The federal government and Opposition teamed up to rush scam reforms through Parliament that do not mandatorily require companies to provide compensation to victims.

The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025, which paves the way for “world-leading” scam prevention requirements to be imposed on banks, telecommunications companies and big tech firms, was passed by Parliament last week.

The scheme aims to stop scams from reaching Australians in the first place, and will require designated entities to prevent, detect, disrupt, respond to, and report scams and attempted scams.

The federal government has said the first designated entities will be banks, telcos and social media firms.

“Our laws give Australia the strongest defences against scammers and put us ahead of the world in scams prevention and protection,” Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones said.

No mandatory compensation

But the reforms have been criticised for failing to introduce a mandatory requirement for these companies to repay victims of scams, similar to the scheme that exists in the United Kingdom, and for an unclear timeline on when these requirements will be imposed.

Much of the detail of these new requirements for companies to combat scams will be laid out in regulations to be detailed in the future, with the government yet to set a timeline on when this process will be completed.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, who hailed the “world-leading” framework, said these new rules will likely include requiring social media firms to verify advertisers on their platforms, banks to confirm the identity of payees, and telcos to detect and disrupt scam numbers sending texts and calls to Australians.

Companies that do not meet the obligations to be outlined in the framework will face fines of up to $50 million, and dispute resolution mechanisms will be in place for victims to seek compensation – but there will be no presumption of repayments for these victims.

University of Melbourne Professor of Law and Centre for AI and Digital Ethics co-director Jeannie Paterson said the Scams Bill was a “good beginning”.

“It provides a network of obligations that were previously isolated and often indirect responsibilities,” Paterson told Information Age.

“We need to see what goes into the more detailed sector-specific codes.”

Under the government’s approach, victims of scams will have to prove that a company contravened the new framework in order to receive compensation.

“This can be hard for consumers,” Paterson said.

“I’d prefer a scheme closer to the UK where the compensation is available subject to exceptions such as the consumer being reckless or careless.

“Currently I think the framework places a hurdle on consumers being compensated for losses.”

‘Extraordinary’ Senate passage

The scams legislation was rushed through the Senate on Thursday last week without any debate with the support of the Coalition, much to the chagrin of members of the crossbench.

Independent Senator David Pocock said the members of the crossbench were not given enough time to get amendments to the scams reforms drafted.

“Is that what we want our democracy to be?” Pocock asked. “I find this extraordinary.”

The reform process has given scam victims “the middle finger”, Pocock said, and is “undercooked”.

In response, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said that “from time to time, we need to get things done in this Senate”.

The government and Coalition agreed on a handful of slight amendments to the bill, but these fell well short of the 14 made by Coalition senators as part of a Senate committee report on the bill.

The Greens attempted to move an amendment introducing a presumption of reimbursement for scam victims, similar to the UK scheme, but this was voted down by the two major parties.

‘Uphill battle’ for consumers

Consumer Action Law Centre CEO Stephanie Tonkin welcomed the passage of the bill, saying it “fills a gaping hole in the law”, but that victims will still face an “uphill battle for redress”.

“I am happy we finally have a framework to prevent these terrible crimes,” Tonkin said.

“I am disappointed the bill doesn’t explicitly include what we have consistently argued for – a simple and fair pathway to provide victims compensation.

“We had an opportunity to lead the world in scams prevention and response, but we anticipate small business, and individual victims, will continue to pay for the failures of the world’s largest and most wealthy corporations.”

Paterson said the government will push ahead with further reforms addressing the scourge of scams.

“I hope the government monitors the performance of the scheme and its participants,” she said.

“They need to be agile and responsible – it can’t be set and forget in terms of responses to scams.”