Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail

Opened the debate

Howarth questioned why significant operational rules and sector codes had not been made publicly available or consulted upon alongside the bill, noting that 31 months had passed since the government took office. Howarth argued that the regulation impact analysis significantly understated compliance costs, citing specific low estimates for staff and technology investments for banks and telecommunications companies. Howarth also raised concerns about the complexity of liability apportionment in multi-sector scams and questioned whether the private right of action was necessary given existing dispute resolution mechanisms. Howarth suggested the government could have used existing powers under the Competition and Consumer Act to implement codes earlier rather than enacting new primary legislation.

Government response

Jones explained that using delegated legislation for industry codes allowed for different obligations tailored to banks, telecommunications, and social media platforms, and enabled rapid responses to evolving threats. Jones stated that the department had not begun drafting codes until the bill was passed to ensure enforceability, but noted that initial discussions with industry had occurred. Jones defended the cost estimates in the regulation impact analysis, stating they reflected additional resources required as provided by industry consultations and complied with Office of Impact Analysis standards. Jones rejected the UK-style presumption of reimbursement, arguing that liability should be attached to fault and that the Australian approach was more effective at preventing scams.