RAF EPSTEIN:
Something different – could this work? The social media platform, they’d have to check to make sure their advertisers are legitimate. The banks would have to make sure customers are warned if they’re sending money to an account that’s got a red alert. If the social media company didn’t do that, if the bank didn’t do it, they could cop a fine. That’s the promise – more protection from scams. Facing fines if they expose you to scams. Joining us to talk about how this could work is Stephen Jones, he is the Assistant Treasurer, part of Anthony Albanese’s federal government. Good morning.
STEPHEN JONES:
Good morning. Good to be with you, Raf.
EPSTEIN:
How would this work?
JONES:
So, we want to put in place a new framework which provides – well, puts in place obligations on banks, on telecommunications companies and social media platforms to do more to protect their customers from scams. And, of course, if they fail to meet those new obligations then penalties, fines, and compensation to a customer who loses money can flow from that. It’s about looking at the ecosystem in which scams operate. Over 50 per cent of the scams come to us through the telecommunications network and SMS phone message. The rest of its coming over a social media platform – Facebook, Instagram or any of their messaging apps. So, they’re the vectors and the wallet at the end of it is the bank. So, everyone in that ecosystem has got a role to play. We’re losing too much – $2.75 billion in the last 12 months. At least it’s not doubling, so the measures we’ve put in place already are working. But we’ve got a lot more work to do to bring that number down.
EPSTEIN:
I wonder if you can tell me a bit more about precisely how it would work. If I’m on Facebook – and actually, let’s just say there’s an ad on Facebook that says Raf Epstein’s How to Get Rich Scheme. I’m using my name because I’m someone who – they haven’t used my name yet. Raf Epstein’s Get Rich Scheme. If I click on it and lose money, does Facebook cop a fine?
JONES:
Here’s the thing: if Facebook or Instagram or Google or any of the other – TikTok, let’s not forget them, or X, if they are taking advertising money from criminals who are publishing criminal content, whose intent is to rob Australians of their information and money, there’s something very wrong about that. You couldn’t do that if you’re a broadcaster in Australia. You couldn’t do that if you’re a newspaper. You would be liable as a newspaper publisher if you were publishing ads, taking money to publish ads with criminal content. You’d be liable for that. So, we simply ask the question: why should a social media platform be any different? And the very first step in ensuring that they’re not different is ensuring that they verify the identity of the advertiser. Because these scams invariably emanate from somebody pretending to be a financial institution, pretending to be a financial adviser, pretending to have something for sale –
EPSTEIN:
But are they going to get out of it by saying, ‘Oh, we couldn’t check. We tried to check; we couldn’t’? I mean, there’s a hell of a lot of people put things on –
JONES:
Not buying it.
EPSTEIN:
Sorry?
JONES:
I’m not buying it. I have the conversation in – I have a conversation, or I Google the word ‘sandshoes’, ‘best sandshoes’, and all of a sudden whenever I get on my Facebook feed, I’m getting all of these sandshoe ads. These tech companies have the best technology in the world, and they’re taking it to all sorts of new levels with their AI capacity. Don’t tell me they don’t have the capacity to do the basic thing that would be expected of any other publisher in Australia. I’m not buying it.
EPSTEIN:
So, any time a social media company publishes an ad from a scammer they’re going to get a fine?
JONES:
No – well, have they verified the – well, absolutely if they have knowingly published or not taken all the steps that will be set out in the code of practice, the mandatory code of practice, then absolutely. Because I don’t think it’s fair that they’re making money and Australians are losing money out of publishing that content.
EPSTEIN:
And who’s setting the rules? I know there’s a – I think there’s a Scam Code Act, but are the rules going to be in the legislation or is someone else setting the rules?
JONES:
The rules will have the force of legislation. So, the framework legislation that we will bring into parliament in a few months time will set obligations, high‑level obligations, of the designated industries. They’ll be required to be bound by a code of practice. And the code of practice will look different. Think of regulation, okay? Another word for regulation. It will look different for banks as for telecommunications companies as for social media companies because they all have a different role to play in keeping their customers safe because they all do a different thing in the ecosystem. But they all have an obligation.
EPSTEIN:
Quarter past 9, Stephen Jones is with you on 774. He is Assistant Treasurer in the federal government. Stephen Jones, you’re not going to force the banks to refund my money if I send it to a dodgy account?
JONES:
No, I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that at all. So – sorry, I don’t know where you got that from.
EPSTEIN:
That’s okay, I’m looking at a newspaper report. I might have that wrong. Are they going to have to refund my money?
JONES:
If they do – if they breach their obligation, their high‑level obligations to protect, to detect and report scams and somebody loses money, yes.
EPSTEIN:
So, can you give me an example of – in what case I’d get a refund back? Because my understanding was you weren’t going to force them to do refunds? So, in what instance would I get my money back?
JONES:
If they have breached an obligation under the code. So, for example, if the code will have an obligation that the banks have to have a confirmation of payee function in their online banking applications. So, confirmation of payee works where you type in a number, and then you’ve got to have the person who owns that number flashes up in the screen so that you can be sure that the number that you have is the person that you want to send money to –
EPSTEIN:
And if it’s a fake name, will I get a refund?
JONES:
– and if they don’t have that function and somebody loses money, then the victim is compensated.
EPSTEIN:
Sure, but I guess where I’m seeing a potential gap they can drive a truck through – if they’ve checked that the number I’m sending my money to, the number of that account, is real and has a name to it, that’s all they need to check. They don’t need to check if that person is dodgy, correct?
JONES:
No, because in establishing an account in the first place they’ve got all sorts of obligations that they’re required to meet. And if they haven’t met all of those obligations, they’re already obliged under Australian – they already face significant fines –
EPSTEIN:
Lots of ID checks.
JONES:
Yeah.
EPSTEIN:
So do you think most people –
JONES:
Some of the biggest fines in Australian corporate history have been handed out because of breaches of those obligations.
EPSTEIN:
Do you think most people that get scammed and send money to an account via a bank, do you think most people are going to get their money back? The bank is going to be forced to refund them?
JONES:
We’re going to get all the right balances right, okay? I don’t want to have a system in place when nobody, including the consumer, has to take any responsibility because that’s not a healthy ecosystem. But just saying this is all the consumer’s fault, this is all the customer’s fault, if they make a wrong – if they make a mistake here they’re a mug and it’s on them, I don’t cop that either because of the sophistication of these scams and because everyone in the ecosystem needs to – everyone in the economy needs to be taking a greater level of responsibility. That’s why we’re doing this. That’s why we’re doing this. We know the measures that we’ve put in place have already worked because our scam losses were doubling every year; they didn’t this year. They actually went down. But there’s still a lot more work to be done, and that’s the work that the framework will achieve.
EPSTEIN:
If I can end on where the federal government might end up with gambling advertising, you’re talking about social media companies and the things they publish. Are we going to end up in a place where there’s no advertising allowed on Facebook in Australia or on any sort of social media, YouTube, that there’ll be no gambling advertising allowed in Australia? Do you think that’s where we’re going to end up?
JONES:
Well, my colleague Michelle Rowland and Amanda Rishworth are working on the details of that, and I understand that we’ll have much more to say about the details of what will be in that package in the very near future. But –
EPSTEIN:
Do you support getting rid of most of the advertising?
JONES:
I think we’ve got to remove a significant amount of the advertising that is on there. That’s a position I’ve had since my first day in parliament, and I’ve been sort of pretty on the record over the last 15 years about that matter, Raf. I think we absolutely need to break the nexus between watching sport and watching gambling advertising. I’m not a big one for banning, you know, activities that people are absolutely keen on doing, so there’ll be a role for gaming and gambling in our society. But I think that most Australians want to see a significant reduction and restriction on the amount of gambling advertising that is being published as we watch our sport.
EPSTEIN:
When do the new rules come in for banks and social media and the phone companies, the rules we were talking about with scamming? When will they come into place?
JONES:
Well, I’ll be introducing the laws into parliament this year. So only a few more months of sitting left, so I’ll be introducing them in this year. And I’d like to see a swift passage through parliament so that, you know, from the beginning of next year Australians would be protected. But ultimately, I’m responsible for introducing the laws but it’s up to parliament to pass them.
EPSTEIN:
No worries. Thanks for your time.
JONES:
Good to be with you.
EPSTEIN:
Stephen Jones is the Assistant Treasurer. It’s a Scam Act. The ACCC will then draft a code for each industry, and you heard the Assistant Treasurer describe how he thinks they will work, could work.