TOM CONNELL:
The government also set to ramp up its crackdown on scams, and the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, he joins me live now. Thank you for your time today. A lot of people, you know, have heard the government talk about this. I just want to talk about in the, not the theoretical, but how it actually happens. So, we’ve all seen those Facebook scam ads. Let’s use the one from Kochie that seems to pop up again and again. What happens to Facebook if it allows that scam to be shown? Is there an instant fine? Do they get to appeal that? What happens there?
STEPHEN JONES:
First, there’s a positive obligation on them to take reasonable steps to prevent, to detect, to disrupt and to remove and to respond to scam threats on their platform. Not just Facebook, all the other social media platforms as well, and the same obligations applied in a different context for telecommunications companies and banks as well. But a positive obligation, mandatory codes of practice underneath those general obligations, which will spell out particular things that they’re required to do. Can I give an example? Facebook takes advertising revenue for posting ads on their platform. Criminals use that to advertise scam and malicious content, which is robbing Australians of billions of dollars. Facebook will have a positive obligation to stop that occurring by verifying their advertising, and also an obligation to remove content. If it slips through the net, and they’re warned – an obligation to remove it.
CONNELL:
And if someone clicks on that, they end up losing, say, $20,000. They buy some cryptocurrency that never existed in the first place. I know compensation’s on the table. Do they get back that from Facebook, in that circumstance, from their bank? Both? And who does it? Do they have to do it, or will the government get it back for them?
JONES:
Ultimately, it’ll be either the external dispute resolution process, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, an independent tribunal, independent of government, which will determine liability in those sorts of circumstances. And private citizens or the regulator have the right to take a business or a combination of businesses to court if there’s a breach of those obligations as well. But I have to say, Tom, number one priority is prevention, stopping the scam, stopping the loss occurring in the first place. But, of course, the incentive of fines and penalties and compensation and the need for compensation is there as well.
CONNELL:
Yeah, prevention is better, but, you know, we’ll see how these things are actually policed. So, in that situation, if someone’s pursuing that money, they end up in court? That doesn’t sound like a good situation. They might be pursuing $20,000. We know legal fees add up quickly and they’re up against Facebook, maybe that doesn’t sound like a very viable path for a pensioner who’s just lost 20 grand, for example.
JONES:
Compared to what, Tom? Compared to nothing at the moment. That’s the way the law sits at the moment, and it’s not necessarily –
CONNELL:
– Are you saying it’s better than nothing?
JONES:
There’ll be avenues available to them. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has been set up as a non‑legalistic forum for people to either be self‑represented or have representation if they need it, depending on the complexity of the matter. But we set these tribunals up in a range of different contexts to give people alternatives to court processes. Regulators will have powers as well to take these businesses to court and prosecute them if they haven’t met up to the very reasonable standard that we’re setting.
CONNELL:
Just finally, on this issue. What about instant payments? Are they an issue? Because we read a lot of circumstances where someone within 24 hours knows there’s a scam, calls the bank, the money is gone. I know we like everything quickly in this day and age, but would 24 hours delayed on big payments save a lot of heartache?
JONES:
There’ll be some more friction added into the system, there’s no doubt about it, slowing some stuff down and sort of reversing the trend of what’s going on over the last decade. But, yeah, there’ll be some friction put into the system, particularly for out‑of‑character transactions. You know, somebody’s spent more than no, more than a couple of hundreds of dollars a day out of an account over the course of a week, but all of a sudden they’re making $10,000 transfers. That’s an out‑of‑character transaction. They’re exactly the sort of things that should be questioned and slowed down.
CONNELL:
Misinformation is the other thing we alluded to at the top of the program, you’re seeking to police. It’s going to be difficult, isn’t it? That can be in the eye of the beholder. So, how clear is this going to be in terms of how it will be policed.
JONES:
There’ll be powers given to the regulator to see more transparency and greater expectations of the media platforms, the social media platforms themselves, in this area. And you’re right, Tom, there’ll be some grey areas, but there are some things that are absolutely black‑and‑white. And the use of deepfake technology to clone you or me or a high profile Australian sports identity and have that person expressing opinions that they don’t hold, promoting products that they’ve never heard of, that’s black‑and‑white. That’s clear misinformation, and it should be taken down and the platform should be taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t appear in the first place.
CONNELL:
I mean, when it comes to political debate, it seems particularly fraught. Maybe there’s an ad saying, Labor always taxes you more, and you could say, oh, well, look at this particular year from the Howard government and the tax to GDP ratio and get that taken down. Would that be something you’d avoid doing?
JONES:
It’s absolutely not intended to be weaponised in a political context. We believe, and I’m personally a strong believer in robust political debate. I participate in it myself. Nobody would ever call me a wallflower. I think we should have a robust political debate in this country and lots of room for lots of varying and strong opinions. But there are some things which are right and wrong. There are some things that are true or false, and there are some things which propagated as some falsehoods which, if are propagated, can cause serious social harm, particularly, for example, in the area of health or in the area of natural emergencies, and in some areas of finance and business as well. There are clear examples, Tom, where there is a social expectation that we’re keeping Australians safe by ensuring this stuff is policed online.
CONNELL:
And what about ACMA, I guess, is the body that’s looking after this? Where’s the accountability there? If someone has a complaint about their ruling, what sort of process is open to them? And how do you, I suppose, keep faith that ACMA is the best body? How do they have accountability?
JONES:
Yeah, look, great question, Tom. There’s lots of accountability mechanisms, including the parliamentary oversight mechanisms that currently apply for ACMA, Ombudsman processes that currently oversee activities and court and judicial processes. If they’ve exceeded their jurisdiction and if these are not seen as enough as we work through these processes, then we’ll look at, look and see where they need to be enhanced but I get the point, and yes, there is a need for firm oversight in those sorts of areas.
CONNELL:
Stephen Jones. Appreciate your time. Thank you.
JONES:
Good to be with you.