The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has thrown its weight behind the Federal Government’s recently announced Scams Prevention Framework. Promising to tackle the growing threat of scams, the initiative is centred on prevention, detection, and disruption, along with a new external dispute resolution (EDR) scheme for victims. But will this framework provide genuine protection, or is it simply a band-aid solution to a far-reaching problem?
AFCA’s Chief Ombudsman, David Locke, was quick to praise the government’s move, noting that current laws leave many scam victims without sufficient avenues for redress. “We welcome action from the Government to address the immense harm caused by scams,” Locke said. This harm is substantial: in 2023-24 alone, AFCA received close to 11,000 scam-related complaints, an average of over 900 a month. The personal toll of scams is evident, with personal transaction accounts being the most frequently complained-about product during the period.
Locke is optimistic about AFCA’s role in the new framework, highlighting the organisation’s experience in handling more than 100,000 complaints a year. However, while AFCA’s involvement is undeniably a step forward, the question remains whether the framework itself addresses the root causes of scams or simply provides a mechanism to manage their fallout.
Is AFCA Equipped to Handle the Growing Threat?
AFCA’s scope under this new framework is set to expand beyond financial institutions to include telecommunications providers and digital platforms—industries frequently used by scammers to reach their victims. This broader jurisdiction is a positive step, but can AFCA realistically manage the added burden? AFCA is no stranger to high complaint volumes, but an influx of complaints from these new sectors could stretch its resources further. Locke believes that the mandated internal dispute resolution mechanisms for businesses will ease this load, allowing AFCA to function as a “single front door” for unresolved disputes.
Yet, this raises another issue: will these mandated mechanisms work in practice? For many businesses, especially digital platforms, the culture around customer support is already under scrutiny for being unresponsive and labyrinthine. If these platforms are expected to resolve scams internally, there must be stringent oversight to ensure they are meeting their obligations. Relying solely on internal mechanisms could delay or prevent genuine redress if companies are more focused on protecting their bottom line than protecting their customers.
The Industry’s Role in Self-Regulation
Locke is adamant that industries such as banking, telecommunications, and digital platforms should take immediate action to combat scams, even before legislation forces them to do so. “These industries shouldn’t wait for a code or regulation to act,” he urged. However, this plea may be optimistic, given that many of these sectors have already faced criticism for lagging behind when it comes to consumer protection. With profit margins often at odds with comprehensive fraud prevention measures, there is a valid concern about whether businesses will voluntarily comply without strong regulatory teeth to back up the framework.
One of the key challenges the framework faces is that scams are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Scammers are evolving faster than legislation or industry responses can keep up, constantly finding new loopholes to exploit. This raises the question of whether the framework, even if executed perfectly, can truly disrupt such agile criminal operations or if it will forever be playing catch-up. Locke’s call for swift industry action is commendable, but history has shown that voluntary compliance often falls short of meaningful change.
Consumer Protections: Will They Be Enough?
The primary goal of the framework is to offer stronger consumer protections, but what does this mean in practice? Locke noted the importance of providing consumers with “greater protections than currently exist and more effective avenues for redress if impacted by a scam.” Yet, with the sheer volume of scams increasing each year, and new technologies such as AI making scams harder to detect, even the best-intentioned policies may not be enough.
Consumers might find some comfort in the fact that AFCA has resolved over 450,000 complaints since 2018, resulting in $1.4 billion in compensation. But compensation after the fact is cold comfort for those who have already been financially devastated by a scam. The key question here is whether the framework’s focus on prevention will actually reduce the number of scams, or if AFCA will simply continue to manage an ever-growing backlog of complaints.
Moreover, the framework’s reliance on business compliance raises further concerns. If businesses—especially large tech firms—are slow to implement the recommended changes, consumers could continue to face long waits for resolution. Given the current state of customer service in industries like telecommunications and banking, is there any guarantee that internal resolution processes will truly improve?
Is the Framework Too Reactive?
There is no doubt that scams are a significant problem in Australia, with Australians losing millions each year to fraudulent schemes. The Government’s Scams Prevention Framework, supported by AFCA, is a step in the right direction. But some might argue that this approach is reactive rather than proactive. It aims to handle the aftermath of scams rather than preventing them from occurring in the first place. Preventing scams requires a robust, well-funded public awareness campaign alongside technological measures that can keep up with rapidly changing scam tactics. Whether the framework has allocated sufficient resources for such measures remains to be seen.
In the meantime, AFCA is set to play a key role in giving consumers a clearer path to resolution when they are scammed. However, only time will tell whether this framework will offer real relief to scam victims or if it will merely be a bureaucratic buffer against the growing tide of digital fraud.
The AFCA-backed framework offers hope, but questions remain about whether it can truly disrupt the ever-evolving world of scams. Will the government’s move be enough to stay ahead of cybercriminals? Or are consumers left navigating a maze of disputes while industries remain slow to change? The effectiveness of this framework will ultimately be measured not just by its policies but by its results in protecting consumers and holding businesses accountable.
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
