Think carefully before demanding an NCCP review, says association

by Julia Corderoy14 Mar 2016
The chief executive of the Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA) has said brokers need to be careful before demanding a review of the National Consumer Credit Protection act (NCCP).

According to an online poll conducted by Australian Broker asking brokers if it was time for the NCCP to be reviewed, the vast majority of brokers (82%) said it was time for a comprehensive review.

But speaking to Australian Broker, the CEO of the FBAA Peter White said brokers need to think about the consequences before demanding a review.

“The thing that would always concern me if we got to bullish on this is caveat emptor – or buyer beware. The screws could get tighter. You don’t want to turn around and do a big call to action and then for things to get worse,” White told Australian Broker.

“What we have to really look at is what the reason is for it, why does it need to be reviewed and what are the specific areas that need to be looked at.”

According to White, the NCCP is already being reviewed on a regular basis – including the forthcoming interest-only and commission reviews – and White says he does agree with brokers that regular and thorough reviews do need to happen.

“There have been multiple reports that have been reviews on the NCCP which have already happened. It doesn’t necessarily mean those reviews have been focused where we believe they should be focussed – and that’s why I am saying I agree there should be reviews done but the big questions become what and then why.”

When asked if there were specific areas the FBAA would like to see reviewed, White said he would like to see the duplication of processes removed.

“The only thing we need to make sure is we are not replicating processes unnecessarily. By doing so we are creating a barrier to write business. 

“That replication of data or unnecessary replication of information that really doesn’t make sense in the process are things we need to look closer at and work with the regulator to remove, because that will create greater fluidity in the marketplace.

“You have got to have that interaction but there is nothing worse than sitting down with a person and going through a whole ream of paper to find out you have to go back again and get something else or that the lender goes back and says we need to do this.

“It should be one or the other does it, or one does it to a certain point and the other does a complementary check that doesn’t impede on the actual borrower because that becomes an annoyance and a frustration. 

“But this is where we need a consultative process to sit down and fine tune what the problem is, what we expect and how we go about it.”