Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as revised, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (after line 1), after section 58AH, insert:

58AHA Meaning of vulnerable consumer

A vulnerable consumer, of a regulated service, is an SPF consumer who is at risk, or is likely to be at risk, of being targeted by a scam.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 14), after paragraph (d), insert:

(da) whether the consumers of those services include vulnerable consumers; and

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (lines 14 to 18), omit all the words from and including "sector to:" to the end of paragraph (2)(b), substitute "sector to identify its vulnerable consumers; or".

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 21), omit "an SPF consumer described in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii)", substitute "those vulnerable consumers".

The amendments I'm introducing today are an attempt to provide vulnerable customers with a higher level of protection from scams than this bill currently affords them. They are simple amendments, easy to implement and, in circumstances where this bill is weighted in the favour of banks, telcos and social media companies instead of consumers, very necessary. Let me explain what I mean by the assertion that this bill is weighted in favour of those firms.

As I set out in detail in my speech in the second reading debate, it is unfortunate that the government has missed the opportunity to introduce a consumer-centric reimbursement model of scams prevention, a model where consumers are quickly reimbursed—except, of course, in cases of gross negligence on the part of the consumer—and limited up to a capped amount. Under the reimbursement model, such as that in the UK, the burden moves to firms to work out how the liability should be apportioned between financial institutions, telcos and social media platforms. Instead, the government has chosen to put the burden of fighting to get their money back on the consumer, and, in doing so, has protected the banks, telcos and social media companies over individual customers.

It is a heavy burden. In circumstances where a person may have lost their entire life savings, having to fight perhaps several institutions, including financial, telco and social media, at the one time is possibly the most uneven playing field imaginable. Given that, I consider that perhaps the government might have some appetite to better protect at least the most vulnerable of consumers. My amendments define a vulnerable customer as one who is at risk or is likely to be at risk of being targeted by a scam. This might include elderly people, people with hearing difficulties or people in financial distress. Data shows that scammers are targeting elderly people, who are likely to have large savings and are looking to protect or invest this large nest egg.

The bill requires regulated entities to take reasonable steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams. In determining whether the firms are taking reasonable steps to do those things, my amendments would (a) require them to identify vulnerable customers, (b) consider whether the consumers of the particular services in question are vulnerable customers and (c) give vulnerable customers more information about scams that the firms have already identified—not too difficult.

Unfortunately, the government has indicated that it's not inclined to make the bill more consumer friendly, even in this small way. Nevertheless, I commend the amendments to the House.

Question negatived.

See this speech in context