive. Rich people can afford lawyers so they will be fine. However loan sharks will move into the underworld of advancing credit. In terms of complying with the legislation in respect of recovery of payments their way will be a brick through the window or sending the heavies around to deal with a debtor. 
I call on the Minister to give us a valid reason why the title of the bill was changed. It was introduced as the Credit Consumer Bill and was referred to the select committee. It was reported back with recommendations and changes but some changes made it worse. It has been reported back as the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill. 
The hardship provisions will make it easier for some people to get out of repaying credit. They can apply to the court if there has been a relationship break-up or some form of hardship. [ 
Interruption 
] Why does that member not take a call? Why does he not stand on his hind legs? I know it is difficult for us to see him even when he is standing on his hind legs but why does he not get up and take a call instead of bleating?