GARY ADSHEAD:
First up, though, a contentious issue around health insurance is about to be resolved by the federal government. Now, we’ve talked on this program a lot about breakthroughs happening in medicine that will enable people to know if they’re likely to inherit a health condition through genetics. Now, that knowledge can be life‑saving, but declaring it during an insurance application process might, at the moment, be detrimental to the type and cost of the policy that you can secure. Let’s have a chat now to Assistant federal Treasurer Stephen Jones, who’s about to change that situation and joins me on the line. Thanks very much for your time.
STEPHEN JONES:
Good to be with you, Gary.
ADSHEAD:
Okay, just so you are essentially going to ban the ability of insurance companies to factor in genetic testing, am I right?
JONES:
Yeah. It focuses on life insurance and superannuation products. They currently have a carve‑out an exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act, which enables them to be able to request the results of any genetic tests that you may have had when they’re considering writing you a life insurance policy. So, that life insurance policy might be a standard death and disability, it might be an income protected insurance policy. They’ve got a carve out from the existing law in relation to that. I’ve listened to the advice of the medical experts and the patient groups and others. They want to be able to have access to the best treatment, the best information possible. And this law is an exemption, is a barrier for them to do it, and I want to remove that.
ADSHEAD:
How do you do it? How do you actually remove it? What’s necessary?
JONES:
We’ll need to pass some amending legislation in the parliament. We want to do that this term. To ensure that we can get the law fixed up in this area. In the meantime, I’ve been working with the life insurance industry to get them on board to say, you actually should be on the right side of this. You should be on the right side and there’s actually a common interest for people taking charge of their health and getting the best information available to them so they can get treatment or they can change their lifestyle to ensure that they live longer and better lives.
ADSHEAD:
So, would you be able to go as far, though, as telling the insurers that they would not be able to add anything to the premium because of a test result that shows that in 20, 25 years, someone might have a condition passed on through genetics?
JONES:
Yes, that’s right. That’s right. Because we want to ensure that when they’re writing those policies, they’re blind to those issues.
ADSHEAD:
So, no matter what you might declare by way of a genetic test, that gives an indicator the insurer would not be able to change the premium that would have been in place without that testing.
JONES:
Yeah. So, a consumer might be – if they choose at their own discretion, they can’t be requested, can’t be demanded as a condition of signing up. But you know, a consumer might voluntarily say, well actually I’ve had a genetic test and I don’t have any of these conditions, so that should reduce my premium, but the insurer can’t demand a result that test and change their premiums accordingly.
ADSHEAD:
So, what’s your advice to someone right now though? If they were going through that process of setting themselves up in terms of an insurance policy via their super or just a straight up life insurance policy. Should they wait?
JONES:
Get the medical testing and care that you need, is my strong advice. If this is the issue which is standing in the way of you taking out or altering a life insurance policy or changing your superannuation, don’t. Go and ensure that you get the medical care, including the diagnostic testing that you think you need, most importantly that your doctor thinks you need. I’m not here to give medical advice, but if your doctor says you really should have that, then follow that advice. And what we’re removing through this measure is any discriminatory consequences of that when you go to take out a life insurance policy.
ADSHEAD:
Okay, if I can just change now to another hat you’re going to be wearing, and that’s in relation to going after the big tech companies. Obviously, yesterday we saw the PM talking about a potential ban on accessing social media at a certain age. And there’s been criticism around that, having a lack of detail, you are looking at ways to penalise and bring big tech companies into line with a series of sort of policy measures. Can you give us an indication of what you are looking at?
JONES:
Look, it starts with a pretty basic presumption that any government in any country should be able to make laws around which people who live and operate and visit that country are required to follow. Whether you’re a business, whether you’re a citizen, whether you’re a tourist, the government of any country has the right to make laws which dictate the way activity should occur. In the area of social media, there’s been enormous changes and benefits that have changed the way we do life through making. We used to pay a month’s wages to make an overseas phone call. We now do it for free. We’re able to buy goods and services from all around the world, immeasurably improved our quality of life. But there’s also a bunch of harms that have come with it. So, economic harms, social harms and democratic harms. The work that I’m working on with a bunch of my colleagues is to ensure that we close down, mitigate and protect Australians from some of those harms.
So, an example, later this week, I’ll be producing some draft legislation to consult with the community on how we require social media companies and others to protect their users from online scams. Because we’re losing billions of dollars a year to scams. A lot of them are published on social media platforms and telecommunications company networks, and ultimately through bank systems as well. So, how do we put in place laws which require all of those players, including social media platforms, to keep their customers safe? In another area, we’re looking at requirements on social media companies to ensure they’re not abusing their market power when they’re dealing with media companies or other competitors. These are basic things that any democratic government would want to do in an open society.
ADSHEAD:
Do you think, in all honesty, though, that the reaction to these mega‑corporations, social media flaws, the harm that it’s doing, is too late or not soon enough?
JONES:
No, I don’t.
ADSHEAD:
Not soon enough?
JONES:
No, I don’t.
ADSHEAD::
Waited a long time. We’ve seen this unfold.
JONES:
Yeah, there’s no doubt, and I’ve been critical that, you know, previously, scams, for example, previous governments haven’t treated the issue of scams seriously enough. I’m going to change that. My government’s going to change that. So, yeah, there’s areas where I think we could have and should have moved quicker. No doubt about it. I make that concession. Best time to start on some of these things was a few years ago. Next best time is now. So, let’s move now.
ADSHEAD:
Confident you can rein them?
JONES:
You can see.
ADSHEAD:
You mean these guys, these guys, as you know, they don’t really care. I mean, the likes of Elon Musk just snubbed his nose, won’t he?
JONES:
Look, there’s a stand‑up moment for governments all around the world, and it’s now. And you’ll see right around the world governments saying, well, enough’s enough. So, in France, they’ve arrested the head of Telegram, over in Brazil, they’re attempting to bring Elon Musk and his company to account for the publication of certain materials. You can agree or disagree, by the way, with a decision that a government makes, but what you shouldn’t be agreeing or disagreeing is the right of a government in a democratically elected country to make laws that everybody inside that country has to abide by, and everyone doing business in that country abide by. And if citizens don’t like the law, they change the government, but they should not challenge the right of the government to make those laws in the first place. And that’s what these social media and digital platform outfits are doing. They’re saying, essentially, we don’t believe in the right of a democratic institution to make laws which bind us. That’s not tolerable.
ADSHEAD:
Brazil banned Twitter or they’re going through that process. Would you consider something like that?
JONES:
Well, what I would say is we can’t be cowered by the threat of that happening. We can’t say, oh, if we make a move in this area, they may turn us off or shut us down. Because if you’re cowered by the threat of that occurring, you’re handing over your sovereignty to an Elon Musk, a Mark Zuckerberg or the owners and operators of any of these platforms. And that’s just not tolerable for any government to do that. So, that’s why I say we are living in a stand‑up moment for democratic countries around the world. And they have to say we reserve the right to make laws for everyone who operates inside our country. And that, you know, if you’re an Elon Musk or a Mark Zuckerberg or a Jack Jones down the road, you have the right to disagree with those laws, but you don’t have the right to say we shouldn’t be making those laws to protect our citizens.
ADSHEAD:
Just last question. I don’t know if you’ve managed to capture or see any of the vision that’s coming out of Melbourne at the moment in relation to protests. Have you? And what’s your reaction to it?
JONES:
Mate, I’ve just been rammed this morning with stuff, Gary. I haven’t seen it. What’s going on down there?
ADSHEAD:
It’s pretty ugly. They’re setting fire to rubbish bins. They’re going after the police and the police horses and so on in relation to –
JONES:
That’s just not acceptable. It’s not acceptable.
ADSHEAD:
It’s pretty horrible.
JONES:
I believe, yeah, I believe in the right to protest, the right to free speech, the right for people to do all those things. Whether they’re, you know, I just believe in that in a free country. But there’s got to be rules and boundaries around it and setting bins on fire or going after the poor police force, that’s just not acceptable and the full force of law should be visited upon them.
ADSHEAD:
All right. You’ll be seeing those images fairly soon, I’m sure. We’ll be talking about it in a minute. I do appreciate you joining us today.
JONES:
Gary, good to talk, mate.
ADSHEAD:
Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones there.