Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024; Second Reading

Chaney supported the bill as a pragmatic start but argued it did not go far enough in protecting victims. Chaney criticised the compliance approach for being minimum standard and the dispute resolution mechanism for being onerous for consumers. Chaney called for reversing the onus of proof so that businesses must demonstrate they took reasonable steps, rather than victims proving negligence. Chaney also suggested a mandatory reimbursement model similar to the UK's approach to better support those who suffer losses.

Gosling strongly supported the bill, describing it as a world-leading framework to protect Australians from scams. Gosling highlighted the government's Fighting Scams awareness campaign and the establishment of the National Anti-Scam Centre. Gosling noted that scam losses had fallen under the current government after doubling under the previous administration. Gosling emphasised the need for consistent protections across sectors and the importance of holding companies accountable through penalties and compensation requirements.

Chandler-Mather supported the bill in principle but urged the government to improve it by including a presumption of reimbursement and holding offshore tech companies accountable. Chandler-Mather argued that the current framework prioritised corporate interests over consumer protection, citing a complex 30-step process for redress that could take up to two years. Chandler-Mather called for a model where banks refund victims quickly and recover costs from other involved parties, similar to the UK approach. Chandler-Mather also highlighted the need for enforceability against offshore digital platforms.

Claydon offered strenuous support for the bill, describing it as crucial legislation to safeguard Australians against the growing threat of scams. Claydon highlighted the human cost of scams, including financial loss and psychological distress, particularly for vulnerable groups like the elderly. Claydon emphasised the need for a coordinated, whole-of-government approach and praised the bill's focus on consumer education and awareness campaigns. Claydon urged all parties to support the legislation to build a safer environment for consumers.

Le supported the bill as a step forward but argued it was not enough, calling for stronger consumer education in multiple languages and better victim support services. Le highlighted the challenges faced by multicultural communities and small businesses, urging the government to provide resources for compliance without imposing excessive regulatory burdens. Le also called for urgent reforms to the Privacy Act to stop companies from selling data, which he argued enabled scammers. Le emphasised the need for a balanced approach that protects consumers without crushing small businesses.

Burnell supported the bill, highlighting the devastating human cost of scams through a constituent's story of being targeted by a fake government scheme. Burnell argued that the legislation was people-centric, holding regulated entities accountable for protecting customers and providing dispute resolution processes. Burnell emphasised the need for swift action and communication between consumers and regulated entities to mitigate damage. Burnell also noted the importance of keeping the legislation robust to adapt to evolving scam tactics, including those involving artificial intelligence.

lead

Steggall supported the bill as a crucial step but argued it failed to adequately address information asymmetry between corporations and consumers. Steggall contended that the legislation placed an unreasonable onus on victims to prove corporate negligence, creating barriers to compensation. To rectify this, she moved an amendment requiring regulated entities to provide detailed certification of their compliance with the framework, shifting the burden of proof to businesses. Steggall also raised concerns about the removal of provisions for vulnerable customers and the lack of government-led education programs, urging continued monitoring of the framework's implementation.

minister

Jones defended the bill as a necessary government response to a problem that had previously been treated as a private issue, noting that scam losses had doubled annually before the current government took office. Jones argued that the framework prioritizes prevention and disruption of scams at their source, particularly through obligations on social media platforms, rather than relying solely on post-event compensation. Jones highlighted that the legislation establishes clear standards and penalties of up to $50 million, enabling regulators to hold entities accountable. Jones reported a 33 per cent reduction in scam losses over the previous year and offered to engage in good-faith discussions with opposition members to address legitimate concerns.

Georganas welcomed the legislation, emphasizing the widespread impact of scams on constituents and the community. Georganas shared anecdotes of sophisticated scams, including phishing attacks on tradies and fraudulent visa application websites, to illustrate the need for robust legal frameworks. Georganas argued that the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act to establish enforceable obligations for regulated entities to prevent, detect, and report scams. Georganas noted that contraventions of these obligations could result in civil penalties, thereby incentivizing businesses to improve their security measures.

Spender expressed serious doubts about the bill's ability to reduce scam losses without amendment, arguing it focused on minimum standards rather than driving innovation. Spender criticized the legislation for failing to address information asymmetry and for relying on self-regulation that had proven inadequate. Spender moved an amendment to require regulated entities to publish quarterly scam data, aiming to create competitive tension and allow consumers to make informed choices. Spender supported the bill primarily for its improvements to external dispute resolution but warned that it did not sufficiently incentivize banks to protect customers.

Ryan strongly supported the bill, highlighting the personal and community impact of scams, including a constituent who lost a $90,000 house deposit due to a hacked conveyancing email. Ryan praised the framework for providing a single front door for reporting losses and supporting recovery processes. Ryan emphasized that the legislation sends a strong message to banks, telcos, and social media companies, by imposing fines of up to $50 million for breaches. Ryan viewed the bill as a significant step in coordinating efforts across government and industry to combat organized crime.