Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8725] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 4 deals with enforcement and remedies and I would like to touch on clause 76A “Enforcement of buy-back transaction prohibited”. I am pleased that the enforcement of buy-back schemes is prohibited but I wonder whether this clause actually picks up those people who are already trapped in a buy-back scheme. Such schemes have been set up under a previous Act and I wonder whether this provision will protect those people. I have the feeling it will not. 
The next point I would like to raise relates to clause 80 “Reasonable mistake defence”. It is quite easy to claim a reasonable mistake if people have it planned the right way. When people are caught they can plead there was a reasonable mistake. There are ways of proving that even though they had set out deliberately to make a mistake. I have the feeling that that provision is a let-off for some people particularly those people dealing in financial areas. They are the ones who have no scruples and the ones who are likely to use that defence having set themselves up to deceive people and then claim it was a genuine mistake. That will be a tough one to police. 
The next clause I will look at is clause 82 “Power to order certain persons not to act as creditors lessors transferees or buy-back promoters”. Certain people and companies will be able to set themselves up with very complex schemes to avoid being affected by this provision. Once again it is those unscrupulous people who will have extraordinary ways of avoiding being detected and who will move on to another company or organisation—fronted by somebody else perhaps—to run exactly the same scheme. It will be very difficult to police. 
I come back to Paul Adams’ amendment. He wants to raise the penalty for an offence from 3 months to 1 year. That is commendable and as he says it makes the “time suit the crime”. Unfortunately this Government has a tendency to allow this sort of period— 
Brian Connell 
: Soft on it! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: It is certainly soft on crime. This sort of period falls into the category of home detention. That is no penalty at all for this particular crime because people who have been convicted will sit at home and continue their transactions there. 
Judith Collins 
: Sit at home and do Internet gambling. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Yes they could sit at home and do Internet gambling as Judith Collins mentions. These people will be able to sit at home and continue their illegal transactions and schemes. It is no real penalty—3 months or 1 year is not a penalty particularly when people have the right to apply for home detention. The fine of $200000 or both penalties together might be a little bit of a slow-down but these people are dealing with quite extraordinary figures in their finances and I suspect that even $200000 would be a drop in the bucket for many of those operators and it may well miss the mark. I tell Mr Adams that it was a good attempt but unfortunately the law as it stands today will mean it will have very little effect as far as penalties of 3 months or 1 year are concerned. The important thing is that this part has a provision to enforce the fact that buy-back transactions are prohibited. We commend that provision and I certainly hope it is capable of protecting those who are already in such schemes.