Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this matter of public importance to the House today. A passion project of mine since before we formed government has been to ensure that the Commonwealth government do more to keep Australians' information and their money safe.

I see, over there on the crossbench, a number of crossbench members—the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney, the member for Indi, the member for Mackellar, the member for Mayo, and all of the crossbench members. I've had a lot of engagement with them on the government's—I missed the member for Curtin. I've had a lot of engagement from crossbench members on this issue, and while I know every member in this place—on all sides—works hard, I don't think there's another member, apart from myself, who has spoken to more Australians on the issue of scams and scam losses and what the Commonwealth government needs to do to help protect Australians. Over the last two years I have probably held around 80-90 forums around the country—all of them well attended. I saw the member for Indi there, and we had a couple of great forums in their electorate a few months ago. Members of the coalition here have had a number of meetings in coalition member seats, including in Michael McCormack's seat a few weeks ago, as well. There's a lot of interest right across the parliament, and nothing I'm about to say takes anything away from that.

It is simply a fact that the Albanese government is the first government to take this matter seriously. The fact of the matter is, before we came to power, the approach of the previous government was simply to dismiss people who had become victims of scams as mugs who had fallen for something. They had failed to take care, they were mugs, and it was their own fault, and if there was an obligation of government it was to whisper quietly, 'Just be careful, will you?' We look at the sophistication of scams and the fact that they have become industrialised over the last five years, and we say that is not good enough. They have moved to—literally—industrial-scale operations being run out of other countries, and Australia is one of the targets because we are a relatively wealthy nation that is well-connected around the world.

Before we came into government, the result of that negligent approach was that scam losses were doubling every year. The year we came into government, scam losses were at $3 billion per annum, and they were set to hit $6 billion at the end of that calendar year. Thankfully, they didn't, and they didn't because we put some measures in place. We funded ASIC to pull down fake investment webpages. We established the telecommunications register to block malicious messages and calls. We're blocking about a million a day. Before you jump into it—I can hear many of you about to say, 'But I'm still getting them,'—phase 2 of our telecommunications register will move from a blacklist to a whitelist of numbers. Unless you're on the whitelist, you won't be able to send out a mass SMS in the name of a trusted brand—more action in that area.

I'm pleased to hear the member for Warringah mention IDCARE—a great community organisation who help people who have been subject to a data breach, or to having their personal information stolen to, to repair their ID. We're funding them—we more than tripled their funding to ensure they can uplift the service that they provide to the Australian community. We stood up the National Anti-Scam Centre, a close to $90 million investment with more to come, to ensure that we have a centre which is the central control of information-sharing, interference, interruption and education throughout the community. That $90 million is actually in the $300 billion worth of 'wasteful spending' that those opposite refer to, so I look forward to a confirmation from members opposite as to whether they will cancel that funding and close it down. We think it's critical. We think it's a critical part of our economic infrastructure, keeping Australians' information and money safe. I am yet to hear a word from the coalition on whether they would maintain such a facility. We think it's critical.

Can I say something about phase 2, which was alluded to by the member for Warringah? We know phase 1 has worked, because, for the first year in close to a decade, scam losses didn't double; in fact, they went backwards. Phase 1, we know, has worked because for the first year in close to a decade scam losses did not double. In fact, they went backwards. We are one of the only countries in the world where that happened, by the way. We are one of the only countries in the world where scam losses went backwards from $3 billion to $2.75 billion. I am not going to shout victory in our time because it is not; $2.75 billion is just way too much.

The heavy lifting that needs to be done in phase 2 of our reforms is critical. I will have a lot more to say in the very near future about new legislation that will be out for consultation in a few days. It will put in a prevention framework. It will put in high-level obligations, create new statutory obligations, on designated businesses and sectors. It will create broad-reaching obligations. It will create legal rights for consumers and powers for regulators and, underneath all of that, there will be additional protections from mandatory industry codes of practice which will include the specific obligations that apply on the banks, on telecommunications companies and on social media platforms.

In the time that I have left, can I say something about the latter? I listened carefully to the member for Warringah, a person who I respect. She comes to these debates in good faith. The first thing to say is a mandatory reimbursement mechanism which is ascribed to what is going on in the United Kingdom has been delayed twice. It is set to come into place in October. It is far from settled policy—okay? There is a voluntary system at the moment. It is far from settled policy. I think there needs to be a reimbursement scheme in Australia and that should be brought forward through phase 2 of our work.

I want to caution anybody in this place to say the only people who should be in the frame are banks. Yes, they should be liable when they do the wrong thing. But frankly, it will take a lot of work to convince me that the Broken Hill credit union membership—less than 10,000—should be the ones on the hook after a member of the Broken Hill credit union pays $1,000 for a golden retriever that does not exist from a scam ad for a puppy on Facebook when they knew nothing about it yet Facebook took advertising revenue—made money—and is making millions out of posting these sorts of scam advertisements. So I say to every member of this place in good faith: yes, there needs to be liability not only for our banks but for our telecommunications companies and social media platforms as well. The business that would have the most to gain through making the banks always pay is Meta. The person who would be arguing most vociferously for making the banks pay is Mark Zuckerberg. I simply say to people in this place: let's not be Zucker's suckers.

This is not a start-up business we are talking about. Meta are making up between $5 billion and $6 billion here every year in Australia. So let's not be Zucker's suckers. Let's ensure we have a robust framework that puts obligations in place on banks, on telecommunications companies, on social media platforms, and let's ensure that we do it in a way that stands up for our sovereignty. It is not too much to ask that if you are running a business in this country, making billions of dollars out of running business in this country, that you obey Australia's laws and you respect the sovereignty of the country in which you operate. You do not have to agree with our laws but you do have to agree with the fact that Australian governments, of whatever flavour, and the Australian parliament have the right to make laws which apply to any business which operates within our jurisdiction. Sure, disagree with our laws but you cannot disagree with the fact that this parliament is sovereign over this country and has a right and an obligation to keep Australians safe.

See this speech in context