Key points
- ASIC’s role is to ensure consumer credit protections are universally applied and enjoyed. That’s why ongoing work to examine compliance across the sector continues to be a priority.
- Key areas of focus include mortgage brokers, motor vehicle finance, financial hardship, debt management, credit repair and debt collection.
- ASIC continues to take action across the spectrum, wherever we see credit-related misconduct. Entities whose conduct causes harm to consumers – or harm to their financial futures – should expect ASIC to take an active interest.
Introduction
Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here.
I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Yugambeh people. I pay my respects to their elders past and present – and extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today.
I understand that this is the 35th annual Credit Law Conference. The fact that this event has been drawing a crowd for so many years speaks to the importance of credit.
Credit is central to our economy. It gives individuals and businesses the ability to exert control over their financial futures. But, where not done well, credit can cause real and lasting harm.
That is why – after more than three decades – the focus of this conference continues to be on the laws that protect people who use credit products.
And that’s where ASIC comes in.
We commonly describe ourselves as Australia’s corporate, markets, financial services and consumer credit regulator – and the consumer credit plank of our role is a key priority for us. So today I’d like to speak about ASIC’s priorities in credit – and what we’re doing to help protect financial futures.
My first engagement with credit
When dealing with credit issues at ASIC, I’m often reminded of my first contact with the world of consumer credit in the early 1990s – when this conference was one of the newest events on the block.
As a university student, living in rented accommodation and surviving on casual wages from hospitality work, I needed a bit of extra money for an overseas study trip. A large bank had a branch on campus, and having heard of a friend’s success in getting a credit card, I decided to give it a crack.
After a short application and cursory conversation, a week or two later I was the pleased holder of my very first credit card. Sure enough, I ran it up to my credit limit in the course of my travels. And sure enough, the bank soon obliged with the offer of a credit limit increase – as it did on a number of other occasions when I hit my limit.
Now I was lucky. I was nearing the end of my degree and on track to find full-time work, so I didn’t end up in serious trouble. But that story could so easily have ended differently.
The evolution of consumer credit law
I’d like to think that kind of lending behaviour wouldn’t happen today.
It shouldn’t – because consumer credit protections have been significantly transformed since the early 1990s, most notably through the introduction of national laws overseen by ASIC.
These laws seek to acknowledge the economic benefits of credit by setting a framework within which it can be provided. But they also acknowledge the risks.
They require lenders to act responsibly, to consider a customer’s circumstances, needs and objectives, and not put them at foreseeable risk of financial hardship.
They acknowledge that while we can’t predict a person’s financial future, we can help them to protect it.
If, for whatever reason, that future brings adverse circumstances that put a customer in financial hardship, lenders must respond quickly and appropriately to requests for assistance.
If a customer who needs help finding a pathway out of debt engages with the services of a debt management business, they are entitled to be treated fairly. They should not end up worse off because of it.
And while creditors have a right to recover payments owed to them, they must take care to ensure that they and any third parties they engage respect the rights of their customers. These are, after all, some of the most vulnerable people in the system.
ASIC’s priorities in credit
While there have been incremental reforms to consumer credit law since the introduction of the National Credit Act, the core protections that it introduced are, today, relatively long-standing.
ASIC’s role is to ensure they are universally applied – and universally enjoyed. But, based on our work, we have observed that isn’t the case – and that’s why ongoing work to examine compliance with consumer credit law continues to hold a key place in our priorities.
A little under two months ago, we announced our strategic priorities for 2025-26[1]. The first of these is to ‘improve consumer outcomes’.
That includes an explicit focus on credit and, in particular, lender responses to financial hardship. It also includes a focus on mortgage brokers, motor vehicle finance, debt management and credit repair, and debt collection.
We have work underway across all of these areas, which I’ll speak about today. This includes several new credit-related surveillances.
Mortgage brokers
The first area of our credit priorities I’d like to speak about involves conduct in relation to lending.
Home lending is the largest area of consumer credit in Australia, and as the role of mortgage brokers in this sector continues to grow, ASIC will be taking a closer interest in the conduct of brokers and aggregators.
Currently, around three quarters of new residential mortgages are facilitated by a broker[2]. While the sector attracts relatively few consumer complaints, we are conscious that misconduct by brokers will not always be obvious to their customers.
ASIC has been engaging for some months with several large mortgage aggregators in relation to brokers’ compliance with their best interests obligations. So far, we have gathered data relating to brokers’ product recommendation behaviour, loan flows, remuneration and consumer complaints.
In the coming months we will be focusing further on brokers’ complaints handling, and audit and compliance practices.
We will review brokers’ compliance with their internal dispute resolution obligations – and seek to understand how brokers identify and respond to complaints that flag potential concerns about compliance with the best interests duty.
We will also be looking at the audit and compliance practices of large aggregators. We want to understand how effectively they are supervising their mortgage broker representatives and ensuring they comply with their best interests duty.
If we identify serious issues, we will take appropriate action.
Since July 2019, ASIC action against finance and mortgage brokers has resulted in 11 criminal convictions. A further 22 individuals or companies were removed from credit services. Seven individuals or companies were removed from financial services. And one individual was disqualified from managing corporations. This highlights the broad range of tools available for us to use in response to any misconduct we may uncover in the course of our review.
Motor vehicle finance
While the value of loans in relation to motor vehicle finance is of course smaller than home lending, conduct in the provision of motor vehicle finance continues to be the subject of a significant number of complaints to ASIC.
Earlier this year, ASIC commenced a new surveillance of the motor vehicle finance sector[3].
We are examining the practices of seven lenders and will also look at the conduct of brokers and intermediaries.
We are particularly interested in understanding the experiences of individuals living in regional and remote areas, including First Nations communities.
The review will consider overall compliance with the law, as well as consumer outcomes in relation to loan defaults, hardship and dispute resolution processes.
In the coming weeks, we will be publishing some initial insights from that work, with a more detailed report to come later.
While that surveillance is focused on the motor vehicle finance sector as a whole, we are also taking more targeted action in relation to used car finance, with a particular focus on misconduct involving vulnerable consumers.
We currently have proceedings against car dealership Diamond Wheels, Keo Automotive and a former director for allegedly providing car loans to consumers while unlicensed, with many of those consumers having paid an excessive interest rate[4] .
In September, our proceedings against car finance company Money3 Loans concluded, with the court ruling largely in Money3’s favour[5].
Some limited contraventions of the responsible lending provisions of the Credit Act were found in our favour. The Court found that Money3 failed to make reasonable inquiries about or verify each borrower’s living expenses based on bank statement transaction data and, in one instance, failed to make reasonable inquiries about a borrower’s requirements and objectives. However, the Court rejected the balance of ASIC’s claims.
Despite the outcome, we believe it is important to take action to enforce the law where there are concerns a breach has occurred.
ASIC took this case following numerous complaints – including from consumer advocates – about the inappropriate provision of finance to vulnerable consumers. We are currently considering the judgment and our next steps.
Financial hardship
Another area that has been the subject of numerous complaints has been the financial hardship practices of lenders – and our focus on these practices will continue into 2025-26.
We know the causes of financial hardship are many and varied. As with many of life’s misfortunes, they often arrive with little warning. But when they do, a helping hand can make a huge difference.
As a result, the way in which lenders respond to requests for hardship assistance can have lasting impacts, positive or negative, on a customer’s financial future.
That’s why we will continue to pursue enforcement outcomes where we see risk of significant consumer harm.
In September, ASIC asked the Federal Court to approve a $40 million penalty against ANZ for hardship-related failures – as part of a record $240 million package of penalties for a range of misconduct, which ANZ has admitted to[6].
In August, the Federal Court imposed a $15.5 million penalty on National Australia Bank and subsidiary for failing to respond to hardship applications within the required 21-day timeframe[7]. We are awaiting the outcome of similar proceedings against Westpac[8].
We have also filed our first case against a credit licensee in relation to its approach to assessing hardship applications.
We allege home loan manager, Resimac, imposed a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to hardship applications, requiring customers to provide extensive standard information without considering whether it was relevant or necessary to that customer’s individual circumstances[9].
It’s worth mentioning that the use of such ‘cookie-cutter’ approaches was among a range of concerns we highlighted in our landmark 2024 financial hardship report.
Since then, we have continued to monitor lenders’ hardship practices and, pleasingly, there are signs of improvement – but we have made it clear that we still have concerns about the overall quality of some lenders’ hardship responses[10].
Debt management, credit repair and debt collection
As I acknowledged earlier in my speech, some people who find themselves in financial difficulty may engage the services of a debt management business to help them find a pathway out.
Yet we have heard numerous distressing accounts of people being let down by these firms – or, worse, having their problems compounded.
Consequently, we have stepped up our scrutiny of the practices of businesses involved in debt management and credit repair.
Since 2021, individuals and entities providing these services have been required to hold an Australian credit licence, unless a relevant exemption applies. The regime was introduced to protect consumers from predatory practices – and requires holders to abide by all the obligations that a licence imposes on them.
We are undertaking a surveillance which will look at how the sector – comprising around 100 licensees – is complying with those obligations[11].
We will review instances where debt management firms may have failed consumers – including by not meeting the terms of their agreements, charging high fees for no or limited services, or not communicating adequately with them.
We will also seek to understand the varying debt management and credit repair business models in operation.
ASIC has also been actively engaging with consumer advocates to better understand current issues and potential consumer harms in relation to debt collection – and we intend to commence a surveillance in the coming months.
The laws governing debt collection conduct apply to creditors and collectors alike. Lenders should take care to ensure they and any third parties they engage in this process uphold the consumer protections these laws provide.
Our surveillance will include credit providers, as well as debt buyers and contingent collectors – and we have begun approaching entities we plan to include in our review.
Misconduct in debt management and collection is also an ASIC enforcement priority[12].
In June, ASIC refused the licence application of Bakken Holdings – against whom we have ongoing proceedings – meaning it can no longer provide debt management services[13].
ASIC is suing Bakken Holdings – trading as Solve My Debt Now – following concerns of substantial consumer harm[14]. We are also suing Bakken’s director and co-owner for their involvement in the alleged false or misleading representations made by the company.
Solve My Debt Now made promises to help customers by collecting funds from them, on-paying their creditors and negotiating with creditors to reduce debt.
In reality, we allege, the business failed, in many instances, to pass on customers’ payments to those creditors. We also allege that, in many cases, the fees it charged for its services exceeded the amount the debts were reduced – leaving clients worse off.
We have also taken action where we see misleading statements by debt management firms about the quality of debt management outcomes offered.
In April, we issued infringement notices on Chapter Two Holdings about misleading statements on its website that the company had “wiped $80 million in debt” and “saved consumers $30 million in interest”, that they were not able to substantiate[15].
In relation to debt collection, in June we commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against Venture 5 Group – trading as CashnGo Australia – for a range of contraventions, including alleged unconscionable debt recovery practices relating to small amount credit contracts[16].
Through its online loan application process, CashnGo either obtained consumers’ internet banking login details or required them to connect their bank account to a third-party provider.
This enabled them to monitor consumers’ bank balances on an hourly basis – and, in the event of default, to debit the consumer’s bank account as soon as funds became available.
Between 20 April 2022 and 7 May 2025, we allege about 20% of its small amount credit contracts – held by over 34,000 customers – experienced an unscheduled debit after defaulting on a payment. This left some with less than $5 in their bank account. During this period, CashnGo earned $77 million in revenue.
Business models designed to avoid consumer credit protections
The final area of our priorities that I’d like to touch on is business models designed to avoid consumer credit protections.
These business models take advantage of perceived legal loopholes – and, with it, vulnerable consumers. As a key enforcement priority, ASIC is closing those loopholes and closing in on the businesses who seek to exploit them.
In August, Rent4Keeps and its franchisee Darranda were fined $7.4 million for overcharging vulnerable consumers on essential household goods[17].
The Federal Court found the arrangements, which were styled as ‘consumer leases’ so they would fall outside of the credit protections, were in fact credit contracts.
As a result of this misconduct, customers who could least afford it, were typically charged almost four times the retail cost of essential items.
To give you an example – and keep in mind that the majority of these people were in receipt of social security payments – a 10kg washing machine, retailing at $795 was sold for $4,316, to be paid for over two years.
In a similar vein, we have commenced proceedings against online consumer goods suppler, Snaffle, operated by Walker Stores[18]. Here again, we have seen examples of customers being charged exorbitant amounts for essentials such as fridges and phones.
We allege Snaffle inflated the cost of household goods and electronics – and applied unlawful interest charges through a pricing structure designed to circumvent the legal cap.
Of course, business models designed to avoid consumer credit protections come in many forms.
Another common tactic involves consumer loans styled as business loans, with the objective of this artifice of course being to assert that consumer credit protections will not apply. This is an artifice that ASIC will continue to correct, through all avenues available to us.
While this has been a practice of longstanding concern to ASIC, a current example is our case against Oak Capital[19].
We allege Oak Capital engaged in unconscionable conduct to avoid the National Credit Code. That it employed a lending model requiring a company to be the named borrower for loans that the company did not benefit from or have any genuine interest in. That between 7 March 2019 and 4 October 2023, it made up to 47 loans totalling over $37 million under this model.
Despite the purported business loan arrangements, the individuals seeking the loans provided their own homes as security. Several of these individuals defaulted on their loans and Oak Capital repossessed their homes.
Losing one’s home can have a profound effect on a person’s financial wellbeing, so it’s outcomes such as these that should be front of mind when we think about what it means to protect financial futures.
Conclusion
In closing, while it might be tempting to think that poor lending practices are isolated to particular forms of lending, ASIC’s regulatory and enforcement record tells a different story.
We continue to take action across the spectrum, wherever we see credit-related misconduct. From major retailers to major banks. From some of the country’s biggest brands to lesser-known operators.
In taking these actions, our concern is with outcomes – not the type of credit, or the type of business involved. If the result of an entity’s conduct in any part of the credit system causes harm to consumers – or harm to their financial futures – you should expect ASIC to take an active interest.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’ll now be happy to take some questions.
[2] 2025-Value-of-Mortgage-and-Finance-Broking-Report.pdf
[3] ASIC puts car finance under the microscope including outcomes for regional and First Nations consumers
[4] 24-209MR ASIC sues south-west Sydney car dealership for alleged unlicensed lending
[5] 25-198MR Court delivers ruling in Money3 responsible lending case
[6] 25-201MR ANZ admits widespread misconduct and agrees to pay $240 million in penalties
[7] 25-165MR NAB and AFSH penalised $15.5 million for failing customers facing financial hardship
[8] 23-242MR ASIC sues Westpac for failing to respond to hardship notices
[9] 25-081MR ASIC sues home loan manager Resimac alleging failures to customers facing financial hardship
[10] REP 815 Hardship, not as hard to get help
[11] 25-144MR ASIC probes debt management and credit repair services
[12] ASIC enforcement priorities
[13] 25-101MR ASIC refuses Bakken Holdings Pty Ltd’s Australian credit licence application to provide debt management services
[14] 23-212MR ASIC sues debt management firm Solve My Debt Now and its director
[15] 25-061MR ASIC fines Chapter Two Holdings for misrepresenting debt management outcomes offered to consumers
[16] 25-114MR ASIC sues CashnGo alleging unconscionable debt recovery practices
[17] 25-161MR Court orders Rent4Keeps and Darranda pay $7.4 million penalty for overcharging vulnerable consumers on essential household goods
[18] 25-084MR ASIC sues online consumer goods supplier Snaffle alleging inflated prices and overcharging on credit contracts
[19] 24-243MR ASIC sues Oak Capital alleging unconscionable conduct designed to avoid the National Credit Code
