Earlier this year, ����Vlog submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for any Systemic Issues Reports into “Commonwealth Bank’s conduct and cooperation or lack thereof, in ongoing or previous AFCA cases or investigations”. 

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) is the body responsible for handling customer complaints with banks and other financial institutions. 

We submitted our FOI request after speaking to a number of customers who had ongoing AFCA complaints about CBA, and who alleged the bank had failed to produce timely or complete documents to the complaints handling process. 

In August 2025, AFCA identified “systemic issues” relating to CBA and referred the matter to ASIC in a “Systemic Issues Report”. This was followed by an investigation which concluded in October that year. 

Access denied

In response to questions about complaint issues relating to CBA, AFCA tells us that, under its rules, all parties to a complaint, including financial firms, are required to comply with requests for information during the complaints process. 

“AFCA may take appropriate steps if information is not provided or is incomplete… Misconduct or breaches that affect more than one consumer may be investigated and reported to the relevant regulator by our Systemic Issues team,” a spokesperson says. 

AFCA is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but Systemic Issues Reports are routinely sent to ASIC, the statutory body that oversees them. 

ASIC told ����Vlog it had identified 13 documents relating to our FOI request for Systemic Issues Reports, but in late March decided to block access to eight documents, including the report itself, after hearing submissions from the bank as to why they should be kept secret. ASIC is required by law to consult with the bank. 

Five documents, which were emails between AFCA and ASIC were released to us in a redacted format, but access to the remaining eight documents were denied. 

ASIC justified the move to deny access primarily on two grounds, the first being that any disclosure may cause harm to the legitimate business interests of CBA. 

“The release of the material would or could reasonably be expected to unreasonably affect CBA in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs,” the ASIC FOI officer says. 

The second reason given was that any disclosure would make CBA less likely to provide information to ASIC in the future. 

“It is also my view that persons or entities who provide information would or could reasonably be expected to be less transparent with the quantity or quality of information they provide to ASIC if they were aware that such information could be disclosed,” the ASIC FOI officer went on to say. 

Why is ASIC protecting commercial interests? 

����Vlog sent questions to ASIC asking why it was the regulator’s role to protect the commercial interests of CBA shareholders, especially following systemic issues being identified. We also asked why the regulator was fearful the bank may cease to provide information to ASIC in the future and whether the bank refusing ASIC information requests would be in breach of the law. 

ASIC says decisions relating to FOI requests are made by a specialist team and in accordance with obligations under the act. 

“Under FOI laws, information concerning the business affairs of an organisation that would or could reasonably be expected to unreasonably affect that organisation, or could prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth or an agency, are conditionally exempt,” an ASIC spokesperson says. 

We also sent questions to CBA. The bank says they are committed to working with customers to resolve concerns fairly and as quickly as possible. 

“This includes matters that are referred to AFCA for independent review. CBA has detailed processes and procedures in place to support the provision of  documents in a timely manner to assist the AFCA process,” a spokesperson says. 

“When customers raise complaints with CBA, a significant proportion of these are closed within a day, and the vast majority of complaints are resolved within 30 days,” they add. 

Public accountability   

Clinton Free, a professor of accounting, governance and regulation at the University of Sydney Business School says it is “disappointing” to see the regulator not coming down on the side of public accountability. 

“Their role is to regulate the banks. Public trust in institutions, including banks is at alarming record lows, this sort of obfuscation and lack of accountability contributes to that,” he said. 

“Information about Australia’s largest bank and how they treat their customers and handle complaints should be in the public domain. Yes, the regulator faces a challenging line to walk, but it would seem on face value that this is in line with the public interest.” 

Free adds that banks face a long road to rebuilding trust following the Royal Commission and that the regulator also has a role to play in restoring public faith in its own ability to hold banks to account. 

“The Royal Commission gave rise to this view that banks avoid meaningful consequences and that did damage to regulators. I would have thought it would be in the regulators’ interest to not just act, but be seen to be transparent,” he says.  

Do you know more about this story? Contact ����Vlog Investigative Journalist Jarni Blakkarly at jblakkarly@choice.com.au 

The post Why is ASIC blocking reports into CommBank’s mistakes? appeared first on ����Vlog.

This, however, is a cryptocurrency ATM, and it’s one of thousands popping up at petrol stations, tobacco shops, newsagents and convenience stores around Australia. 

In 2019 there were 23 crypto ATMs across Australia. Today there are more than 2000. Despite our relatively small population, Australia has the third-highest number of these machines in the world, behind only the United States and Canada. 

“They are very popular,” the owner of the newsagent says when asked about the machine. It’s owned by CoinFlip, a US-based company, which is one of four major operators of crypto ATMs in Australia.

They’re marketed as a harmless way to purchase bitcoin, tether, ether and other crypto currencies using cash, but authorities say scams facilitated by these machines are growing rapidly and there are calls for them to be banned altogether.

Boom time for crypto ATMs 

The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), which is responsible for fighting criminal activity in the financial system, says crypto ATMs are being used for scams and fraud-related transactions at a rate that is “impossible to ignore”. 

“Crypto ATMs provide a fast, irreversible way for victims to send money to scammers,” AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas says. 

“They’re easy to locate, often operating 24/7, and designed for quick cash transactions with no human intervention, making them highly attractive to criminals.” 

Claude Von Arx, a senior financial counsellor at the Consumer Action Law Centre in Melbourne, says he has worked with clients who’ve had money stolen through scams via crypto ATMs. He says the massive growth in their popularity in recent years has come at the expense of some of the older, financially vulnerable people he assists. 

Betty’s story 

Betty* lives in regional Victoria and is over 65 years old. She’s still working, and worried she won’t have enough superannuation to retire comfortably. Last year she saw an ad for an investment opportunity on Facebook and made contact. The person she spoke with spent months grooming her while setting up a scam. 

Over a period of weeks, Betty transferred $5000 a day out of her superannuation account to her bank account, then withdrew it in cash and fed it into a crypto ATM at her local petrol station. The money was then transferred to the scammer’s crypto wallet before disappearing. In the end she lost around $140,000 – her entire retirement savings. 

“This woman had never used crypto before the scam, she was taught how to use the machines and given step-by-step instructions,” says Claude Von Arx from Consumer Action Law Centre. “She would go to the petrol station and then stand on the phone and the scammer would walk her through the process, right there in the open, she was coached through it. One note at a time.”

Betty is far from alone. 

AUSTRAC says around 150,000 transactions take place on crypto ATMs in Australia every year. The agency estimates one in ten transactions are linked to suspicious activity, including organised crime and scams.

AUSTRAC’s Cryptocurrency Taskforce says data from nine crypto ATM providers shows most users are over the age of 50, while 60–70-year-olds alone account for 29% of all transactions by value. These demographics, which are in stark contrast to the generally much younger demographics of cryptocurrency traders, suggest these machines may be being used by scam victims rather than crypto enthusiasts.

Steep fees and big players

Most of the crypto ATM companies operating in Australia are based in North America, where the market is more established. Four of the major companies operating locally are CoinFlip, Localcoin, BitRocket and Bitcoin Depot. 

CoinFlip boasts 210 machines in NSW alone and another 145 in Victoria. 

These companies partner with local business shopfronts who provide the space to host the ATMs in return for income. CoinFlip says businesses who host a kiosk can “increase foot traffic, generate monthly rental income, and earn revenue from transactions”. 

Meanwhile, Localcoin says ATM hosts will “generate over $2000 annually through rental income”.

The reason these machines may be shunned by some genuine crypto enthusiasts and traders is the extremely high fees they charge on transactions. Someone purchasing bitcoin through a Localcoin ATM can expect to pay an 18% service fee, plus an additional $4 flat fee. Online crypto exchanges typically charge fees of around 1% to purchase bitcoin. 

Some machines also offer people the option to sell bitcoin and other crypto currencies and withdraw cash, though similar fees are charged. 

����Vlog ‘falls in love’ online

Both the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which runs the National Anti-Scams Centre, are keen to highlight the scam warning signs they’ve placed on crypto ATMs.

“Mandatory scam warnings and increasing the capacity to monitor transactions should help reduce opportunities for criminals to misuse these ATMs,” says Catriona Lowe, deputy chair of the ACCC.

The Localcoin ATM we visited in Melbourne did have a message, in small print, warning customers that if someone asks for bitcoin it could well be a scam.

When we contacted the Localcoin service assistance chatbot posing as someone trying to send money to a woman they had met online, the bot promptly warned us to cease the transaction as we were likely being scammed. It didn’t provide an option for continuing the transaction or provide any links or support to set up accounts. 

The CoinFlip ATM carried no printed warnings on the machine (the company says a digital on-screen scam warning appears later in the process) and when we called their service assistance line we got a different response to the Localcoin chatbot. 

Posing as someone trying to send bitcoin to a ‘girlfriend’ we met online who lived overseas and claimed her mother was sick, there were red flags of a scam (as identified by the ACCC in their warnings around romance scams) for the CoinFlip staff member, who said they were based in the US.

“Just so you know everything on the blockchain is permanent and irreversible, which means if you send her funds and you realise she has stopped talking to you that money is gone. There is no way to get it back. Are you aware of that?” the staff member asked. “I trust her,” we replied, and later added, “she wouldn’t lie to me”.

“Are you sure she is who she says she is? Like, have you talked to her on the phone, like in person, like video and all that?” the staff member asked us. We answered in the affirmative, intending to imply we had spoken over video (CoinFlip disputes this and says the staff member received confirmation we had met this person face-to-face). 

The staff member asked a number of other probing questions, but never mentioned the word “scam”, and in the end sent links on how to set up an account with CoinFlip and offered to talk us through the steps. 

CoinFlip responds

We sent questions to CoinFlip about the interaction. The company replied that “CoinFlip takes consumer protection seriously and holds itself to the highest standard of compliance and transparency”.  

“In this instance, CoinFlip’s agent went above and beyond to educate the caller, cautioning them about trusting the intended recipient of the funds, explaining that blockchain transactions cannot be reversed once completed, and encouraging careful consideration before proceeding. At no point did any funds move, and no transaction occurred,” the spokesperson says. 

CoinFlip says that had we attempted to complete the transaction using the same information given on the call, the account would be “flagged, reviewed and suspended by a member of our local dedicated compliance team as part of CoinFlip’s multilayer protection mechanisms”. 

No transaction occurred in this scenario because it was merely a simulation. It is not suggested that CoinFlip knowingly or recklessly facilitates scam transactions, however, this scenario demonstrates how a potential victim such as Betty can use crypto ATMs at the insistence of scammers to transfer significant funds in an untraceable way.

Time for reform 

In 2025, AUSTRAC placed conditions on all crypto ATM operators, including a $5000 transaction limit. 

But Claude Von Arx from Consumer Action Law Centre says that isn’t enough. 

“It’s like whack-a-mole – everyone is working hard to try and tighten the banking process, scams are already on the next scenario. Crypto ATMs are an easy way to circumvent the banking system and controls,” he says. 

“Crypto is already untraceable, but getting the money into crypto is so much easier now. Some banks don’t allow funds to go to online crypto exchanges, and that’s now pushed scammers to these ATMs.”

AFP detective superintendent Marie Andersson says Australia should be moving in the direction of countries like New Zealand, who have banned crypto ATMs outright, and Singapore, where restrictions have made them commercially unviable.  

“It’s something AUSTRAC and the regulators need to seriously consider,” Andersson says. When asked if banning crypto ATMs would make policing scams easier, she says, “the simple answer is yes”. 

����Vlog understands the Department of Home Affairs is developing legislation that would enable AUSTRAC to prohibit “high-risk” products that “cause harm to the community”, and the federal government plans to introduce legislation at some point in 2026. 

A department spokesperson says these high-risk products may include crypto ATMs.

Von Arx says any ban can’t come quick enough to prevent more people from falling victim. 

“What is the argument for crypto ATMs, what is their purpose? It’s hard to build a business case for them. What do they add to society?” 

*Not her real name 

The post Are cryptocurrency ATMs really just scam machines? appeared first on ����Vlog.

When it comes to serving the needs of Australia’s original inhabitants, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) wants banks and other financial services to do better.

Despite attempts by First Nations advocates to get financial firms to anticipate the challenges, First Nations communities still receive the same poor service and the industry remains tone deaf to cultural differences that have repeatedly been brought to its attention.

AFCA received 2461 complaints from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the 2024–25 financial year. The complaints were mostly about unauthorised transactions, a lack of financial hardship assistance, poor or no response to complaints, and the mis‑selling of funeral and other insurance products.

But this number reflects only a fraction of the poor experiences of First Nations customers, as many get nowhere when trying to access financial services in the first place, let alone resolve an issue with their financial services provider.

“Year after year the same patterns persist, and many people never reach external dispute resolution because of the frustration they experience dealing with firms,” says AFCA deputy chief ombudsman Dr June Smith.

“First Nations people continue to face disproportionate challenges and barriers when interacting with financial services and our data likely reflects only a fraction of the problem,” says Smith.

Part of that problem starts with the failure of banks to recognise  the living conditions of remote First Nations communities, and this lack of recognition has a long history.

In April last year, we reported on Westpac abruptly closing its last branch in Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory, leaving many First Nations and Torres Strait Islander peoples with very limited banking services.

Through his work with the advocacy group Mob Strong, acting director Hark Holden sees the problem firsthand on a daily basis.

“These financial service providers need to ascertain and accommodate the vulnerabilities of these clients rather than just waiting for them to get in touch,” Holden says. “They must also look into their own past history of not helping these clients out when help was needed.”

A gap for BNPL and payday lenders to exploit

Holden agrees with Smith’s view that only a small portion of dissatisfied First Nations clients manage to lodge a complaint with AFCA.

“Not that many First Nations consumers are aware of their right to complain to the financial service provider, or to escalate that complaint to AFCA if necessary. Many are actually first or second generation users of the financial system, after generations of marginalisation and dispossession,” Holden says.

This unfamiliarity, combined with a lack of access to financial services, is one of the reasons that many First Nations customers fall into the hands of third-tier operators such as payday lenders or buy now, pay later businesses.

“They feel like they have no agency over accepting these products and could agree to disadvantageous contractual terms without understanding them in the first place,” Holden says. “And they feel like they cannot complain as they have no other source of credit.”

Digital exclusion

As financial service providers close down bank branches and force clients to transact online, First Nations communities are further isolated. It is well established that many First Nations people don’t have digital access, either because they can’t afford it or it isn’t available – sometimes both.

When dispute resolution processes are fully automated and devoid of human touchpoints, many First Nations clients have nowhere to turn.

Not having digital access has many impacts, including not being able to make insurance claims, access superannuation accounts, or receive critical communications.

“A priority for ACFA is equity of access for everyone,” says Smith.

“When we go to some remote communities, the internet is so sporadic you can only get a clear connection in a small part of the community,” says Mob Strong’s Mark Holden.

“The number of financial service providers are limited, and there are no bricks-and-mortar branches for people to come in and resolve the issue face to face. They would have to either take a very long four-wheel-drive drive journey or take a flight to go to a bank branch.”

“Our clients often feel very hopeless when trying to sort out a dispute with a financial service provider, and sometimes they feel like they want to give up,” says Holden. “It requires financial counsellors and lawyers to help make these cases, but these resources are severely limited.”

Better codes of practice needed

According to AFCA, a number of codes of practice are under independent review in the financial services sector. Smith says this presents an opportunity to set new standards for banks and other lenders interacting with First Nations communities, such as how they account for cultural differences and technological limitations when asking customers to provide proof of identification. 

“Now is the time for industry to clearly define its commitment to improving engagement with First Nations peoples,” Smith says.

Smith says the codes should be updated to make it easier for First Nations customers to self-identify for security purposes and that “meaningful cultural awareness training” should be a requirement for both banks and non-bank lenders so they can provide support that meets the needs of First Nations people in regional and remote areas.

“A lot of First Nations consumers can’t understand the security requirements, such as providing digital ID or multi-factor identification, and so they get left out,” Holden says.

But codes of practice only go so far.

“These codes need to be enforceable and bind the entire industry, not just a section of it. If a code’s not working, the alternative is law reform or the imposition of legislative requirements,” says Holden.

It’s a point that First Nations advocates have been making for a long time. In the absence of enforceable laws that dictate how banks treat First Nations customers, Holden says some genuine care and concern can go a long way.

“What these financial services providers really need to do is be more proactive in trying to assess and accommodate vulnerabilities. They need to have specialised training and specialised staff for First Nations or other vulnerable consumers. It would be an unfair burden on these consumers to deal with the industry without these things in place.”

The post Thousands of complaints: Banks failing First Nations customers appeared first on ����Vlog.

Leonora Risse, an economist focused on gender equality says that, despite good intentions, AI models can ultimately become heavily skewed.

“These systems aren’t designed to discriminate on the basis of gender, they’re intended to be gender neutral. But once you put them into practice, they end up being gender biased because of the very different experiences and circumstances that on the whole, on average, men and women tend to be in.”

As banks and other financial institutions ramp up their use of AI and automated decision-making, those in the field are calling for regulatory safeguards and guardrails to make sure whole segments of society aren’t left behind. 

Traditional loan bias has always been rife

Women have always faced biases and discrimination when it comes to accessing finance. 

Kirsten Abernethy is the executive director of the Victorian Women’s Trust, an organisation that was instrumental in changing the Australian banking sector’s practice of requiring a male guarantor for women’s business loans in the 1980s. 

These days, she says, the ways lenders assess women with small businesses and female entrepreneurs comes with more implicit biases than overt ones. 

“The financial systems are really based around male norms of full-time, uninterrupted work, linear income growth, and the accumulation of assets,” she says. 

In contrast, women often have career breaks and might have periods of time where their work is part-time or flexible. 

“The models that are used around risk, credit and investment systematically undervalue women, not because women are riskier propositions, but because of what the system assumes is normal,” Abernethy adds. 

AI accelerating the trend

Michael Mehmet, a professor from the School of Business at the University of Wollongong says banks and other financial institutions are quickly getting on the AI bandwagon, due to advantages in speed and reduced labour costs. 

“Every day more and more banks are jumping onto it just purely based on its speed and efficiency and ability to process huge amounts of data without too many human resources, particularly when it comes to understanding patterns and trends and then feeding that sort of information into lending approvals and helping with strategic decision-making.” 

Ramona Vijeyarasa, a professor at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) who has researched AI and gender, says the risk to women lies within the datasets themselves.

“It’s not that the problem is necessarily the tech, but when the data itself reflects existing biases that we know are prevalent in society, the AI can amplify that,” she says. 

In short, AI won’t just replicate pre-existing biases, it will accelerate them, as a result of its increased speed and efficiency. 

And it’s not just a problem in Australia. Norrin Halilem, professor in innovation and knowledge management at Canada’s Universite Laval, says the concerns are worldwide. 

“This is especially relevant because credit decisions sit at the intersection of financial risk and social life,” he says. 

“Things like housing, mobility, entrepreneurship, education, and family stability can all hinge on access to credit.” 

Experts call for crucial AI auditing

Jeannie Paterson, director of University of Melbourne’s Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Ethics, was previously on the federal government AI Expert Group. She says banks are being very opaque about how they are using the technology. 

“It’s a real issue. It’s really unclear how they make the assessment. If they are making it a partially automated process, there is little that is clear about why people are being denied credit, they won’t know. In law they have little right to complain unless they can show discrimination, and it’s really hard to prove discrimination unless you have access to the data.”

Paterson says it’s important that any automated decision-making process used is audited for systemic discrimination, but it is largely unclear if this is happening. 

“Banks won’t even say if they are using it, let alone if they are auditing them.”

Banks remain (mostly) silent 

We contacted Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac and ANZ, asking them what AI systems and automated models they were using to assist in decision making, whether these were designed in-house or by third parties, and what auditing and safeguards were being put in place to minimise gender biases. 

Only the Commonwealth Bank responded on the record. 

“All credit decisions continue to follow our established practices, risk frameworks, and responsible lending policies,” a CBA spokesperson says. 

“Where appropriate, we use industry and internal data and automated processes to make it easier to assess our customer’s situation. We have strong controls and governance to manage model alignment.”

They added that models undergo independent assessments to support “fairness across customer groups” and were subject to ongoing monitoring and reviews. 

Greater need for regulatory safeguards

Paterson says too much of the discussion surrounding AI focuses on so-called “generative AI” and other areas, and impacts on society are often ignored. 

“All our attention is on ChatGPT and we have been distracted from automated decision-making. If a bank is using a credit tool to do automated credit assessments, but if it’s not generative AI, it’s not on the agenda,” she says. 

Professor Vijeyarasa from UTS says she would like to see Australia take a more stringent regulatory approach in this area and follow the example of the European Union whose AI Act provides some protections from AI-based discrimination for their citizens. 

“It’s fair to say that the regulation of this space hasn’t really kept up. At the moment it is up to the private sector to decide how much information they want to give to us and whether the risk of automated discrimination is too high,” she says.

The post Could AI make it harder for women to get a loan? appeared first on ����Vlog.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has backtracked and agreed to refund some of the $270 million in excessive fees it charged low-income account holders, following a months-long ����Vlog campaign. 

In July 2025, the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), found that a number of banks had charged excessive account-keeping and overdraft fees to customers on Centrelink incomes, who should have automatically been moved to low-fee or no-fee accounts. 

While the other banks called out by ASIC moved swiftly to remedy the situation and issue bulk refunds to some affected customers, CommBank flat-out refused for months, with CEO Matt Comyn even telling Parliament under questioning that refunding unfair fees would be “appropriating shareholder money”. 

But just before Christmas, Australia’s largest bank did an about-face and said that it would begin refunding “relevant concession customers” to the tune of $68 million. Last year the bank posted a $10 billion annual profit. 

ASIC ‘disappointed’

CommBank has yet to announce any details about which customers will receive refunds and which will miss out. 

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland says while he welcomes the change, it is still “disappointing” that some low-income CommBank customers may receive nothing.  

“These are people on very low incomes. Any money that comes out of their bank account by way of a fee is money that they haven’t been able to spend on basics like groceries or energy bills,” he says. 

Consumer pressure forced CommBank’s hand

����Vlog head of policy Morgan Campbell says that despite the bank’s refusal to refund the full amount, it is still a “big win”. 

“CommBank should never have charged these fees in the first place, and we shouldn’t have had to drag them kicking and screaming to make these refunds,” he says. 

“More than 27,000 ����Vlog supporters signed our petition calling for CommBank to refund this money, and we gave them a Shonky Award in November. Both of these have made a real difference. Together we’ve built so much pressure that one of Australia’s biggest corporations has made a $68 million backflip. That’s huge.” 

Campbell is also calling on CommBank to make longer-term changes to its products and processes for customers on low incomes to ensure this never happens again.

The post CommBank backflips on unfair fees following ����Vlog campaign appeared first on ����Vlog.

Between 2019 and 2024, Australia’s largest bank raked in $270 million in excessive account keeping and overdraw fees from people on Centrelink incomes who should never have been charged those fees. 

The corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) called out CBA in July and said they should follow other major banks who have moved to refund the cohort of eligible customers. 

CBA for its part says customers in the cohort were “diverse” and had varying levels of income, savings and home ownership.

“CBA is reviewing individual cases where customers may have incurred unusually high fees and is considering goodwill adjustments where appropriate,” the bank said.

New polling

New nationally representative polling of over 1000 people by Dynata, commissioned by ����Vlog, has found that 88% of people think CBA should provide refunds. The fieldwork was conducted in August of this year.

Slightly fewer people, 83%, agreed that customers who were eligible for no fee or low fee accounts should be automatically switched into them by their bank. 

Morgan Campbell, ����Vlog head of policy says the poll results are no surprise. 

“Australians know bad bank behaviour when they see it. CommBank wasn’t the only big bank keeping people in accounts they shouldn’t have been in, but they’re the only ones who have point blank refused to put it right,” he says. 

“These were unfair fees, they should never have been charged, and CommBank needs to do the decent thing and refund them. By continuing to dig in, they’re thumbing their nose at ASIC, at their customers, and at public opinion.” 

The post CommBank needs to refund unfair fees, say Australians appeared first on ����Vlog.

“Last day,” an elderly woman says to the woman behind the cash register with a nod. “Last day,” she says back with a laugh. 

Yarram may have a population of just over 2000 people, and one that is significantly older than the national average, but as the vibrant main street shows, this is far from a dying town. 

But from tomorrow, there will be no more banking in Yarram, and no more banks. It’s the end of a critical service that many residents depend on. The Bendigo Bank branch, which is usually open until 4pm, will shut at midday for the very last time. The bank couldn’t even see out the day. 

Sad day for the town 

At 9:30am, the Bendigo Bank opens and a steady stream of customers begin rolling in to the branch. Most are older folks, but there are people of all ages. 

Kyle, in his 30s, has a scruffy beard and wears a flannelette shirt and beanie. Coming out of the branch for what will be the final time, he says he has mixed feelings. 

“Bendigo said they would stand by us when the other banks left, then they kind of betrayed us by all of a sudden saying they are going to shut down,” he says. 

“People need a face-to-face [bank] and we have an ageing population in this town, like a lot of small towns, and this is just another layer of services that are being taken away from us.

“There is this trend of removing services from the small rural towns and forcing people to centralise in the rural centres and cities,” Kyle says. 

Jenny, who is also coming out of the bank, says it’s a sad day for the town, but especially for the staff who work at the branch. 

“When I first moved here we had four banks. So I really can’t understand why we can’t have one bank doing all the business and helping out the people of our town,” she says. 

“I feel for the older people who can’t get to Traralgon or Sale to do their banking,” says Jenny.

These are the nearest towns with major bank branches, which are 64 and 72 kilometres away respectively. 

A man rides past on a bike, stopping for a moment to read the sign posted to the glass sliding doors of the bank. “Better get in quick, this says they are closing,” he yells over to me. “Sign of the times I guess, everything’s gone to the computers.”

Gaps in the moratorium 

According to the federal government, 36% of regional bank branches across Australia have closed since 2017. 

In February this year, a moratorium on regional branch closures was announced by the so-called ‘Big Four Banks’ with Commonwealth, ANZ, NAB and Westpac promising no more regional branch closures until the end of July 2027. 

“Banks have a responsibility to regional communities and we’re holding them to it. We are making sure bank branches stay open in the bush,” Treasurer Jim Chalmers said at the time. 

But the moratorium didn’t include smaller banks, such as Bendigo Bank, which announced in July it would be closing 10 branches across Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania. 

At the Yarram Progress Association office, just across the road from the bank, vice president Kevin Mackin says that when senior managers from Bendigo Bank came to town to ‘consult’, there was little that was constructive about the meeting. 

“We came to the meeting wanting to solve a problem, which is how do we have banking services in Yarram. They came to the meeting to tell us they were leaving and that was it. They weren’t willing to explore other options – shorter hours options, smaller branch options, community bank options – everywhere we went trying to provide a solution was just a shut door,” he says. 

A spokesperson for the bank says the decision to close the branch and ATM came following a review of customer preferences, a reduction in business activity and an increase in costs. 

“Bendigo Bank is proud of its regional heritage and operates Australia’s second largest regional branch network,” it told ����Vlog. “Bendigo Bank maintains more branches per customer than any other Australian bank.” 

Worries for the future 

David Phelan is a 73-year-old stock and land broker who says he was proudly born and bred in Yarram. He has been fighting to make sure banking remains viable in the town. 

“Commonwealth were the last ones to leave in 2021. When the Commonwealth left, I told the community the best thing we could do was go to the Bendigo, because if we all went to the Bendigo they couldn’t possibly close. However, they’ve chosen to close and made a liar out of me,” he says.  

David has been having meetings with major and smaller banks trying to entice them to the town. He says while the community is strong, he worries for the future. 

“All of a sudden if you don’t have a bank, you lose your vibrancy out of your main street. If you need to go to Traralgon to do your banking, what’s the next thing you buy? A bit of groceries, instead of shopping in Yarram. It does not help little towns,” he says. 

“The banks have tried to push everyone to electronic banking and it doesn’t suit everybody. I feel for the older people in the town, they’ve never been brought up with computers and everything and they like to go into the bank and withdraw their pension. They trust the bank tellers to do the right thing,” David adds. 

One last trip to the bank

A few doors down from the bank, a red sign outside the Australia Post office informs customers they can deposit and withdraw cash there.   

However, Kevin from the Yarram Progress Association says the services being offered by Bank@Post won’t fulfil the town’s full banking needs. 

“Trust is really important in a banking relationship and a lot of our people believe they have a good relationship with the people in the bank. They trust them. That trust won’t transfer to another operation very easily,” he says. 

Getting up and walking out onto the footpath, Kevin looks out over at the Bendigo branch. His anger is palpable. 

“I believed all the marketing about being ‘The Better Big Bank’,” he says, referring to Bendigo Bank’s advertising slogan.  

“I thought and believed they had a real sense of being a community bank and the sense that they were contributing to Australia, but I don’t think that has been demonstrated in the way they’ve treated Yarram. They aren’t ‘The Better Big Bank’, they are worse than any of the banks I’ve dealt with.” 

Out on the street, an elderly couple approach the Bendigo ATM. It’s 11:47am and the branch is about to close. After several minutes trying to work out how to use the machine, the man gives up frustrated and makes his way through the sliding doors into the bank.

At 11:53am Yarram’s last banking customer emerges from the branch, clutching a few $50 notes and quickly putting them away in his wallet before walking down the street. Before the doors slide shut. And lock.

Photos and video by Jarni Blakkarly

The post The day the last bank left town appeared first on ����Vlog.

Banks are often the unwitting enablers of scammers, yet they have an abysmal track record of helping customers who’ve been scammed. 

In 2023 we reported that the big banks – ANZ, CBA, NAB and Westpac – had put a stop to a mere 13% of scam payments between May 2022 and February 2023 and had provided reimbursement to customers in a paltry 2–5% of these cases. Customers bore 96% of total scam losses across the sector during this period. 

A 2024 ASIC report on 15 smaller banks delivered similarly grim news. Only two percent of scam victims who didn’t lodge a complaint with the bank got their money bank. When customers did lodge a complaint, only seven percent were reimbursed. Almost all the money lost to scams in 2022-23 by customers of the 15 banks ($232 million in total) stayed with the scammers. 

����Vlog also published its own findings in 2024, based on a survey of 280 scam victims asking how their banks had treated them. We weren’t surprised at the results. Half said their bank had made no effort to recover their money once a scam was reported, and four out of five victims weren’t even alerted by their bank that a scam was underway.

In the rare cases that scam victims do get their money back, it often comes after first being told by their bank that this won’t happen because the scam was their fault. ����Vlog has reported on several such cases in recent years. 

After our stories were published – and in some cases, after a complaint was lodged with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) – the banks reversed course and decided to reimburse. We were unable to report these consumer wins. Why? Because the recipients of the reimbursements were required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). 

Secret payments undermine informed policy 

Why do scam reimbursements come with gag orders? One theory is that banks don’t want other scammed customers to know that reimbursement is possible if they push hard enough. 

Given that the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) received 10,928 scam complaints in 2023-24 – an 81% increase over the previous 12 months – publicising these cases could open the floodgates. 

Consumer Action Law Centre CEO Stephanie Tonkin says many scam victims that the Melbourne advocacy group has assisted have been made to sign NDAs to get their money back. 

“We’ve had clients who have been ready to talk to the media or have in fact talked to the media and then have been offered a settlement shortly afterwards, but on the proviso that they sign a non-disclosure agreement and no longer go forward with a media story. I’ve even seen non-disclosure agreements that asked the scam victim to retract statements they made in the media,” Tonkin says. 

“Banks are using these agreements and going to great lengths to not have certain stories out in the media, possibly because the bank’s treatment of the scam victim does not paint the bank in a good light.” 

The larger issue is the lack of a public record of how banks are responding to scams. 

“The problem with using NDAs in the scams context is that there is no transparency over what is happening while we develop policy and obligations,” Tonkin says.

“In some cases where the bank’s conduct was particularly poor, we see these NDAs prevent customers from making complaints to regulators or pursuing their case further. Sometimes NDAs are accompanied by lowball offers where a customer might have received a much higher amount in compensation had they pursued their case through AFCA.”

Tonkin says Consumer Action will be calling on the federal government to place restrictions on the use of NDAs.

Scam Prevention Framework still a work in progress 

This could happen as part of the federal government’s Scams Prevention Framework, which came into effect in February this year. It made AFCA the sole external dispute resolution service for scam complaints. 

AFCA’s remit covers banks and other financial businesses as well as telecommunications and digital platforms providers – the three initial sectors expected to be covered by the framework. 

The new measure will require businesses to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent, detect, disrupt and report scams, but the codes covering each sector have yet to be established, and the sectors themselves have yet to be finalised.  

The legislation has passed, but the Scams Prevention Framework “is sitting on the shelf awaiting sectors to be designated by the assistant treasurer,” Tonkin says. “We hope this happens urgently.”

Reimbursement more likely after AFCA complaint 

An AFCA spokesperson tells ����Vlog that, of the 10,500 scam complaints it resolved in 2023-24, 67% of the cases were resolved between the victim and the financial firm in the first stage of the AFCA process. 

“Typically, resolution occurs at this stage because both parties are satisfied with the outcome. If a complainant is not happy with an offer made by the firm at that stage, they can continue their complaint in the AFCA process,” the spokesperson says. 

The outcome of these cases wouldn’t have been published by AFCA. 

Of the scam cases that progressed further to the investigation stage in 2023-24, 60% resulted in full or partial compensation for the scam victim. The outcomes of these cases would be published, though the name of the complainant – the scam victim – wouldn’t be included. 

AFCA data confirms that scam victims are “much more likely to receive partial or full compensation if they escalate a complaint to AFCA”. 

But signing an NDA can mean you agree not to make an AFCA complaint, since the outcome may be made public

If AFCA becomes aware that a bank is demanding a settlement agreement in a case it’s overseeing, “we can review it to ensure that it fits in with our requirements”, the spokesperson says.

“We do have a standard agreement if parties wish to use it and it does not have a non-disclosure clause.”

But this doesn’t stop banks from imposing their own agreements that include such clauses. 

AFCA to expand scams oversight 

In May this year, AFCA opened a consultation on a proposed expansion of its authority to include the actions – or inactions – of banks that receive fraudulent transactions into accounts controlled by scammers, known as mule accounts. 

In 2024, we covered the case of a senior couple who lost $2.5 million to a scammer who had set up accounts at Westpac, ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, and Bendigo Bank. The banks took no responsibility for their services being used by scammers and the couple received no reimbursements. 

The AFCA consultation ended in June and the rule change is expected to be approved by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) no later than March 2026. It could mean a big jump in complaints.

Meanwhile, other enforcement actions are underway. ASIC is currently pursuing legal action against HSBC bank for ignoring multiple red flags indicating its customers were being scammed. All told they lost a collective $23 million.

No incentive to protect customers 

Australians aged 65 and older continue to lose more money to scams than any other age group. 

National Seniors Australia CEO Chris Grice says telecommunication companies, social media platforms, and banks “should all take proactive measures to help older Australians, and others, identify and protect against scams. For example, investing in the necessary technology to build higher protections into systems, multi-factor authentication, as well as sharing information and intelligence”.

All of this may eventually be required under the Scams Prevention Framework, but as it stands, bank customers and other consumers remain at the mercy of the increasingly diabolical scams industry. And reimbursements that aren’t the result of an AFCA determination are off the public record. 

“I am very concerned that, while there’s work happening in the background, we don’t have any scams laws in place to protect consumers,” Tonkin says. “Therefore there’s nothing incentivising industry to invest in measures to prevent scams and protect their customers.”

“Scam victims lose so much more than their money. It’s life-changing. And with NDAs, there’s no transparency around what’s actually happening. There may have been conduct on the part of the bank that a regulator should know about.”  

The post Banks imposing non-disclosure agreements on scam victims appeared first on ����Vlog.

While fleeing from her abusive partner, she had to make a series of overdraws on one of her three Commonwealth Bank accounts, because she simply needed the money to feed her kids. 

Those overdraws placed Jordan in a mountain of spiralling debt, with the overdraw fees and the interest charged on the unpaid fees growing to over $2000, which she now can’t afford to pay on her Centrelink income. 

On several occasions, she called the bank and attempted to negotiate an outcome, but they refused to waive the fees and told her going into a financial hardship arrangement would put a mark on her credit score, something she doesn’t want to do. 

“The woman from the bank kept triggering me and saying ‘how did he make you spend the money?’ She kept saying that and asking me to justify this and that,” Jordan says. 

“I ended up in tears, I felt shamed. I’m so humiliated. I am losing sleep over it and have done so for nearly two years. I’m not a complainer and if I had the money, I would pay it off in a second.” 

CommBank called out by ASIC

Commonwealth Bank has been singled out by the corporate regulator Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for charging over two million customers on Centrelink incomes, like Jordan, account keeping and overdraw fees for years when they should have automatically transferred them into fee-free accounts. 

ASIC estimated the bank has pocketed some $270 million in unfair fees which they’re now refusing to pay back. Last year CBA brought in over $10 billion in profit. 

Other major banks called out by ASIC announced they would begin remunerating customers who should never have been charged fees in the first place. But CBA is refusing to follow suit. 

For their part, the bank says some in the concession customer group have “varying levels of income, savings and home ownership” and that the relevant account fees were properly disclosed to customers at the time.

“In addition to the steps we have taken, CBA is reviewing individual cases where customers may have incurred unusually high fees and is considering goodwill adjustments where appropriate,” a bank spokesperson says. 

We asked the bank about Jordan’s case and whether it highlighted inadequate staff training and the bank declined to directly respond, saying they couldn’t comment without knowing the customer’s identity. They did say when customers experience financial abuse or domestic and family violence they would be referred to their Next Chapter team. 

“This dedicated team supports customers so that they receive the specialised, trauma informed care and support they need during these challenging times. The team offers a range of services, including…assistance with immediate financial and banking needs such as opening safe new accounts, removing unauthorised access, and connecting to hardship support,” a CBA spokesperson says. 

“As we weren’t provided the details for the customer, we have been unable to get in contact to offer assistance, so a contact number for a member of our customer relations team has been provided so they can call us and we can provide support,” they add. 

Advocates question bank’s “good will” 

Kirsty Robson, a financial counsellor from Consumer Action Law Centre, who is helping Jordan make a complaint to the financial Ombudsman, says CBA’s sincerity in saying they will make “goodwill” payments is highly questionable. 

“The bank says they will be kind and compassionate, then you have this woman who has called the bank and they are incredibly defensive. Why are they putting it through the ringer for such a small amount of money? It’s ridiculous,” Robson says. 

����Vlog head of policy Morgan Campbell agrees that cases like Jordan’s highlight serious questions about CBA’s “goodwill” claims for all of the cohort who have been charged unfair fees. 

“There are 2.2 million CommBank customers who were charged fees that should never have been charged. None of them should have to jump through hoops to get that money back, and especially not someone who has been through family violence,” he says. 

*Not her real name

The post Jordan overdrew her account to flee family violence, CommBank won’t stop charging her fees appeared first on ����Vlog.

For Melbourne woman Heather Lewis, access to cash is a lifeline to society. 

Heather, who uses a wheelchair and has a range of disabilities, says she only uses cash and wouldn’t feel comfortable handing over a bank card to a support worker. 

“Removing cash is taking away our independence. If everything went that way, I’d have to have someone help me with everything,” she says.  

“I feel much safer with cash and I have control over my money.” 

Each fortnight Heather visits her local bank branch in Melbourne’s outer eastern suburbs and withdraws her full Disability Support Pension. She divides the money into different expense categories, which she puts in plastic slips. 

It’s an old-fashioned way of keeping track of her spending, but it works for her. 

“I just feel more comfortable using cash. It keeps my money skills up and I know how much I have, how much I can spend, or if I have to wait until the next pay day,” Heather says. 

“The banks are trying to force everybody online, even if it means taking away people’s independence. They don’t see the cost of what they are doing. It’s not right and it’s not fair, it should be my choice if I want to use cash,” she adds.

New ����Vlog data shows carrying cash is still popular 

While the federal government is developing a mandate that cash continue to be accepted by all businesses that sell essential goods, some non-essential shops are moving away from physical currency. 

Heather says she has noticed certain popular chain stores at major shopping centres are no longer accepting cash and she worries about what this will mean for her in the future. 

Despite the use of cash becoming less common, a recent ����Vlog survey shows people are still carrying cash at rates well above the commonly used statistics cited by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) 

The RBA says only 7% of the population use cash for more than 80% of their in-person transactions. While that statistic captures people like Heather, a nationally representative survey of over 1000 people collected by ����Vlog in June this year shows a much higher number of casual cash users.  

Almost two thirds (65%) of people surveyed are likely to have cash on them at any given time, with almost 50% carrying cash for peace of mind and in the case of an emergency. 

More than a third of people (37%) pay with cash to save money by avoiding card fees or to access discounts. 

Cutting cash risks further exclusion 

Jean Skeat, director of policy and campaigns at the Consumer Action Law Centre says, phasing out cash risks isolating and excluding certain people in society. 

“We should be really looking for ways to further include people. If someone requires cash to operate on a day-to-day basis, we really need to make sure that we’re keeping cash available for that person.” 

“With an increased cost of living, you are subject to fees either by withdrawing cash from some ATMs or [through] card surcharges. People are using cash because it is free,” Skeat says.

����Vlog head of policy Morgan Campbell says that, with the government committed to banning debit card surcharging, there is a risk that businesses will introduce surcharges on the use of cash as a way to recoup costs associated with maintaining a cash supply. 

“At the moment, businesses have to provide a free way to pay, and many want to surcharge card usage, so cash remains free. But once card surcharges are banned, there is a risk some businesses will look to charge customers extra to pay with cash.” 

“We think the government needs to get out in front of this and proactively stop that from happening,” Campbell says. 

“Nobody should have to pay to use their own money, but right now there is nothing to stop a business from putting a surcharge on cash. The card surcharge ban will be a great step, but we don’t want to see the burden of surcharges just shifting from one set of customers to another.” 

For Heather and many like her, the ability to access cash and make cash payments without surcharges is essential to maintaining independence. 

“I still go shopping and get groceries and things that I need. I don’t want to have carers come in just for the sake of it. I value my independence,” she says. 

“People need access to money and it shouldn’t matter how they want to access it or how they want to use it. It’s personal choice.” 

The post At what cost? Cashless society risks leaving some out in the cold appeared first on ����Vlog.