PATRICIA KARVELAS:
The National Anti‑Scam Centre says hundreds of Australians are losing millions of dollars to these deep fake scams each year. In January, it announced mandatory safeguards for what it says were risky AI tools in response to the rapid rise in the use of the technology. Stephen Jones is the Assistant Treasurer, and he joins us now. Welcome.
STEPHEN JONES:
Good to be with you, Patricia.
KARVELAS:
You heard Dr Karl there. He says it's still happening despite him making complaints and others. So, how can you shut that down?
JONES:
Look, I wish Dr Karl's example was an isolated one. It's not. All the senior politicians have had their faces, their voices used in online scams, AI scams. The original ones were pretty rubbish, to be honest. But they're getting more and more sophisticated with the use of more deepfake technology. It's why the second phase of the government's anti‑scam program is addressing or focusing on these sorts of issues. There'll be new codes of practice that we will introduce. It'll go to resolving the sorts of issues that Dr Karl was talking to you about just now. I mean, when somebody complains to Facebook, to Meta, to one of these online platforms, it's almost impossible to talk to a person, it's almost impossible to get your issues resolved. It's not good enough. So, the codes of practice, mandatory standards, they'll put in place tough new safeguards to ensure that the platforms – and banks and telcos, by the way – will have a greater obligation and there'll be fines and penalties if they get it wrong and people lose money.
KARVELAS:
Okay, so let's use the Dr Karl situation as a template for how your new laws that you're proposing would work. How would you be able to force Facebook to take this down and who would get the penalties?
JONES:
Well, the details are being worked through at the moment. I've just gone through a significant consultation with consumers and industry on the content of these codes. I've got to say I was pretty disappointed by the response of Meta. They seem to be more determined to remove journalists from their platform than criminals, and that's not good enough. So, the tough new laws will ensure they have obligations to pull stuff down, obligations when something is reported, to respond quickly, and if somebody loses money, then the platforms can be liable for compensation and to ensure that the consumer is made good. It's not good enough that they are making advertising revenue from promoting criminal content. That is just crook and it's not going to continue.
KARVELAS:
Ok, so that's actually the point Dr Karl made. He said that he would like to see the people who've been ripped off get their money back. So, who would have to give them their money back under your proposed laws?
JONES:
Well, there's a lot of noise going around at the moment. People are saying, well, the banks should, you know, compensate because they were the last point of contact with these scams. And look, frankly, if the banks get it wrong, then they can be in the frame. But I don't want to let the social media platforms off the hook. I mean, Meta is not some plucky little startup that is struggling to make a coin, one of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world, and if they've done the wrong thing, if they've made money out of promoting criminal content, then they've got to be held liable for it.
KARVELAS:
Ok, and so it would have to be mandatory, all of these changes that you're making to force them to face consequences?
JONES:
Yeah, absolutely. It's got to be mandatory. It's got to be across what the government describes as the scam ecosystem. It's banks, it's social media platforms, it's telecommunications companies, it's got to work across all of those, because if you have one weakness in the chain, that's where the criminals go and that's where the victims lose the most money. At the moment, over half of the losses are in investment scams that Dr Karl was talking about, and over 75 per cent of online scams are being published through Facebook and Meta platforms. So, Houston, we've got a problem, and we know exactly where it is. And for platforms like Meta to be more determined to take journalists off their platform than they are criminals means they've got a real moral problem at the centre of that company, and it can't continue.
KARVELAS:
Right now, today, Australians will be ripped off doing this, engaging and responding to these ads which are based on fake premises, deliberately framed around, ripping them off. How quickly will you legislate to start stopping it?
JONES:
So, I've been really pleased that in some areas we've been able to get some voluntary stuff up and running ahead of the mandatory codes. So, banks often get a bashing, but in this area, they're putting in place some new standards voluntarily. More needs to be done, but I welcome the fact that they're moving in the area. The social media platform's dragging the chain. Telcos—so, the telecommunications companies have already got SMS blocking and filtering stuff happening at the moment, more will be done in that area, but over the course of this year, we need mandatory codes in place. And for parts of industry – not all of it – to say, oh, look, don't worry, just leave it to us and we'll put in place voluntary codes. I mean, give me a break. They've had forever to put in place mechanisms that would work and, as I've said, more determined to remove journalists from their platform than criminals. I think we know where the priorities lie, and it's not in protecting the users of Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and places like this. Twitter's become a factory for trolls and bots and misinformation. And none of these places are above the law. They're not a sovereign state. They can't be a lawless playground for criminals and cranks. And new laws need to be put in place, and this government is determined to do that.
KARVELAS:
If we can turn to another issue. The eSafety commissioner has issued X, formally Twitter, with a global takedown order of the video that shows last week's attack on an Assyrian bishop. Is that within the scope of her authority?
JONES:
We believe it is incredibly disappointing that Elon Musk, instead of complying with a lawful direction, has decided to make fun of it. Decency can't be dead. And I think any Australian looking at that would go, oh, come on. It's a pretty simple and straightforward request. It's a lawful request and it's one that conforms with what most Australians would think was the right and a decent thing to do. And instead of complying with that, he decides to make fun of it and says, I'll see you in court. I think that goes to the values that are at the heart of some of, of these operations and they're way out of step with the Australian community and I'd say more broadly than that, way out of step with the way that these places need to operate.
KARVELAS:
So, he says, see you in court. Does that mean you meet him in court? And the government puts a lot of resources into fighting this case.
JONES:
We will fight it. But at the same time, we're looking at all of the laws across these areas to ensure that our regulators have the power to do what is necessary to keep our online platforms safe. I mean, Twitter can't be the place where criminals go, where cranks and crooks go to propagate their messages. At the moment, it's a factory for trolls and misinformation. That damages the brand of the company, but it does a lot of damage to social cohesion in the process.
KARVELAS:
Thank you so much for joining us.
JONES:
Good to be with you.