How has a method for calculating living expenses become a byword for distrust and confusion? The HEM encapsulates the mystery of calculation based on aggregated data and the dissolution of the individual into categories. It is at the centre of protracted litigation and legal interpretation of a relatively straightforward legislative provision designed to guide lenders and protect borrowers. It has featured in the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The HEM or Household Expenditure Measure is a method to calculate indicative living expenses. It is described as “A measure of what families spend on different types of household items, calculated quarterly by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.” The HEMwas constructed at the request of the Risk Managers Roundtable, a group of lenders and others who met to discuss legislative and regulatory matters. The Melbourne Institute is the same body which devised the Henderson Poverty Line to measure poverty in Australia. The Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in Australia, first established in 1972, has been updated annually since that time. In about 2010 the Household Expenditure Measure was based initially on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) information from the ABS Household Expenditure Survey 2009–2010 and is modified quarterly by the Consumer Price Index. This is then adjusted for the HEM by the intended geographic location of the loan applicant, marital status and number of dependents, but not income. In 2012, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia adopted the HEM as a method to calculate living expenses for the purpose of responsible lending obligations. Other lenders followed. It is used for home and car loans. The HEM is based on data to produce an indicative calculation of living expenses. It is not individual to any particular person. It is about categories of persons. The issue is, if a lender relies on the HEM as part of the calculation of whether a potential individual borrower has the capacity to repay a loan without substantial hardship, has that lender met his obligations under responsible lending laws? The regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), says no. One bank, Westpac, admitted breaching the responsible lending laws and was prepared to submit to a penalty until the Federal Court rejected the application by both the regulator and the bank for the resolution. The problem as identified by the Court, was the parties did not agree why there was a contravention, nor how many loans were impacted and judged “not unsuitable” when they should have been assessed as unsuitable. 10 The next hearing is scheduled for six days following 6 May 2019. Into this mix enters the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The Royal Commission canvassed various sectors of the financial services industry including financial advisers, insurance, and superannuation. The findings of the Royal Commission, unfolding each day as front page news and culminating in the Reports, outline the extent of misconduct. The Commission opened with hearings in 2018 on consumer credit, small business credit and later farm credit. Credit is at the heart of any financial system and has been of particular concern in Australia. In this country there are high levels of household debt, historically high levels of mortgage borrowing for home ownership, and recent coordinated steps by the conduct regulator, ASIC, and the prudential regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to wind back lending. There are two associated credit problems: some believe indebtedness is the result of the lender providing too much credit when they should not have; some believe they have been denied credit, and therefore business or housing opportunities, because the lender did not assess their applications correctly. Both overindebtedness and lack of access to credit bring into play questions of the normative values said to undergird Australia’s financial services system.

中文翻译：

---

HEM 和 Hayne 的规范原则——信用数据和个人

计算生活费用的方法如何成为不信任和混乱的代名词？HEM 封装了基于汇总数据的计算和将个体分解为类别的奥秘。它处于旷日持久的诉讼和对旨在指导贷方和保护借款人的相对简单的立法条款的法律解释的中心。它曾在皇家委员会针对银行业、养老金和金融服务业的不当行为进行调查。HEM 或 Household Expenditure Measure 是一种计算指示性生活费用的方法。它被描述为“衡量家庭在不同类型家居用品上的支出，由墨尔本应用经济和社会研究所每季度计算一次。” HEM 是应风险管理人员圆桌会议的要求而构建的，一群贷方和其他人开会讨论立法和监管问题。墨尔本研究所是同一个机构，它设计了亨德森贫困线来衡量澳大利亚的贫困状况。澳大利亚贫困调查委员会成立于 1972 年，自那时起每年更新一次。大约在 2010 年，家庭支出指标最初基于澳大利亚统计局 (ABS) 2009-2010 年 ABS 家庭支出调查的信息，并根据消费者价格指数每季度进行修改。然后根据贷款申请人的预期地理位置、婚姻状况和受抚养人的数量，而不是收入，针对 HEM 进行调整。2012 年，澳大利亚联邦银行采用 HEM 作为计算生活费用的方法，以承担负责任的贷款义务。其他贷方紧随其后。它用于房屋和汽车贷款。HEM 基于数据生成生活费用的指示性计算。它对任何特定的人都不是个人的。它是关于人的类别。问题是，如果贷款人依赖 HEM 作为计算潜在个人借款人是否有能力在没有实质性困难的情况下偿还贷款的一部分，那么该贷款人是否履行了负责任贷款法律规定的义务？监管机构澳大利亚证券和投资委员会 (ASIC) 说不。Westpac 银行承认违反了负责任的贷款法，并准备接受处罚，直到联邦法院驳回监管机构和银行的决议申请。法院认定的问题，双方是否就为何存在违规行为达成一致意见，也未就本应被评估为不合适的贷款受到影响并被判定为“不合适”达成一致意见。10 下一次听证会定于 2019 年 5 月 6 日之后的六天举行。海恩皇家委员会调查银行业、退休金和金融服务行业的不当行为。皇家委员会调查了金融服务行业的各个部门，包括财务顾问、保险和养老金。皇家委员会的调查结果每天都以头版新闻的形式出现，并在报告中达到顶峰，概述了不当行为的程度。委员会于 2018 年就消费者信贷、小企业信贷和后来的农业信贷举行了听证会。信贷是任何金融体系的核心，在澳大利亚尤其受到关注。在这个国家，家庭债务水平居高不下，房屋所有权的抵押贷款处于历史高位，行为监管机构 ASIC 和审慎监管机构澳大利亚审慎监管局 (APRA) 最近采取了协调措施，以减少贷款。有两个相关的信用问题：一些人认为债务是贷方在不应该提供的情况下提供过多信贷的结果；一些人认为，由于贷款人没有正确评估他们的申请，他们被拒绝了信贷，因此也没有获得商业或住房机会。过度负债和缺乏获得信贷的机会引发了人们对被称为支撑澳大利亚金融服务体系的规范价值的质疑。房屋所有权的历史高水平抵押贷款，以及行为监管机构 ASIC 和审慎监管机构澳大利亚审慎监管局 (APRA) 最近采取的协调措施，以减少贷款。有两个相关的信用问题：一些人认为债务是贷方在不应该提供的情况下提供过多信贷的结果；一些人认为，由于贷款人没有正确评估他们的申请，他们被拒绝了信贷，因此也没有获得商业或住房机会。过度负债和缺乏获得信贷的机会引发了人们对被称为支撑澳大利亚金融服务体系的规范价值的质疑。房屋所有权的历史高水平抵押贷款，以及行为监管机构 ASIC 和审慎监管机构澳大利亚审慎监管局 (APRA) 最近采取的协调措施，以减少贷款。有两个相关的信用问题：一些人认为债务是贷方在不应该提供的情况下提供过多信贷的结果；一些人认为，由于贷款人没有正确评估他们的申请，他们被拒绝了信贷，因此也没有获得商业或住房机会。过度负债和缺乏获得信贷的机会引发了人们对被称为支撑澳大利亚金融服务体系的规范价值的质疑。澳大利亚审慎监管局 (APRA) 收回贷款。有两个相关的信用问题：一些人认为债务是贷方在不应该提供的情况下提供过多信贷的结果；一些人认为，由于贷款人没有正确评估他们的申请，他们被拒绝了信贷，因此也没有获得商业或住房机会。过度负债和缺乏获得信贷的机会引发了人们对被称为支撑澳大利亚金融服务体系的规范价值的质疑。澳大利亚审慎监管局 (APRA) 收回贷款。有两个相关的信用问题：一些人认为债务是贷方在不应该提供的情况下提供过多信贷的结果；一些人认为，由于贷款人没有正确评估他们的申请，他们被拒绝了信贷，因此也没有获得商业或住房机会。过度负债和缺乏获得信贷的机会引发了人们对被称为支撑澳大利亚金融服务体系的规范价值的质疑。因为贷方没有正确评估他们的申请。过度负债和缺乏获得信贷的机会引发了人们对被称为支撑澳大利亚金融服务体系的规范价值的质疑。因为贷方没有正确评估他们的申请。过度负债和缺乏获得信贷的机会引发了人们对被称为支撑澳大利亚金融服务体系的规范价值的质疑。