PoliticalClaims.au

**The government's position was internally contradictory:** - The government claimed a credit crunch required action, but lending data showed the opposite - credit was actually flowing freely - The government claimed to "strengthen protections for vulnerable consumers" while removing the primary protection (lender assessment of suitability) - The government claimed mortgage brokers' best interest duties would fill the gap, yet simultaneously removed the general responsible lending framework that made those duties meaningful - The government said ASIC would have more power while transferring remaining responsibilities to APRA (an agency Hayne identified as having no consumer protection track record) **However, this reflects legitimate policy disagreements:** The Coalition's position was not that consumer protection is unimportant, but rather: - That responsible lending obligations were excessively prescriptive - That COVID-19's economic impact justified temporary flexibility - That alternative mechanisms could protect consumers - That credit flow to households and businesses was important for recovery These are substantive policy positions, even if the evidence suggests they were misguided. **The core problem was overriding a royal commission recommendation:** The most significant issue is that this was the deliberate rejection of Recommendation 1.1 of the royal commission - the very first recommendation, explicitly designed to maintain consumer protections.