No automatic reimbursement for victims
Critics said the bill does not require banks to promptly repay scam victims, so people who lose money may still have to fight through a complaints process and prove fault instead of getting immediate redress.
This bill became law on Feb 20th, 2025.
Budget, tax & economy
Banks, telecommunications companies, digital platforms and other designated sectors must take active steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams linked to their services.
Scams linked to banks, telcos and digital platforms exposed a gap where suspicious activity could be ignored and victims had limited ways to seek redress. The bill creates a framework that requires designated sectors to prevent, detect, investigate and disrupt scams, and lets people complain through an authorised dispute scheme.
Before this law, Australia had no single set of enforceable anti-scam duties across banks, telecommunications providers and digital platforms, even as scam activity grew and victims often had little practical redress when suspicious conduct was missed. After reported losses reached about $2.7 billion and more than 600,000 scams in 2023, the government introduced the bill in November 2024 to force key sectors to prevent and investigate scams, and it became law with Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act, making the scam framework law. in February 2025.
The main criticism was that the bill may still leave scam victims out of pocket because it does not create automatic reimbursement and still puts too much burden on consumers to prove a business failed. That concern came from crossbenchers, One Nation and the Greens, while the Coalition supported the bill only as an incomplete first step and pushed for stronger codes and more scrutiny.
Stephen Jones MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 20 Feb 2025
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
6 recorded amendment or procedural votes were found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Passage speed
105 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Banks, telecommunications companies, digital platforms and other designated sectors must take active steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams linked to their services.
The federal government can add whole industries or specific services to the scam rules over time, so new scam hotspots can be brought under the law.
A business’s compliance with any sector-specific scam code is the main test for judging whether it took reasonable anti-scam steps under the law.
Businesses that have solid grounds to suspect a scam must investigate it within 28 days, so suspicious activity cannot just be ignored.
People who say a business failed its scam duties can take complaints to an authorised external dispute scheme, which can decide the complaint and support redress.
The Scams Prevention Framework is a multifaceted approach for protecting Australian consumers from scams. The Framework requires service providers in selected sectors of the economy to take a variety of actions to combat scams relating to, connected with, or using their services.Scams Prevention Framework Act 2025 final Act text
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, designate one or more businesses or services to be a regulated sector of the Australian economy.Scams Prevention Framework Act 2025 final Act text
(2) In determining whether a regulated entity has taken reasonable steps for the purposes of a provision of this Division, the primary consideration must be the matter in paragraph (1)(e) (if applicable).Scams Prevention Framework Act 2025 final Act text
(b) fails to take reasonable steps to investigate whether or not the activity is a scam during the 28‑day period starting on the day that the intelligence becomes actionable scam intelligence for the entity.Scams Prevention Framework Act 2025 final Act text
Under the Framework, the Minister may authorise external dispute resolution schemes for participation by these service providers. The operator of such a scheme will be able to determine complaints by consumers about how these service providers respond to scams.Scams Prevention Framework Act 2025 final Act text
Context
Before this law, Australia had no single set of enforceable anti-scam duties across banks, telecommunications providers and digital platforms, even as scam activity grew and victims often had little practical redress when suspicious conduct was missed. After reported losses reached about $2.7 billion and more than 600,000 scams in 2023, the government introduced the bill in November 2024 to force key sectors to prevent and investigate scams, and it became law with Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act, making the scam framework law. in February 2025.
Scam losses reach about $2.7 billion in Australia
Parliamentary debate on the bill cited 2023 losses of about $2.7 billion and more than 600,000 reported scams as evidence that existing protections were not containing the problem.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the bill amid a 'scam pandemic'
The minister said international crime organisations were targeting Australia and presented the bill as a whole-of-ecosystem response that would lift duties on industry and strengthen consumer protection.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
After further debate focused on the scale of scam losses and victim harm, the House agreed to amendments and completed the bill's passage through that chamber.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses settled the bill in the same form, clearing the way for the new scams prevention frameworkThe new law that sets anti-scam duties for certain sectors and lets more sectors be added later. to become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act, making the scam framework law. makes the framework law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act, making the scam framework law. turned the bill into an Act, enabling enforceable sector obligations and access to an authorised external dispute pathway for complaints about alleged failures.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Committee (21/11/2024): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (03/02/2025)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Third reading agreed to :
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act, making the scam framework law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill may still leave scam victims out of pocket because it does not create automatic reimbursement and still puts too much burden on consumers to prove a business failed. That concern came from crossbenchers, One Nation and the Greens, while the Coalition supported the bill only as an incomplete first step and pushed for stronger codes and more scrutiny.
Most criticism targeted victim compensation and implementation detail, not the goal of tougher scam prevention.
No automatic reimbursement for victims
Critics said the bill does not require banks to promptly repay scam victims, so people who lose money may still have to fight through a complaints process and prove fault instead of getting immediate redress.
Too much left to later rules and codes
A second concern was that the framework was passed before key sector-specific codes and other details were settled, creating a risk that accountability and consumer outcomes will depend on later consultation and implementation choices.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Defeated 58 to 76. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill cleared its main House vote without the proposed critical statement being added.
Defeated 13 to 52. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House rejected the proposal, so this public reporting duty was not added through that division.
This amendment would change the bill to define vulnerable consumers and require regulated sectors to identify them and consider whether their customers include them.
This amendment would change the bill to define vulnerable consumers and require regulated sectors to identify them and consider whether their customers include them.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
This amendment would require regulated entities to publish public information about scams detected, reported and responded to, with civil penalties for failing to do so.
This amendment would require regulated entities to publish public information about scams detected, reported and responded to, with civil penalties for failing to do so.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 14 to 29. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate rejected the package, leaving both the reimbursement call and the jurisdiction point out of the agreed second-reading statement.
Defeated 18 to 26. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate rejected the proposal, so the second-reading statement did not include that call for a mandatory refund model.
Passed 27 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate agreed to the first two government amendments on sheet FR102, making the reasonable-steps test clearer and more specific.
Passed 27 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate agreed to amendments (1) and (2), so those changes were incorporated into the bill in committee.
The Senate agreed to four government amendments dealing with reasonable-steps tests, proportionate-liability guidance and regulator roles.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate agreed to government amendments requiring a public roles-and-responsibilities statement and clarifying how guidelines relate to proportionate liability.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 4 Government amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Stephen Jones strongly supports the bill, saying it creates a whole-of-ecosystem legal framework to prevent scams, impose tougher obligations on businesses and give consumers clearer redress.
Read in Hansard ↗Webster opposes the bill because she says it protects banks more than scam victims and does not give Australians immediate reimbursement.
Read in Hansard ↗Howarth says the opposition will support the bill in principle because scams reform is needed and a whole-of-ecosystem approach makes sense, but he argues the legislation is rushed, unfinished and too dependent on later rules and codes.
Read in Hansard ↗Spender says she will support the bill because it substantially improves external dispute resolution from a very poor baseline, but she argues it is still too soft and unlikely to drive enough investment or materially cut scam losses.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
13 speakers · 14 contributions · 13 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Stephen Jones on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Stephen Jones strongly supports the bill, saying it creates a whole-of-ecosystem legal framework to prevent scams, impose tougher obligations on businesses and give consumers clearer redress. He argues the new rules are needed because scams have become industrialised and the old approach left Australians exposed.
“The bill is the next phase. It's phase 2. It establishes the legal framework setting out the legal obligations for business. The Scams Prevention Framework—or SPF, for short—will drive a significant uplift in the obligations and expectations on business to keep the Australian community safe.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Stephen Jones supports the bill and says it is needed quickly to impose tougher obligations on banks, telcos and social media companies to prevent, detect and disrupt scams. He argues Australians are losing too much money to wait, and says the law will give regulators and consumers a clear standard and stronger redress.
“I thank them for their work and I thank all members of the House for their participation in the debate. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This Bill sets out what we must do at home.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“People in my community want tough action to protect their money and prevent crime. They want information. They want these laws delivered in the fight against scammers. I urge the parliament to do the right thing by the people in my community, whether they live in Ipswich or the Somerset region or around Karana Downs. I want this whole parliament to support this legislation to ensure consumers get the protection they need as soon as possible. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Scams Prevention Framework has been forged in consultation with industry, with the regulated entities that I have referred to. It's not the intention of this bill to scapegoat or target regulated entities through obligations provided to them. This can't happen, because, as a government, we know that these entities are essential to winning the fight against scammers. That's why the obligations that will be applied to banks, telcos, digital platforms and other regulated entities to combat scams will be tailored to the sector they're in to both match the operations of a regulated entity and better suit the scams these obligations are trying to mitigate. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These laws are very welcome. They are welcome because we need to put laws in place to be able to make it difficult for scammers. We know that we'll never get rid of them completely because they are very elaborate and, with the intricate computer systems et cetera, we know that they will just keep on morphing into something new.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For years, the response to scams has been fragmented. Protections have varied across industries, and, while some sectors have taken steps to improve, others have lagged behind. This piecemeal approach has left Australians vulnerable and has created an environment where scammers can operate willy-nilly. The inconsistencies in how industries respond to scams mean that whether or not you are protected can depend more on luck than any systemic safeguard. This legislation changes that. The Scams Prevention Framework introduced in the bill is the first economy-wide reforms designed to tackle scams comprehensively.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With this legislation and other actions, we're saying enough is enough. We just simply cannot let scammers get away with their criminal activities, which are, as I mentioned, depriving Australians of their hard-earned cash. Losing retirement savings is particularly crushing. We're creating a framework that ensures that companies do their bit to protect Australians, and this world-leading Scams Prevention Framework legislation will put obligations on sectors to prevent, detect, disrupt and respond to scammers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is the start. There is work to do throughout the year once this bill is passed, and I hope it will be. What this bill does do is ensure that we deliver on the pre-election promise that we made, including to the people of the Hawkesbury at the forum at the Windsor Wolves footy club that the Assistant Treasurer attended. We made a promise that we would do everything we could to protect the community from scammers. This is a really significant step that gives Australia a world-leading framework to be able to do just that—to keep consumers safe.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This legislation is world leading. The Assistant Treasurer highlighted Australia's leadership of this issue when he attended the first Global Fraud Summit, in March 2024, and this bill reflects Australia's commitment to working with international partners on fighting scams. At the heart of this legislation is our determination to better protect consumers. We are determined to make Australia a harder target for scammers. Australians deserve to be able to participate in the digital economy safely and with confidence. The bill gives consumers additional peace of mind, knowing they have both strengthened protections and avenues for dispute resolution if required if it all goes bad.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is designed to address head-on the issues that I have mapped out by introducing this comprehensive framework that will prevent, detect and combat scams in our country. I know I'm going to run out of time for a lot of the detail of the bill, and I appreciate many of my colleagues having gone through that previously, but I cannot stress enough the importance of strengthening the regulatory environment. This is a bill that has undergone a lot of consultation, and it is now incumbent on this parliament to provide passage of this legislation so that we can really start swinging into action on this issue. We shouldn't be waiting another single day to get this through this House. We want to be very proactive about consumer protection in Australia, and we want to be proactive about the education that we should be providing to consumers now.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want people in my community to have increased confidence that this is something our government is bringing a huge amount of attention to. With this bill, we are saying that more must be done to combat scams, to keep Australians safe and to make sure that others do not end up in the position of Doris in my community and that others do not fall victim to scams that mean they lose their life savings. This is really important work, and it is, of course, the work that a Labor government does to make sure that our communities are safe and fair for all.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I know this is really welcomed by my community in Chisholm. People frankly have had enough of being targeted by scammers, and it seems to come sometimes from all directions, as we've described in our comments—the government's contribution. This is something that people are experiencing on social media, via phone calls and via emails. I'm really proud to be part of a government that is taking serious action to protect our communities from the despicable actions of scammers, and I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So it's great to see that this piece of legislation will give consumers more access to a single front door where they can report the loss and be supported in the process of trying to recover those funds. I think that's really important. I think the framework is really important. I think it sends a really strong message to those involved: to the banks, to the telcos and to the social media businesses.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 2 support · 1 oppose
“The theatrics we saw yesterday in question time from the Assistant Treasurer show us that this government is running out of time. The minister should be a little bit embarrassed that this work has been left too late. Something as important as this should not be rammed through without scrutiny because the government can't manage its legislative agenda or has prioritised other things. The bill was panned during consultation and many concerns that were raised—so many that I can't cover them all today—have not been fully addressed. The Assistant Treasurer's take-it-or-leave-it approach to this bill is disappointing. I assure stakeholders that this bill can't get any worse; it can only get better. I hope that, through a committee inquiry process, there will finally be proper and meaningful consultation on this bill, all stakeholders will have their voices heard and this bill can be improved and legislated.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill we're considering today constitutes a start, albeit a slow and unambitious start. It's perhaps one indicative of this entire government's approach to leading Australia but one which hopefully will, if nothing else, rob us of the title of global scams' honey pot.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australians were the victims of around 601,000 reported scams in the last reporting year, up 18.5 per cent, and both the number of reported scams and the amounts lost are just that—reported. There could be a whole lot more from embarrassed people who don't want to admit that they've been scammed. Are Australians stupid? Are my constituents stupid? No. Yet the implied message in this bill is we need to protect the banks, not vulnerable Australians. Labor's solution in this bill is not immediate reimbursement; it is handing vulnerable Australians a snakes-and-ladders board where they roll the dice and move up and down the ladders and slip down the snakes. Internal dispute mechanisms, external dispute mechanisms, legal action against the bank—really? Is this the best the government can do?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed
“Whilst the Greens are supporting this bill in the House, as we recognise Australia urgently needs regulation to combat scams, we urge Labor to prioritise the interests of people, not multibillion-dollar corporations, by amending the bill to include a presumption of reimbursement and ensuring that offshore tech companies are held to account.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“(b) calls on the Government to amend the bill to include a presumption of reimbursement, similar to the UK model, which would require banks to promptly reimburse people who have been scammed, and then recover costs from other businesses involved in the scam in proportion to their liability, including telcos and digital platforms".”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“(b) calls on the Government to introduce legislation similar to the successful UK model of reimbursement, which ensures that banks are required to initially refund scam victims, providing stronger consumer protection and accountability in the financial sector".”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
7 speakers · 6 support · 1 mixed
“In conclusion, this bill will substantially improve the external dispute resolution processes from a virtually non-existent baseline, so I will support it on that basis. But the assertion that this will make a really significant difference in terms of reducing scams and scam losses, drive meaningful levels of investment and, ultimately, better protect consumers is, in my mind, highly questionable. This legislation ignores the calls from a consortium of consumer groups, instead taking a pragmatic and, ultimately, soft approach to implement a modest improvement over what we already have.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Individual stories tell us a lot. They tell us about the sophistication. We need to make sure we do more. I would like to thank CHOICE and the Consumer Action Law Centre, who have relentlessly advocated on behalf of scam victims. We know we can do more. I will support this legislation—as amended, when I do so in the consideration in detail stage—but I urge the government and the opposition to keep a vigilant eye to make sure compensation for victims improves in Australia.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government's proposed Scams Protection Framework is well-intentioned and is a step in the right direction, but it falls down on this question of dispute resolution, which is, after all, the touchstone of protection from scams.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That said, while this bill is far from perfect, Australians simply cannot afford to wait any longer for some protections against scams that are escalating in scale, sophistication and devastation. I am inclined, for that reason, to support this iteration of the bill, but it is clear that this legislation alone is not enough.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, I appreciate the minister's engagement with me personally on this issue and with the crossbench on the government's broad response to scamming. I recognise the importance of introducing an overarching framework and proposed industry codes for banks, telcos and digital platforms. It's absolutely a great start, but it doesn't focus on the experience of the victim enough. In the context of a complicated and evolving space, while scammers continue to innovate, the framework still ensures the onus is on consumers to navigate that system and prove that the bank, telco or digital platform failed them. Shifting this onus onto the companies with the information and the scale would create better incentives for companies to continue to innovate on how they prevent scams. But, in the spirit of pragmatism, this framework is better than nothing, and it's definitely an improvement on the existing approach. I won't let the perfect be an enemy of the good, and on that basis I will be supporting this legislation. But there is a clear opportunity there, perhaps in the future, to make this go further to protect Australians better.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The constituent whose story I described earlier urged me to call on the government to adopt the recommendations of the Consumer Action Law Centre, CHOICE and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network to implement a reimbursement model. I'm here to do so. She shared her story with me, and I share it in this place to lend support to ensuring a world-leading, highly effective, consumer-protecting scams prevention framework is legislated.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 is a good step forward. It places clear responsibilities on businesses, banks, telcos and digital platforms to detect, prevent and report scams. It introduces civil penalties of up to $50 million for companies that fail to protect their customers. This is important, because we know that the private sector plays a huge role in preventing scams. When financial institutions fail to detect fraud, scammers win. When social media platforms fail to shut down fake accounts, scammers win. When telcos allow scam calls and messages to flood our phones, scammers win. This bill sends a clear message. It is no longer enough to say, 'It's not our responsibility.' Businesses must be part of the solution.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns the bill into an Act, making the scam framework law., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (03/02/2025)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (21 Nov 2024): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (3 Feb 2025)
APH bill page notes