Regulators ‘overlap’ in Albanese government’s Spam Prevention Framework, says Communications Alliance

The draft Scam Prevention Framework could penalise telcos for abiding by one code while breaking another, the Communications Alliance has warned.

A telecommunications industry body has warned that the draft Scam Prevention Framework could see telco penalised by codes that contradict each other.

The Albanese government’s draft Scam Prevention Framework would leave telcos subject to legal action under four codes, potentially penalising companies for abiding by one code while breaking another, a peak body has argued.

The Communications Alliance has called for immediate amendments to the framework before it is put into motion, claiming telcos need a “safe harbour” otherwise they’ll face what it is calling a “quadruple jeopardy”.

“If a telco complies with the industry code, it should have safe harbour from enforcement under the three other avenues of liability – the ACCC, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and potential legal action through the courts,” CA chief executive Luke Coleman said.

Mr Coleman has argued that Australian telcos have been at the forefront of fighting scams for several years and the framework in its current form would only penalise them for continuing to abide by rules in place for some time.

In a submission on the proposed framework, CA argues that a single text message or call often involves several carriers, which makes it difficult to find which “link in the chain” should be held responsible.

CA also has called for telcos to have a safe harbour from further action from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission and the AFCA if the telco has abided by telco-sector code.

Giving a second or third regulator the power to enforce action against scams could result in “overlapping”, Mr Coleman told The Australian.

“While we support the government’s ambition to expand scams regulation to other sectors, the current telco code has one regulator with clear jurisdiction – adding a second regulator, as well as an external dispute resolution service, creates the risk of unclear and overlapping regulatory responsibilities,” he said.

Last month AFCA chief executive David Locke told The Australian the nation’s largest banks and telcos “should not wait until they are required by codes to take action but should now take all actions possible to prevent, detect and disrupt scams”.

Under the new framework, companies could face fines of up to $50m for failures to stop scams.

FinTech Australia, which also provided a submission on the SPF, called for reform to reporting obligations, arguing that batch reporting could be more beneficial than real-time reporting of scam-related data.

“This would align with how ASIC currently receives complaints data through the six-monthly IDR reporting obligation and ease the compliance burden on entities, while ensuring regulators have sufficient oversight of scam activity,” the submission read.

The submission warned that too much emphasis on real-time reporting could detract from “the critical work of identifying and mitigating scam activity” and that it could lead to a “box-ticking” culture.