STEPHEN JONES:
Well, delighted to be here this morning with Deputy Chair of the ACCC Catriona Lowe. This morning we are releasing the 15th annual report on – of the Scamwatch report, which is targeting scams. The report tells an interesting story. It looks at the calendar year 2023, the amount of scams that have been reported and the amount of scams – money that has been lost through scams. Interesting data. For the first time in over 8 years the report shows that scam losses are going down. When we came into government scam losses were doubling every year. Over $3.1 billion worth of losses in the year prior to us coming into government Australians were losing to scams. So, it’s a remarkable achievement indeed that for the first time since 2016 we are seeing losses to scams going down. But the $2.7 billion over the year of money lost to scams, that’s still far too much. Every dollar lost to a scam has behind it a human tragedy. So, phase 1 of the government’s plan to tackle scammers is working, and it’s working well. We’ve stood up the National Anti‑Scam Centre. We’ve empowered the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to pull down fake investment websites. We’re blocking literally hundreds of millions of SMS messages and scam calls through our telecommunications code. But there’s much more work to be done. And the second phase of our anti‑scam program over the course of this year we will be introducing new codes of practice which will put tough obligations on banks, on telecommunications companies and on websites.
But the data in this report gives us hope. It gives us hope that we can actually make a difference. And previously governments have said, “Well, if you lose money to scams you’re on your own. You’re a mug. It’s your own fault, you’re on your own,” and they’ve just put this in the too hard basket. The data in this report gives us hope that with the right action, with the right program, with the right policies we can take the scammers off and we can be saving Australians millions and millions of dollars. So, $2.7 billion still too much, but the trend is that the losses are coming down, and that’s good news indeed. Very pleased to see that investment scams are coming down, because the biggest single category of losses is investment scams and seeing that number is reduced is good news indeed. Reporting numbers of scams are actually going up, and we welcome that because the more reports means the more intelligence and the more data we have and we’re able to use that to go after the scammers in our interruption effort.
I do want to make a point about social media, because we’re seeing scam contacts through the telecommunications network, effective methods putting in place to take that on and to see reductions. But social media contacts and social media losses are the one area where we’re still seeing things going up, and that’s unacceptable. So, it’s a clear message to social media platforms that they need to be doing more. And it absolutely underscores the importance of our next phase of work, which are the codes of practice which will be putting the tough new obligations on social media companies and others to ensure that we can reduce what has already been a reduction in the last calendar year even further. I’ll throw to the Deputy Chair now to make some comments, and then happy to take questions.
CATRIONA LOWE:
Thank you, Minister. We are delighted to see the reduction in losses that is reported in this year’s Targeting Scams report. As the minister has indicated, though, at $2.74 billion, that is still far too many dollars lost to Australians and a significant emotional and other costs suffered by Australians as well. It does make us determined to continue in this work. This report demonstrates that interventions can work, that they do make a difference. And that gives us great strength to carry on this fight against scams. Some of the areas where we’ll be focusing over the next 12 months are supporting the introduction of mandatory and enforceable codes. We’ve done a great deal with volunteers around the table, but we need everyone around the table to be effective in this fight. We’ll also be focusing on a technology build so that we can more quickly share intelligence to the people that are in a position to interrupt the scams. So that’s getting info to telcos to block calls and SMSs, it’s getting intel to social media companies so they can take down fake ads and block fake accounts. And it’s getting intel to financial institutions so that they can stop money being moved and they can stop mule accounts which are helping fuel the scam supply chain.
We will also be focusing on using the intel that we have to generate alerts for consumers so that they can be aware in real time of some of the scam trends that we are seeing emerging. We will also be focusing on targeting 2 particular demographic groups. Whilst we are seeing overall losses going down, there are some groups for whom we are not seeing that trend. So, for example, for over 65s we’ve seen overall losses remain at the same level, and we’ve seen, in fact, a slight increase in losses for over 65s to investment scams. So, these sorts of pieces of data tell us that in addition to general messages to the Australian community we also need to be thinking about getting to particular target groups. And we are determined in that fight.
JOURNALIST:
Just while you’re up there can you tell us what are the most common types of scams and – at the moment these days, and which is the most damaging?
LOWE:
That’s a good distinction to draw. So, investment scams continue to be the types of scams that account for the highest levels of losses. So, they’re almost half of that $2.74 billion figure. But we’ve also seen significant growth. So, for example, jobs and employment scams was one of the fastest growing scam types in 2023. It still accounts for less losses than investment scams, but it’s growing. In terms of the most ubiquitous reported scam, that is phishing scams. However, we’re not seeing that translate into losses at the same level as investment scams.
JOURNALIST:
What do those investment scams look like? Like, what are they asking people to do? Can you tell me a little bit more detail?
LOWE:
So they are wide‑ranging, but a typical investment scam could start, for example, with a fake ad on social media encouraging a consumer to take up an investment opportunity. They also take the form of fake investment houses. So they can very effectively spoof the website of a genuine investment opportunity and it will appear quite real to the victim. They will have engagement with a fake financial adviser and they’ll be encouraged to, firstly, invest small amounts and then as they – they may even get some returns from those small investments to make it seem more convincing. But once they’re – the person is on the book, then the scammer will ask for more and more and more, even as they try and get their money out of the investment account.
JOURNALIST:
People aged over 65, obviously it’s concerning that we’re still seeing their reported losses continue to go up. Is it a case of the message not getting through or technology continuing to evolve? What’s the deal here with people over 65?
LOWE:
We do think that social media and technology is a factor for the over 65s. It’s fairly plain that that demographic group is less familiar, they’re clearly not digital natives. And so we think it can be more difficult for consumers in those age groups to discern a fake ad or a fake account on social media. So that is a factor. But awareness, obviously, is also incredibly important. And so we will be continuing our efforts in that regard as well.
JONES:
And to add to that, the scammers – the criminals involved in the scamming activities aren’t mugs; if they’ve got a choice between going to somebody with not much money and going to somebody with a fair bit of money, they’re going to target their activity at people with money. If you think about it, people over the age of 65, they’ve worked hard their whole life, they’re more likely to have savings, they’re more likely to have superannuation. That’s why the scammers are targeting them. And it’s true as the assistant chair says, you know, maybe less likely to be digital natives, but they’re absolutely being targeted by the scammers, which is why our interruption and our anti‑scam program is looking at what we can do to better protect people over the age of 65, but everybody else as well.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that social media companies have a responsibility to be actively warning their users over 65 that may not be as used to the way that these platforms work about the risks of scams and maybe some of the people that they’re interacting with or talking with online?
JONES:
Social media companies can be doing much more than they are at the moment. If a social media company can target an ad at somebody who is interested in a particular type of sneakers or a particular type of music or they can target their advertising at particular demographics, they’ve got the technology – in fact, they’ve got some of the best technology in the world, and they can be doing far more to target and to pull down the damaging, criminal content that is appearing on their network. But it appears that it’s not yet a priority for them. In fact, here in Australia, Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, here in Australia, Mark Zuckerberg appears to be more determined to take journalists off Facebook than criminal content off Facebook. And that priority has got to change. They’ve got to put much more effort into targeting the scammers that are making millions and millions of dollars through the social media networks.
JOURNALIST:
Can you explain – and you touched on it earlier – what exactly you will be saying to the social media giants and what new regulations you’ll be putting in?
JONES:
The only way this battle against the criminals is going to work is we work right across the ecosystem. So we know it can work. We’ve put voluntary codes in place at the moment with the telecommunications companies and with the banks, and we’re seeing progress. That will move to mandatory codes later this year. But the outlier is the social media platforms. So, a few things that will be obvious that will need be to put in place by the social media platforms: a report and respond function. If we see criminal content, scamming content on their platforms, it should be easy for either a citizen or a regulator or a police force or a financial institution to be able to report that and have it immediately taken down. So, report and respond, absolutely critical. Having dispute resolution processes so that people can talk to a person and have their issue dealt with, and if social media platforms haven’t done everything that is going to be required of them to pull the dangerous, malicious criminal content down and someone loses money as a result of that, then penalties and liability will follow.
JOURNALIST:
What kind of penalties?
JONES:
Well, the penalties will be set and they’ll be put in place right across all of the companies within the ecosystem. They will be significant. And compensation, if somebody loses money because a social media platform has done the wrong thing or a telco has done the wrong thing or a bank has done the wrong thing and somebody has lost money to a scammer, then compensation will follow as well. But can I make this point: the objective is not to have compensation and fines; the objective is to ensure that losses don’t occur in the first place. And the only way we can ensure that losses don’t occur in the first place is that all of those businesses across the ecosystem are doing the right thing to keep their environment safe.
JOURNALIST:
Sorry, just to clarify, do you mean that the social media giants would have to compensate the victims for the money that they’ve lost?
JONES:
There’s a lot of talk at the moment about why don’t we just make banks pay. Whenever somebody loses money in a scam the banks should pay. And, you know, if the banks have done the wrong thing then, yeah, they should. But if the social media company has actually been the originator of the scam – and, what’s more, they’ve made money out of it, because when you advertise something on a social media platform, the social media company is making money out of that. So it seems a bit bizarre that you’d make a bank liable for something which a social media company was actually making money for and absolutely publishing the content, the dangerous content, online. So, yeah, social media companies can do a lot more. And if they don’t lift their game, then compensation and penalties will be in place and they’ll be paying the price for the fact that they’re not keeping their environment safe. Thanks so much.