Submissions from all corners of New Zealand's financial sector have been pouring in with vested interests all keen to give their two cents on legislation aiming to crack down on dodgy loan sharks.
New Zealand's biggest bank, for example, is worried that the legislation as it stands would "disproportionately impact our most vulnerable".
Almost 150 people, groups, banks and law firms have submitted on the Credit Contract Legislation Amendment Bill, which is currently in front of MPs at select committee.
The bill would, according to Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi, protect vulnerable consumers and stop families being trapped in debt spirals and hardship that results from unaffordable debt.
If passed into law, the legislation would mean interest and fees over the life of a loan would be limited to 100 per cent of the amount borrowed.
It would also impose greater responsibilities on lenders, who would have to pass a "fit and proper person" test if they want to lend money and would mean they would face higher penalties for non-compliance.
Although many of the submitters have welcomed the proposed law, many still have concerns about some of its details.
ANZ is concerned some of the elements of the bill go too far.
For example, it raised issues with non-compliance penalties.
Under the legislation, lenders could pay up to $6000 per loan if they don't follow the rules.
"Those penalties have the potential to cripple many creditors financially, particularly smaller creditors, for breaches that cause little or no harm to consumers and were not deliberate or reckless."
These penalties could lead to, what ANZ has referred to as, excessively conservative lending practices – meaning smaller lenders could pull back on their lending to mitigate the risk of being stung by the fine.
ANZ said this would impact hardest the most vulnerable communities, such as the low paid, immigrants and refugees, first-home buyers and those trying to rehabilitate their lives.
This is because those are the people who already struggle to access finance from mainstream creditors.
"Lenders will tighten access to credit, meaning those who do not fit within narrow lines will be unable to borrow from mainstream creditors, pushing them to payday and potentially predatory creditors."
The New Zealand Bankers' Association took a similar view.
"Conservative lending practices, which drive consumers to higher-cost and potentially irresponsible lending, run counter to the important policy objectives of promoting financial inclusion and access to safer credit."
That's not the only area of concern.
Consumer NZ has taken issue with the 100 per cent cap.
The cap means that interest and fees on loans with an annual interest rate over 50 per cent will be limited to 100 per cent of the amount borrowed.
For example, if someone takes out a loan of $500, they will never have to repay more than $1000.
In its submission, Consumer NZ said the proposed rules would mean lenders will continue to be able to offer short-term credit on interest rates of up to 49.99 per cent, plus fees.
"For vulnerable consumers taking out these loans, debt problems associated with this type of credit will continue."
The Child Poverty Action Group also raised concerns in its submission and has called for a lower interest rate cap as well.
"The limit to the total cost of borrowing does not provide adequate consumer protection against irresponsible and predatory lenders.
"For example, in the case of very short-term loans, the weekly repayments can be extremely high without the total repayable reaching the 100 per cent repayment cap."
Kristal Leach, the manager of debt-counselling organisation BudgetFirst, said she has seen an explosion of debt in her community, a lot of which comes from payday loans and personal finance.
She endorsed the 100 per cent cap as there are a lot of clients with more than one payday loan.
"But with no interest-rate cap we are concerned that after the pressure is gone that these rates would steadily increase."
PSA Pasefika network member Nia Bartley also endorsed the bill at select committee today.
"When the commercial banks say no, the loan sharks are the default."
She said the crippling interest and fees charged do not allow "our people to live their life; they can barely survive".
"We have, are and have been preyed on for far too long."
The amendments were long overdue, but more needed to be done, she said.