Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 JUNE 2013

Federal Treasury clarifies boundaries between Small Amount Credit Contracts (SACCs) and Medium Amount Credit Contracts (MACCs)

Hunt & Hunt
Explore more from Hunt & Hunt

Credit providers with Small Amount Credit Contracts (SACCs) can proceed with certainty in planning for new credit laws.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Richard Williams
Richard Williams
Author LinkedIn connections

Late yesterday evening Federal Treasury issued an urgent email to interested stakeholders giving clarification as to the boundary, in monetary terms, between Small Amount Credit Contracts (SACCs) and Medium Amount Credit Contracts (MACCs).

A SACC is a credit contract where the "credit limit" is $2,000 or less. Over that amount the credit contract becomes a MACC.

The issue for stakeholders, has been determining whether the "credit limit" for a SACC, is inclusive or exclusive of the "permitted establishment fee" and the initial first "permitted monthly fee" where those fees are financed.

Treasury has now clarified this point in an announcement issued at 7.05 pm on Thursday 6 June 2013 in the following terms:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

An 11-year-old student suffered a back injury during a long jump trial at a school athletics carnival, leading to a significant Court of Appeal decision that clarifies schools' duty of care obligations. The case examines whether basic safety measures like adequate sand depth and regular pit maintenance constitute reasonable precautions that schools must take to protect students during sporting activities.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea
Article

Unfair Contract Terms Penalties And The Updated UCT Regime: What Your Business Needs To Know

Australian businesses face dramatically increased penalties for competition and consumer law breaches, with corporate fines now reaching $50 million and individual penalties rising to $2.5 million. The unfair contract terms regime has been strengthened with new pecuniary penalties applying for the first time, creating urgent compliance obligations for businesses using standard form contracts. Companies that have not yet audited their contracts against these expanded obligations are now operating at signific
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Coleman Greig Lawyers
Coleman Greig Lawyers