Banks have a history of irresponsible lending, which makes these laws too important to lose.
Sent the email and tweeted in the hope it does help make it an effective outcome for us all.
Done, but I don’t expect this Government to give away this idea. It would so disappoint their mates if they did.
The boss lady & I got responses from two different Senators (for the same postcode). Neither is our Senator. Is this deliberate, or is there a (d/b or s/w) glitch there @BrendanMays ?
[Edit: from other replies, I now understand the emails went out shotgun style to many Senators.]
Wow. I sent the email off a little while ago and I have already received 6 responses.
Maybe they think I am someone important?
Maybe it goes to all the Senators and some are more diligent in responding?
It certainly is a great initiative. I sent my reply off complete with some personalised content when Choice first direct emailed a week past.
I’ve nine Senators who acknowledged receipt.
Even Senator P Hanson found time for an automated reply. Not sure what makes a difference. Perhaps getting in early, or is it the personal message.
I found this or a similar phrase in each response. Senator Matt Canavan in this example:
If your email is part of an automated mass-email campaign I will note your views however, I am unable to respond directly due to the large amount received.
Leaves me to wonder if there is a way to beat that system too. Some Senators indicated they would provide a personal reply if I provided my full name and residential address?
As similar to what @mark_m stated, all my responses were the Auto-reply ones, ie the mail system they use just fires off a standard reply, with the attached promise they will consider the email in the fullness of time (my take on the timing not their’s). Read them? That is a likely “No”, count them before binning perhaps a little more likely.
I tried to personalise mine. But the only option I could end up doing was previewing the email with my name attached.
@meltam are they Senators for your State as there are 12 for each State? Territories get less Senators, and each Senator is for the whole State/Territory not just an electorate. or are they Senators from another State? If the latter then I say a glitch.
EDIT: Corrected the number of Senators, So TY @Fred123 for pointing out my error it is much appreciated
Actually 12 for each State and 2 for each Territory.
Despite having less than 10% of the population of the US, we obviously need more than their 2 per state?
They are for both Qld. I was expecting the thing to go to my seat’s Member, but as the other replies rolled in I realized that the email was being sent to at least all Senators for the state. (I amended my post accordingly with a PS.)
Np then just ignore my ramble above. I took the shotgun to mean something else had possibly occurred.
Youtube Video that includes @AlanKirkland among a number of others on why this change is dangerous:
5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Credit cards and self-funded retirees
The replies are automatic. Maybe later you will get a proper reply from a few.
The only way to circumvent their automated emails is to phone their offices. At least you will get to speak to an office worker. When they get really busy they even stop answering the phones. You know it’s working then.
While we (royal one) tend to pick on the 4 big banks for lending practices, maybe energies would be better served to regulate and ensure appropriate lending practices of payday type lenders.
These type of lender potentially target those who least can afford to pay for a loan and cause immense misery to those when they default. Their practices are unscrupulous to say the least.
One could argue that the restricted access to borrowing through normal credit cards or personal loans at reasonable rates of interest for those of questionable credit risk, has driven those people to the short term, high interest, high charge lenders.
I think it is appalling that Choice now appears to be a political organisation calling the Government irresponsible. Yet there is no discussion of the Government’s rationale behind the move. Even the ABC have aired the views of some young home buyers who welcome the move. I thought Choice was a neutral arbiter instead of publishing unverifiable opinion. There are others operating in this area as described in the editorial who are offering practical help in this area. Why does Choice need to be involved? It is time to split Choice campaigns off and those enthusiastic enough to pour money into it do so. It will be very interesting to read the financial statements of Choice when they are released.
Choice is a consumer advocate, and there is a mountain of evidence that slack lending to people who can’t afford it leads to big problems.
The Government’s idea is that they want more money out in the hands of consumers buying stuff. Opening up credit availability. Defaulting?, that’s for someone else to worry about.
Rather than increase the level of risk young buyers would be better served if governments took some action to reduce the overheated big city property markets. At the moment we have the young paying through the nose while the old bask in their capital gains.
Choice and this forum take pains to avoid being party political. But if you want to advocate for change of any kind you must work on policy politics. That includes advocating on behalf of those who need support and advocating for policy change.
Would you have Choice quit the field of lobbying and leave it to large profit making organisations (like banks) who have demonstrated repeatedly they advocate for their profits and on behalf of their shareholders regardless of social outcomes?