Consumer credit is closely regulated in both Australia and South Africa. Nevertheless, unsecured lending often results in financial hardship in low‐income communities. One aspect of this picture is the impact of the consumer debt burden on the Indigenous economy, which is disproportionately affected by poverty in both countries. Here we juxtapose the comparative regulatory regimes and then contextualize the law using an inter‐disciplinary account of each Indigenous economy. We find through this law‐in‐context comparison that neither Australia nor South Africa has fully resolved the problem of Indigenous financial hardship. This mutual failure is confirmed by the recent Kobelt decision of the High Court of Australia and the drastic measures enacted in the South African National Credit Amendment Act 2019. One positive lesson that South Africa provides is that accommodating the Indigenous economy in financial regulation can promote and empower that sector.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚和南非的无抵押贷款与土著经济

澳大利亚和南非均严格监管消费者信贷。但是，无抵押贷款通常会给低收入社区造成财务困难。这一情况的一个方面是消费者债务负担对土著经济的影响，这两个国家都受到贫困的极大影响。在这里，我们将比较性的监管制度并置在一起，然后使用每个土著经济的跨学科描述将法律环境化。通过这种基于上下文的法律比较，我们发现澳大利亚和南非都没有完全解决土著金融困难的问题。最近的Kobelt证实了这种相互失败 澳大利亚高等法院的裁决以及《 2019年南非国家信贷修正法》中所采取的严厉措施。南非提供的一个积极教训是，在金融监管中适应土著经济可以促进该部门并赋予其权力。