Why It's Critical That The Australian Government Expands The Scams Prevention Framework Bill To Other Sectors
Over the past year, cybersecurity trends and challenges have had a profound impact on all industries in Australia. Cybercrime, particularly phishing scams, has evolved into a sophisticated, large-scale challenge affecting businesses, consumers and critical infrastructure. However, it is a solvable challenge with the right approach and tools in place. For example, in response, the Australian Government has introduced the Scam Prevention Framework (SPF) Bill, a significant legislative step towards combating fraud and strengthening consumer protection.
The SPF Bill, currently before Parliament, seeks to curb the growing problem of scams by introducing new measures to protect consumers. The framework mandates substantial obligations for regulated entities, including strict compliance measures, harsh penalties for non-compliance and defined pathways for dispute resolution. As a significant step toward phishing resistance and cyber resilience for Australia, this is positive legislation that the Australian parliament should vote in favour of to safeguard Australian consumers.
A strong framework with room for improvement
The SPF Bill is a crucial step toward creating a safer digital environment by fostering an ecosystem where businesses and the government share information and collaborate to disrupt scams. However, the current scope of the bill is limited to the banking, telecommunications and digital platform service provider sectors. While these industries are among the most affected by scams, they are far from the only ones at risk. Limiting the bill's coverage to these sectors overlooks the broader impact of scams on other industries and consumers.
Scams are not exclusive to financial services or telecommunications; unfortunately, they occur across all industries in unique ways. Every sector that deals with consumers and digital transactions is vulnerable to cyberattacks. Australians interact with multiple industries daily and therefore, their protection should not be contingent on which sector they are engaging with at any given time. Expanding the SPF Bill's reach will ensure that consumers are protected no matter where they conduct business.
Cybercriminals also continually exploit gaps in security regulations. If the SPF Bill only applies to select industries, cybercriminals will likely shift their focus to less-protected sectors. By covering all industries, a more comprehensive and resilient defence against scams will be established, ensuring a holistic and future-proofed cybersecurity approach.
Strong phishing-resistant protection is critical
Cybercriminals frequently use phishing attacks to steal credentials and gain unauthorised access to systems, leading to financial fraud, identity theft and business disruptions. Strong, modern authentication measures are among the most effective ways to mitigate phishing-related scams that this SPF aims to protect against. Particularly, phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication (MFA) tools, such as passkeys, are a foundational requirement for scam prevention.
Beyond expanding the industry scope of the SPF Bill, it will be important for the government to ensure that organisations implement strong, phishing-resistant authentication. Phishing-resistant passkeys, such as hardware security keys that comply with FIDO2/WebAuthn standards, provide an effective barrier against these attacks. This is because it requires something you know (such as a PIN or password), something you have (a security key), and something you are (a biometric fingerprint or physical touch of the key) to gain access to accounts.
Phishing-resistant MFA prevents account compromise by eliminating reliance on traditional password-based authentication, which is highly susceptible to cyber threats. Unlike legacy MFA methods, which can be intercepted, such as SMS-based one-time passcodes, strong hardware-based authentication ensures that only legitimate users can gain access to their accounts. This approach significantly reduces the risk of unauthorised access, data breaches, and financial fraud.
A future-proofed approach to scam prevention
As cybercriminals employ increasingly sophisticated tactics, including AI-driven scams and social engineering, we encourage the Australian Government to adopt a more holistic and proactive approach. The SPF Bill lays the foundation for scam prevention, but its scope should be expanded to provide coverage across all major sectors of the economy.
We remain committed to supporting Australian regulators in their efforts to create a safer digital landscape. By expanding the SPF Bill and incorporating advanced security measures, the Australian Government can take a significant step toward protecting consumers and businesses from evolving scam threats. By doing so, Australia can lead the way in global cybersecurity resilience, demonstrating that a unified, cross-industry approach is essential for effectively tackling cybercrime and becoming truly phishing-resistant.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Te Pāti Māori Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer On The Longest Suspension In Parliament
This week, Parliament took the unprecedented step of suspending both Te Pāti Māori leaders - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi - for 21 days. Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was suspended for seven days - but had also been punished with a 24-hour suspension on the day over a haka all three had performed in Parliament, against the Treaty Principles Bill, in November. It is against the rules of the House for members to leave their seats during a debate - which all three did. Ngarewa-Packer told Saturday Morning that the 21-day suspension, which was seven times harsher than any previous sanction an MP has faced, was not proportionate. "I think the backlash from the public, nationally and internationally, validates that," she said. Previously, the longest suspension for an MP had been three days, given to the former prime minister Robert Muldoon for criticising the speaker in the 1980s. While New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the duration of the suspension would have been lessened if the Te Pāti Māori MPs had apologised, Ngarewa-Packer said that was never requested by the Privileges Committee. "What we have here is a situation where, and some are calling it Trumpism, we've been a lot more specific - we have an Atlas agenda that has not only crept in, it's stormed in on the shores of Aotearoa and some may not understand what that means, but this is just the extension of the attack on the treaty, on the attack on Indigenous voices. "We made the point the whole way through when we started to see that they weren't going to be able to meet us halfway on anything, even a quarter of the way, on any of the requests for tikanga experts, for legal experts when we knew the bias of the committee." Ngarewa-Packer added that the Privileges Committee process was not equipped to deal with the issue. "We hit a nerve and we can call it a colonial nerve, we can call it institutional nerve... "I think that this will be looked back on at some stage and say how ridiculous we looked back in 2025." Ngarewa-Packer also added that the language from Peters during the debate on Thursday was "all very deliberate" - "and that's what we're contending with in Aotearoa". "Everyone should have a view but don't use the might of legislation and the power to be able to assert your racism and assert your anti-Māori, anti-Treaty agenda." Peters had taken aim at Waititi on Thursday as "the one in the cowboy hat" and "scribbles on his face" in reference to his mataora moko. He said countless haka have taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker. "They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn't tell the Speaker did they?" Peters added that Te Pāti Māori were "a bunch of extremists" and that "New Zealand has had enough of them". "They don't want democracy, they want anarchy," he said. "They don't want one country, they don't want one law, they don't want one people."
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Suspended Te Pāti Māori MPs To Embark On National Tour
Te Pāti Māori says it will continue to stand its ground as three MPs begin their record suspensions. On Thursday night, Parliament dealt its harshest ever punishment by suspending co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 days, and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven. The trio were sanctioned for their actions during the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill in November. Parliament's privileges committee deemed the haka the MPs performed could have "intimidated" others. Government parties supported the recommended suspension. Labour agreed they should face some sanction, but disagreed with the length of time the committee had landed on. Speaking to media after their suspension was handed down, the MPs said they planned to use their time away from the House to organise. "We're going to go home and show that we stood our ground," Ngarewa-Packer said. The party now has the Regulatory Standards Bill in its sights, and will use its time away to encourage supporters to make submissions against it. Party president John Tamihere told Midday Report the party was feeling "very chipper" and the co-leaders would embark on a national tour. "What we've got to do is just get out on our streets, in all our pā up and down the country, activate, organise and that's where we're going now." Accusing Parliament of being a "very unhealthy place" for Māori, Tamihere said the MPs would apologise once it was made clear what they would be apologising for. "If you're saying we should apologise for bringing the tikanga that displays our reo, which is the haka, into the House... see, we're not here to just appear for tourists. We're not here to start a rugby game, you know? "We are here to display and practice who we are and what we are. We do that 24/7, and we don't do it because somebody says, 'No, when you walk in that Parliament you've got to stop being a Māori,' for goodness sake." Waititi said there were "many tools in the tikanga basket" when it came to opposing further legislation. "It will be deemed, and probably sanctioned, by tipuna who guide us in our wairua, in our ngākau, and the people who guide us outside. They sent us in to be the unapologetic Māori voice. Māori voice means that everything that we have in our kete kōrero will be used." He said Thursday's debate got "pretty ugly and sad", referencing Winston Peters' "scribble" jab at his mataora. "I would be ashamed," Waititi said. "If I was his mokopuna, to look over those clips and to hear him denigrate not only something that was handed down by his ancestors, but also him as a future ancestor the legacy he will leave for his tamariki-mokopuna. I'm saddened by that, but also I feel ashamed that his family have to wear that legacy." Peters agreed the debate was sad, though for different reasons - telling Morning Report Te Pāti Māori's behaviour was unprecedented and unforgivable. Disappointed by inevitable - former leader Te Ururoa Flavell, Te Pāti Māori co-leader from 2013 to 2018, said he was disappointed at the outcome, but it was inevitable. "Māori and haka, that is part of who we are and what we do, as an expression of a message. No different to giving a speech in the House and pointing the finger at people. You sort of think, where's the consistency here?" he asked. "Our people understand the protocols that go with various places. Our marae are run by tikanga and protocols about what you can and can't do. And we also know that there are consequences of actions, both for better or for worse. "That's never an issue - the issue here is when you line it all up, you'd say that the three MPs were dealt with very, very harshly and unfairly." Flavell said Parliament had come a long way from the days where MPs could not speak te reo in the House, but even that was hard fought for. He said Parliament allowed waiata and even Christmas carols, despite not being in the rules, but with an acceptance they were in the spirit of the occasion. "Really, can we get to a point in time to accept that Māori are tangata whenua of this land? Can we not get to a time and have a conversation about actually accepting that kaupapa Māori is okay in this land and in the halls of Parliament, for goodness sake, and to allow it to happen on appropriate occasions?" Flavell said a debate about tikanga in the House was long overdue, but said any debate must run alongside education. "I hope that we learn from the history and allow the debate to happen, but let's do it fairly, not in the sense of allowing every party to have their vehicle. That will move nothing, it will not move the dial, and we saw that yesterday, but allow actually, a debate to inform. "Hopefully, the committee that's digging into the whole issue of the Treaty of Waitangi will raise some of those issues. But let's have the debate. Let's allow a discussion on kaupapa Māori within the halls of Parliament, and that, I believe, will go a long way to settle some of these grievances that will not only have come up in the past, but are likely to come up in the future."
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
'We hit a nerve': Te Pāti Māori leader on suspension
This week Parliament took the unprecedented step of suspending both Te Pāti Māori leaders - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi - for 21 days. Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was suspended for seven days - but had also been punished with a 24-hour suspension on the day over a haka all three had performed in Parliament, against the Treaty Principles Bill, in November last year. It is against the rules of the House for members to leave their seats during a debate - which all three did. Ngarewa-Packer told RNZ's Saturday Morning programme that the 21-day suspension, which was seven times harsher than any previous sanction an MP has faced, was not proportionate. "I think the backlash from the public, nationally and internationally, validates that," she said. Previously, the longest suspension for an MP had been three days, given to the former prime minister Robert Muldoon for criticising the speaker in the 1980s. While New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the duration of the suspension would have been lessened if the Te Pāti Māori MPs had apologised, Ngarewa-Packer said that was never requested by the Privileges Committee. "What we have here is a situation where, and some are calling it Trumpism, we've been a lot more specific - we have an Atlas agenda that has not only crept in, it's stormed in on the shores of Aotearoa and some may not understand what that means, but this is just the extension of the attack on the treaty, on the attack on Indigenous voices. "We made the point the whole way through when we started to see that they weren't going to be able to meet us halfway on anything, even a quarter of the way, on any of the requests for tikanga experts, for legal experts when we knew the bias of the committee." Ngarewa-Packer added that the Privileges Committee process was not equipped to deal with the issue. "We hit a nerve and we can call it a colonial nerve, we can call it institutional nerve... I think that this will be looked back on at some stage and say how ridiculous we looked back in 2025." She also added that the language from Peters during the debate on Thursday was "all very deliberate" - "and that's what we're contending with in Aotearoa". "Everyone should have a view but don't use the might of legislation and the power to be able to assert your racism and assert your anti-Māori, anti-Treaty agenda." Peters had taken aim at Waititi on Thursday as "the one in the cowboy hat" and "scribbles on his face" in reference to his mataora moko. He said countless haka have taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker. "They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn't tell the Speaker did they?" Peters added that Te Pāti Māori were "a bunch of extremists" and that "New Zealand has had enough of them". "They don't want democracy, they want anarchy. They don't want one country, they don't want one law, they don't want one people."
