Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

Identity theft is a particularly important issue as we deal with a whole raft of related criminal activities. Being able to ensure that documents identifying who you are, your background and your past are authentic and are not able to be stolen is critically important in our everyday life. It is particularly important when it comes to border security matters as people move from one country to another. It was in that context that I recently received some alarming advice from a solicitor who has a practice that deals in providing assistance to folk who travel overseas and people who come here.

I want to quote some parts of the email that the solicitor sent to me. It said:

I assisted a client in obtaining a police certificate fingerprint check from the AFP—

that is, the Australian Federal Police—

The certificate issued had the following characteristics: (1) an obviously scanned letterhead for the AFP; (2) a facsimile of a signature rather than the real signature, (3) a laser printed letter.

It went on to say:

I believe I could have quickly assembled a facsimile of the certificate in the form issued if I had been intent on forgery. I sent the certificate to my client as instructed and naturally it has been queried. I contacted the AFP to see if they might be able to authenticate it for the overseas government authorities. They responded—

that is, the AFP responded—

that the authorities should contact them on the telephone number supplied on the certificate and that they could authenticate it that way. The person I spoke to when asked why the certificate was not signed and why the letterhead was not used said, ‘It was all too expensive’.

This is an alarming disgrace. To have a certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police that any person halfway competent on a home computer could recreate in ten minutes is a major hole in our border security arrangements and, I have to say, makes a mockery of the government’s often touted concern about security matters. To have this produced on the basis that there are insufficient resources to actually provide an authentic document is even more concerning. To think that a person with a home computer and off-the-shelf software could recreate the document that the Australian Federal Police supply as authenticity of a person’s criminal record or lack of one defies belief, yet it is the case.

There was no printed letterhead. There was a facsimile of a signature and it was all done on a laser printer. None of it was original. Little wonder that when the legal firm overseas received this document they thought it was not an original. They actually expected that a country like Australia might have documentation that had features that made it difficult to be copied or forged, but that is not so. The reality is that this is just one symptom of a broader problem. The government seem more concerned about placing emphasis on the political spin in the debate on security than taking practical measures to deal with the problem.

The Australian Federal Police and their state counterparts are being called upon to undertake increasing roles as we deal with questions of border security and terrorism, but unfortunately little recognition has been given to that issue in the resources made available to them, and that includes in the staffing requirements. Indeed, after the 9-11 disaster of 2001, the Australian Federal Police numbers were reduced. In 2002-03 there were 3,496 AFP officers. In 2003-04, the next year, this government reduced the numbers to 3,473. It is inconceivable that in the year after the 9-11 disaster the government would reduce the number of personnel in the AFP. Thankfully, in 2004-05, they have increased the number by about 128—very belatedly and, I must say, inadequately. The AFP officers do a sterling job, as do their state counterparts. It is important that they be provided with the resources and support of this parliament—that is, not public relations and media releases but people on the ground and resources to do the job and, at the very minimum, the resources to provide authentic identification for people who are travelling.

See this speech in context