| |
Writer's CD
submission to RBA sent 8 Dec 2011 Intro Letter
to Maurice Blackburn Submission Letter to Maurice Blackburn
Defined Terms and Documents
5 Ronald Ave
Freshwater NSW 2096
scribepj@bigpond.com
0434 715.861
25 June
2017
Insert
one of the two enclosed CDs in a Windows PC
which will open at this SecondLetterToMauriceBlackburn_25-Jun-17.htm
If using a MAC, or the enclosed USB
stick drive,
open this letter at CreditCards\MauriceBlackburn\SecondLetterToMauriceBlackburn_25-Jun-17.htm
Mr. Andrew Watson
National Head of
Class Actions
Maurice Blackburn
Level 10, 456 Lonsdale Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
(03) 9605.2735
Dear
Andrew
Class Action
representing 400,000
circa
Eligible Persistent Revolver Plaintiffs
The Writer refers
to his Intro Letter
to Maurice Blackburn dated 8 May 2017 and his
Submission Letter
dated 8 May 2017.
Section 4 (re the
PSB) of
Extensive Powers and
Responsibilities of the RBA
now includes the below extract of the Payments System Board's obligation to (ALL)
Australians
regarding its "payments system
policy":
2.
The
Reserve Bank
Act 1959
establishes the
Payments System
Board.
Section 10B(3) of
the Act states:
-
' It is the duty
of the Payments
System Board to
ensure, within
the limits of
its powers,
that:
a.
the Bank's
payments
system
policy is
directed
to
the greatest
advantage of
the people
of Australia;
and
b.
the powers
of the Bank
under the
Payment
Systems
(Regulation)
Act 1998
and the
Payment
Systems and
Netting Act
1998
are
exercised in
a way that,
in the
Board's
opinion,
will best
contribute
to:
i.
controlling
risk in
the
financial
system;
and
ii.
promoting
the
efficiency
of the
payments
system;
and
iii.
promoting
competition
in the
market
for
payment
services,
consistent
with the
overall
stability
of the
financial
system…'.
The above inclusion has been made because the below extract from
Section 3 re the
Reserve Bank
notes
"other than its payments system
policy":
(1) Subject to this Part, the Reserve Bank Board has power to determine
the policy of the Bank in relation to any matter, other than its payments system
policy, and to take such
action as is necessary to ensure that effect is given by the Bank to the
policy so determined.
Separately, below is an extract
from Point 7 of the lengthy heading for my
Submission Letter to Maurice Blackburn dated 8 May 2017:
"Other contributing Australian interested parties recognise protecting
'vulnerable consumers', but not the RBA."
If you click on the above URL and scroll down to 'Proponents in Australia that largely pursued the above BIS Five
New Rights for credit and store card
users',
you will see details of five entities and their documents dated between
July 2010 and Aug 2015 that recognised the need to protect
'vulnerable', 'at risk' Credit Cardholders.
Other Documents That Recognise 'Vulnerable (At Risk) Cardholders now
provides extracts from five other authorities
that expressed concern (dated as
far back as 2002 and up to 2014)
re the plight of
vulnerable Credit Cardholders.
Some of these reports/documents recognise that
vulnerable Credit Cardholders were being targeted by Credit Card
Issuers
-
1.
SENATE
STANDING COMMITTEES ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
2. Commonwealth Government Consumer and Financial
Literacy Taskforce,
3. Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs,
4. Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW) Inc;
and
5. three academics from the
Melbourne
Law School, University of Melb)
.
Below are some
pertinent extracts:
Chapter 9 - Other issues: Utilities, credit, gambling
of
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES ON COMMUNITY AFFAIRS -
REPORTS ON
COMPLETED INQUIRIES -
2002 - 2004
9.10 The Australian Consumers' Association (ACA) articulated this concern:
...we have become increasingly alarmed at levels of debt among
Australian households. While that is certainly spread across all income levels
and encompasses a variety of sources of credit – not just credit cards but
personal loans and, of course, mortgages –
we are particularly concerned about the
impact on low-income households who have quite high debt to income ratios and
their capacity to manage that debt, particularly in the case of illness or other
unexpected life events such as unemployment, and to maintain their capacity to
stay out of bankruptcy in particular.[12]
9.11 The Australian Consumers' Association stated that, based on numerous
studies, it was single parents, renters and others on low incomes that
experienced the most difficulties in managing credit card debt. The ACA noted
that not only are increasing numbers of these people presenting to financial
counsellors with problems arising out of
credit card use and other inappropriate levels of lending by financial
institutions, but it is also exacerbating the degree to which they can be caught
in a poverty cycle through debt traps.
Not only are these
people going through the stress of being in a situation of being overcommitted
when it comes to their debt levels and their credit card use, but they then
become targets for refinancing and the churning that goes on by a variety of
agencies wishing to charge them fees to put them into other credit products and
further exacerbate the extent to which they are caught in that debt trap.[13]
Responsible
lending practices in relation to consumer credit cards
-
Prepared for the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs
(now the
Consumer Affairs Foundation)
- August 2008 -
State of New South Wales through the Office of Fair Trading, 2008
Government
intervention therefore will aim to:
1. Assist consumer choice of competitively priced credit card products;
2. Adequately protect consumers,
especially vulnerable or disadvantaged consumers, from lending practices
which irresponsibly
provide continuing credit at levels which cannot be repaid without
substantial hardship;
2.1.3 Bankruptcies
A partner at
chartered accountant Hall Chadwick, Mr Paul Leroy, was quoted in March 2007
as saying that the inability to meet credit card payments is the biggest
reason people go bankrupt.8
2.1.4 Impact on consumers and potential wider impact
The issue of concern in this paper is that a relatively small sector of the
community is vulnerable to exploitation by card issuers and, because
of a small income base, once in a situation where all income is totally
committed to maintenance and servicing debt,
there is no way that the consumer can reverse the circumstances in
which they have unwittingly become involved. This group of affected
consumers will be referred to in this paper as “disadvantaged.”
The personal and
social impact of debt can be severe: it can lead to family
breakdown and violence, social exclusion and crime.
Wesley Mission research
conducted in 2006 from a random sample of 400 households reported that 58
percent of the people who responded said that financial stress had an impact
on
themselves, their family or the broader community in the past six years. Of
the total
sample
5.8% said worry about money contributed to relationship breakdown;
3.5%
said worry about money contributed to substance abuse; 3.3% said it
contributed to
increased or frequent gambling, and 1.3% said it contributed to violence in
the relationship.
As well, the ongoing commitment to interest payments on credit card debt has
a major impact on a person’s long term capacity to provide for themselves in
respect of housing, health, education and retirement. It is clear that this
commitment will exclude expenditure on other goods and services, some of
which may be for essential items or health care.
There may therefore be increased demands on all helping agencies whether
government
or community based, to assist those who are unable to provide for
themselves, and has implications for pensions, health provision, housing and
other
government services.
The Commonwealth
Government Consumer and Financial Literacy Taskforce was set up in February
2004 to develop a national strategy for consumer and financial literacy.
The Taskforce noted that “while not actually breaching any laws, it is an unfortunate
fact that many business operators in Australia continue to act in unethical
or unhelpful ways to consumers. A good example of this is the way in which
some credit services are marketed towards vulnerable consumers.”
Submission to
the 'Responsible lending practices in relation to consumer
credit cards' - Nov
2008
from
the Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW) Inc
Summary of submissions
•
CCLC
considers credit card debt to be the largest single cause of debt problems in
the consumer credit market, despite the lower amounts involved as compared to
housing finance.
•
While housing finance has a greater potential effect on the wider economy,
credit card debt interacts with housing debt in obscure and insidious ways,
negatively impacting on the ability of many borrowers to meet their mortgage
commitments in the longer term.
•
CCLC does not support any
option short of additional regulation of lending in the credit card market.
•
Responsible lending obligations should apply across the market, not just in
relation to credit cards.
•
Responsible lending legislation should provide an incentive for lenders to
review their practices carefully to ensure they do not lend irresponsibly.
•
Responsible lending legislation should
provide a fair remedy for affected consumers.
•
There should be a set period (perhaps 3
years) after which no further draw downs should be allowed on existing accounts,
with borrowers who qualify for new accounts with higher minimum repayments being
able to apply for alternative products as appropriate.
The RIS refers to “ a
relatively small section of the community”.. “vulnerable to exploitation by card issuers” …”because of a small income base”.
Of the callers analysed by CCLC from the 2004-2006 period, the caller’s income was low in 58% of cases
(below $26,000 per annum) and medium (below $52,000) in a further 15%. Three per cent
identified an income level of over $52,000 and the remainder (24%) did not specify their
income level. This suggests that although credit card debt is a particular burden for very
low-income consumers, it certainly extends into the middle-income bracket and beyond.
The financial literacy of young Australians: An empirical study and implications
for consumer
protection and ASIC’s National Financial Literacy Strategy
-
Paul Ali, Malcolm Anderson, Cosima McRae and Ian Ramsay
of
Melbourne Law School, University of Melb
- 2014
While these objectives are laudable, Australian and international
advocates for vulnerable and low-income consumers have warned that financial literacy, with its focus on
consumer education, should not be implemented at the expense of strong regulation. Assisting
consumers who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and unmanageable
debt requires more than financial literacy education. Further, consumer advocates submit it is erroneous to assume that all
detriment, particularly for low-income and vulnerable consumers, is caused by
low financial literacy.
|
Mindful of the above evidence of
vulnerable Credit Cardholders (as far back as 2002 and probably earlier)
and the below extract of
Section 3
and
Section 4
of
Extensive Powers and
Responsibilities of the RBA
to determine policy to
the greatest advantage of the
people of Australia,
it is puzzling that the
Reserve Bank
-
A. continued to ignore such overwhelming
evidence that Credit Cardholders, many with poor
Financial Literacy Skills,
namely
Revolvers
were paying the vast bulk of
Interest and
Late Payment Fees and
Transactors
were enjoying their
Lines of Credit
at no material cost and some with a net benefit due to
Rewards Programs; and
B. failed (as
obligated under Section 11 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959) to inform the
Commonwealth Government that the
Reserve Bank was obligated to
Determine Standards to -
(i) ensure that the
User Pays Principle
applied to
Credit Card Products;
and
(ii) re-regulate a max
Credit Card
interest rate/s during the 25 years since
LOAN RATE STICKINESS: THEORY AND EVIDENCE
was published in June 1992 because the spread
between
Credit
Card Issuers'
Wholesale
Cost Of Funds has increased from less than 1% in April
1985 (when the
Reserve Bank removed the 18% cap on the maximum Credit Card interest rate) to the
current
spread of
18.5% (Overnight
Cash Rate
of 1.5% and the
Credit Card
Purchase
Interest Rate
of 20%)
[max
Cash Advance interest rate
in April 2017 is 29.49% representing a spread of 28%].
3. Reserve Bank's
"catch-all"
responsibility, pursuant to the below
Reserve Bank Act (1959), Part II, Section 10
''Functions of Reserve Bank Board",
to
determine the policy of the Bank in relation
to any matter, other than its payments
system policy, and to take such action as is
necessary to ensure 'inter alia' (2)(c) below:
(1) Subject to this
Part, the Reserve Bank Board has power to determine the policy of the
Bank in relation to any matter, other than its payments system policy,
and to take such action as is necessary to ensure that effect is given
by the Bank to the policy so determined.
(2) It is the
duty of the Reserve Bank Board, within the limits of its powers, to
ensure that the monetary and banking policy of
the Bank is directed
to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia
and that the powers of
the Bank under this Act and any other Act, other than the
Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998, the
Payment Systems and Netting Act 1998
and Part 7.3 of the
Corporations Act 2001, are exercised in such a manner as, in the opinion of
the Reserve Bank Board, will best contribute to:
(a)
the stability of the currency of Australia;
(b)
the maintenance of full employment in Australia; and
(c)
the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia.
-
The
Reserve Bank
Act 1959
establishes the
Payments System
Board.
Section 10B(3) of
the Act states:
-
'It is the duty
of the Payments
System Board to
ensure, within
the limits of
its powers,
that:
-
the Bank's
payments
system
policy is
directed
to
the greatest
advantage of
the people
of Australia;
and
-
the powers
of the Bank
under the
Payment
Systems
(Regulation)
Act 1998
and the
Payment
Systems and
Netting Act
1998
are
exercised in
a way that,
in the
Board's
opinion,
will best
contribute
to:
-
controlling
risk in
the
financial
system;
and
-
promoting
the
efficiency
of the
payments
system;
and
-
promoting
competition
in the
market
for
payment
services,
consistent
with the
overall
stability
of the
financial
system…'.
To the knowledge of the Writer,
unlike the
UK Credit Card Regulator,
BIS, the
Reserve Bank has never acknowledged the need to protect
'vulnerable', 'at risk' Credit Cardholders, but has recognised the
financial burden born by
Revolvers
and specifically
Persistent Revolvers
(details/dates noted in those two definitions).
Yours sincerely
Phil
Johnston
aka
Bank Teller
| |
|