Submissions to the Treasury's review of regulatory oversight of the point-of-sale credit sector argue strongly that the sector should be regulated under consumer credit law.Based on a small sample of submissions that have been made public, stakeholders would like to see so-called vendor introducers regulated in the same way as credit representatives, under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act.The Government exempted vendor introducers - businesses that arrange finance in connection with the provision of goods and services - from the NCCP when the act was passed in 2009, pending a review of the sector.In January, Treasury issued a discussion paper that identified a number of gaps. It said that while vendor introducers may play a significant role in the consumer's product selection, they are not required to meet any standards. The consumer credit regulator (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission) has no power to ban an introducer that is incompetent or dishonest. Vendor introducers are not required to join an external dispute resolution scheme.Treasury estimates that more than 12,000 retailers and 630 vehicle dealerships employ vendor introducers.The discussion paper sets out three options. The first is to maintain the status quo, by retaining the exemption for vendor introducers.The second is to require vendor introducers to comply with the NCCP Act and be regulated in much the same way as credit representatives are now.The third is to modify the application of the obligations of the act according to the role vendor introducers play. For example, a vendor introducer acting as a broker would be required to hold an Australian Credit Licence, while an introducer acting on behalf of a single financier would be subject to limited regulation. In its submission, the Consumer Action Law Centre said there was evidence that vendor introducers "do engage in irresponsible conduct when recommending credit products" (such as arranging credit for people on Centrelink benefits who already have debts).CALC said a higher level of consumer protection was warranted because consumers who choose a credit contract with the purchase of goods will often do so on the basis of convenience, without making any assessment of the terms of credit on offer.The Mortgage & Finance Association of Australia said its main concern was the regulatory treatment of people arranging finance and insurance in car dealerships. The MFAA submission said: "This is an area where… inappropriate conduct is well known. A car is the second most costly purchase a consumer will make."It presented a number of examples of car loans that involved high interest rates and fees, and where the full cost of the loan was not disclosed.The Credit Ombudsman Service said its main concern was that the exemption denies consumers access to external dispute resolution for a large number of their credit transactions.COSL said the exemption provided a competitive advantage to point-of-sale introducers and providers; they avoid the cost of EDR membership and other compliance costs.All the submissions argued that the NCCP Act was framed on the basis of consistency. The MFAA said: "The premise of the legislation