Doorstop in Sydney on new mandatory industry scams codes  

Anna Bligh: This new framework is a comprehensive approach to the terrible scourge of scams. This will mean that every single part of the scam chain where scammers try to take the hard earned money of Australians will now have to play a role in preventing scams, detecting them and keeping Australians safe. 

Journalist: I just have three questions. Anna, if that’s okay, it’s obvious you’re very happy with the framework that’s been announced, one of the criticisms of the banks from consumer groups has been the level of compensation paid by the banks currently. There are obviously these new obligations that will be put in place on the banks. Do you believe, as the Minister says, it will result in banks paying more compensation back to customers for scams that go through. 

Anna Bligh: What this framework does is give everybody, for the first time, real clarity about who is liable when a customer loses money. It will now have a new complaints body that will be able to determine is the telecommunications provider liable? Is it the social media platform? Is it the bank? Is it a combination of all three? So yes, it is likely to see more reimbursement to customers. It’s likely that some of that will come from banks, but it’s equally likely that it’s going to come from social media platforms and telcos. I think it’s a very tough regime, but a fair one. 

Jounalist: Consumer groups had argued for a model that is similar to the UK’s one, where the banks are the sole one on the hook. Because of the simplicity of the model in terms of the consumer’s perspectives, they actually tweaked what they were asking for recently to say that it should be the banks that repaid the victim first, and then the banks might be able to seek reimbursement or split up what was paid with the other companies, for example, Facebook, In one example. Why have you pushed against something like that and not being supportive of something similar to the UK system, which would be much simpler for consumers. According to the consumer groups. 

Anna Bligh: Australia’s banks come in many shapes and sizes, from the very, very small operators to some of the biggest. I frankly, don’t think it’s fair that we should expose every one of those Australian companies to a responsibility and let the big multinational tech giants off the hook. People get scammed because they find an ad for a dodgy investment scheme or a dodgy romance scam, either on their telephone or on their social media. We need to stop scams before they get to people, and that’s what this regime is about. This new scheme, I can’t see anywhere in the world that is doing something as comprehensive as this is attempting. It makes sure that no matter where the failure in the system is, whether it’s with a telco, a bank or a social media platform, they’ll be held to account, and customers will be better protected, and we’ve got a much better chance with this system of keeping scams out of the country in the first place. 

Journalist: And one final question, I mean, as I mentioned, you’ve made very clear your concerns about the UK approach, and it’s obviously not been adopted by the Australian Government with this proposal. Is it fair to say the banking industry has had a heavy hand in putting forward what the government’s come up with here, and that you’re happy with it as a result, 

Anna Bligh: I think all parts of the scam chain have been in conversations with the government. What I think Australian banks want is for Australian customers to be better protected. They want to make sure that their customers are not being scammed by telcos who are letting the side down, social media platforms that are making a profit from the dodgy ads that they are putting up on their platforms. All of that makes for a better system. I think this is actually a great initiative for Australians, it gives us a much better chance as a country of keeping scammers out of here in the first place, and that’s what I think most Australians want. 

Journalist: What proportion of the scams that come via the banks actually begin in social media or with social media? 

Anna Bligh: All Scams start either through an SMS, an email or from a social media platform. Banks have not seen any examples of scams coming through a banking app. What happens is that scammers then trick people into authorising the bank to make a payment to somebody who is on the other end of the line and is not who they say they are. So, banks need to close their systems as much as they can to that kind of activity. Telcos need to make sure they’re not sending messages that are from scam numbers. And social platforms need to make sure that they are taking ads down, they are doing more diligence before they even put ads up on their platforms. So, what we know is that an overwhelming majority of scams arrive in an Australian’s door via a social media platform, an email or a text. That means we’ve got to close the whole loop, and that’s what this regime will do. 

Journalist: And we’re told that Australians lost $2.7 billion in the past year from scams. How much of that has been repaid by banks? 

Anna Bligh: I don’t have a specific number on me, but what I can say is that there has been a great deal of uncertainty about when is a bank liable? When is the customer liable? You know, if a customer gives away their PIN, for example, do they bear some responsibility? There’s been no clarity about that at all, and this new regime will make it really clear for customers, really clear for banks, really clear for social media platforms and telcos who is liable and when. And I think that’s going to make it much fairer for Australian customers, and also who’s liable to make sure that scams don’t get to us in the first place. 

Ends 

Anna BlighScams